Elk Creek Municipal Service Reviewand Sphereof Influence

GLENN LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW AND SPHERE OF INFLUENCE FOR ELK CREEK COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT JANUARY 13, 2014 Elk Creek Sign, 9-9-2-11 ADOPTED January 13, 2014 by Glenn LAFCO Resolution 2014-01 GLENN LAFCO MSR-SOI ELK CREEK CSD GLENN LAFCO Commissioners: Bruce Roundy, Chairman Terry Taylor-Vodden Mike Murray Mike Yalow John Viegas Jeff Cobb (City Alternate) Vacant (Public Alternate) Steve Soeth (County Alternate) LAFCO Executive Officer: Christy Leighton Phone: 530-934-4597 Thank you to the volunteer board members for service to the County and a special thanks to all who contributed to this report. 1 GLENN LAFCO MSR-SOI ELK CREEK CSD TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1.1 LAFCO's Responsibilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1.2 MSR Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1.3 Preparation of the MSR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1.4 Description of Public Participation Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.5 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2 ELK CREEK AREA BACKGROUND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.1 Elk Creek Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.2 Elk Creek Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.3 Elk Creek Population Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.4 Elk Creek Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 2.5 Stony Gorge Reservoir . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 2.6 Other Municipal Service Providers in Elk Creek . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 2.5.1 General Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 2.5.2 Fire Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 2.5.3 Electricity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 2.5.4 Solid Waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 2.7 General Water Supply, Treatment, and Distribution Process Overview . . . . . 9 2.8 Water Conservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3 ELK CREEK COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 3.1 Elk Creek CSD History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 3.2 Governance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 3.2.1 Elk Creek CSD Contact Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 3.2.2 Management Team . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 3.2.3 Board of Directors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 3.3 Elk Creek CSD Water Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 3.3.1 Water Source . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11 3.3.2 Elk Creek CSD Water Service Infrastructure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 3.3.3 Elk Creek CSD Water Rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 3.4 Elk Creek CSD Lighting Rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 3.5 Elk Creek CSD Park . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 3.6 Elk Creek CSD Finances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 3.6.1 Financial Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 3.6.2 Budgets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 3.6.3 Financial Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 3.6.4 Audit Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 4 COMPARISON OF WATER RATES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 4.1 Comparison of Water Service Rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 4.2 Water Service Pricing Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 5 ELK CREEK COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 5.1 Growth and Population Projections for the Elk Creek Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 5.1.1 Elk Creek Area Population Projections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 5.1.2 MSR Determinations on Growth and Population Projections for the Elk Creek Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 1 GLENN LAFCO MSR-SOI ELK CREEK CSD 5.2 Location and Characteristics of any Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities (DUC) within or Contiguous to the District’s SOI . . . . . 23 5.2.1 Determination of Elk Creek Disadvantaged Unincorporated Community Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 5.2.2 MSR Determinations on Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities near Elk Creek . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 5.3 Capacity and Infrastructure Elk Creek CSD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 5.3.1 Elk Creek CSD Infrastructure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 5.3.2 MSR Determinations on Infrastructure for Elk Creek CSD . . . . . . . . 24 5.4 Financial Ability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 5.4.1 Financial Considerations for Elk Creek CSD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 5.4.2 MSR Determinations on Financing for Elk Creek CSD . . . . . . . . . . . 25 5.5 Opportunities for Shared Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 5.5.1 Elk Creek CSD Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 5.5.2 MSR Determinations on Shared Facilities for Elk Creek CSD . . . . 26 5.6 Government Structure and Accountability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 5.6.1 Elk Creek CSD Government Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 5.6.2 MSR Determinations on Local Accountability and Governance . . . . 27 6 ELK CREEK COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT SPHERE OF INFLUENCE UPDATE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 6.1 SOI Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 6.1.1 LAFCO's Responsibilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 6.1.2 SOI Determinations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 6.1.3 Possible Approaches to the SOI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 6.1.4 SOI Update Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 6.1.5 SOI Amendments and CEQA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 6.1.6 Recommendation for Elk Creek CSD Sphere of Influence . . . . . . . . . 31 6.2 Present and Planned Land Uses in the Elk Creek CSD Area, Including Agricultural and Open Space Lands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 2.2.1 Glenn County General Plan for Elk Creek . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 2.2.2 Glenn County Zoning for Elk Creek . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 2.2.3 SOI Determinations on Present and Planned Land Use for Elk Creek CSD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 6.3 Municipal Services—Present and Probable Need . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 6.3.1 Municipal Service Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 6.3.2 SOI Determinations on Facilities and Services Present and Probable Need for Elk Creek CSD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 6.4 Public Facilities Present and Future Capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 6.4.1 Capacity Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 6.4.2 SOI Determinations on Public Facilities Present and Future Capacity for Elk Creek CSD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 6.5 Social or Economic Communities of Interest for Elk Creek CSD . . . . . . . . . . 33 6.5.1 Elk Creek Community Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 6.5.2 SOI Determinations on Social or Economic Communities of Interest for Elk Creek CSD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 6.6 Disadvantaged Unincorporated Community Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 6.6.1 Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 6.6.2 Elk Creek Disadvantaged Unincorporated Community Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 2 GLENN LAFCO MSR-SOI ELK CREEK CSD APPENDIX A COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 APPENDIX B BACKGROUND FOR LAFCO LEGISLATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 APPENDIX C LOCAL GOVERNMENT ISSUES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 1 Municipal Financial Constraints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 1.1 California Local Government Finance Background . . . . . . . 38 A. Proposition 13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 B. AB 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 C. Proposition 98 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 D. Proposition 172 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 E. Proposition 218 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 F. Proposition 26 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 G. Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 H. Development Impact Fees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 1.2 Financing Opportunities that Require Voter Approval . . . . . . 40 1.3 Financing Opportunities that Do Not Require Voter Approval 40 2 Public Management Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 3 Public Participation in Government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 APPENDIX D CONSUMER CONFIDENCE REPORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 APPENDIX E SAMPLE REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR AUDIT SERVICES 43 ABBREVIATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 DEFINITIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 PREPARERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 MAPS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 Elk Creek Community Services District Facilities Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 Elk Creek Community Services District Water System Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 Elk Creek Community Services District Air Photo Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 Elk Creek Community Services District Topography Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 Elk Creek Community Services District General Plan Designations Map . . . . . . 57 Elk Creek Community Services District Zoning Designations Map . . . . . . . . . . . 58 3 GLENN LAFCO MSR-SOI ELK CREEK CSD 1 INTRODUCTION This Municipal Service Review (MSR) is prepared for the Elk Creek Community Services District (CSD) in Glenn County. The District, which was formed in 1960, provides domestic water to the community of Elk Creek. The District also jointly maintains a community park with the Stony Creek Joint Unified School District and provides some street lighting. The MSR includes the following information:  Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) requirements for MSRs  Elk Creek area background  Description of water, park and lighting services provided by Elk Creek CSD  Analysis of Elk Creek CSD’s capability to serve existing and future residents in the area Information on the Community Services District law can be found in Appendix A at the end of this report. 1.1 LAFCO's Responsibilities Local Agency Formation Commissions (LAFCOs) in California are independent agencies created by the California legislature in 1963 for the purpose of encouraging the orderly formation of local government agencies and conserving and preserving natural resources. The Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 (Government Code §56000 et seq.) is the statutory authority for the preparation of an MSR, and periodic updates of the Sphere of Influence (SOI) of each local agency. Additional information on the background for the LAFCO legislation is found in Appendix B at the end of this report. LAFCOs are responsible for coordinating logical and timely changes in local governmental boundaries, conducting special studies that review ways to reorganize, simplify, and streamline governmental structure, preparing a review of services called a MSR, and preparing a SOI thereby determining the future “probable” boundary for each city and special district within each county. The Commission's efforts are directed toward seeing that services are provided efficiently and economically while agricultural and open-space lands are protected. Often citizens are confused as to what LAFCO’s role is. LAFCOs do not have enforcement authority nor do they have the authority to initiate a city or district annexation or detachment proceeding. LAFCOs may initiate consolidation or dissolution proceedings; however, these proceedings are subject to the voter approval or denial. The Legislature has given LAFCO’s the authority to modify any proposal before it to ensure the protection of agricultural and open space resources, discourage urban sprawl and promote orderly boundaries and the provision of adequate services. The Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) has issued Guidelines for the preparation of a MSR. This MSR adheres to the procedures set forth in OPR’s MSR Guidelines. 1 GLENN LAFCO MSR-SOI ELK CREEK CSD A SOI is a plan for the probable physical boundaries and service area of a local agency, as determined by the affected Local Agency Formation Commission (Government Code §56076). Government Code §56425(f) requires that each SOI be updated not less than every five years, and §56430 provides that a MSR shall be conducted in advance of the SOI update. 1.2 MSR Requirements The Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 as amended by the State Legislature in 2011, and regulations call for a review of the municipal services provided in the county or other appropriate area designated by the LAFCO. As stated in Government Code Section 56430(a), the LAFCO is required to prepare a written statement of its determinations with respect to each of the following: 1. Growth and population projections for the affected area 2. The location and characteristics of any disadvantaged unincorporated communities within or contiguous to the sphere of influence 3. Present and planned capacity of public facilities, adequacy of public services, and infrastructure needs or deficiencies including needs or deficiencies related to sewers, municipal and industrial water, and structural fire protection in any disadvantaged, unincorporated communities within or contiguous to the sphere of influence 4. Financial ability of agencies to provide services 5. Status of, and opportunities for, shared facilities 6. Accountability for community service needs, including governmental structure and operational efficiencies 7. Any other matter related to effective or efficient service delivery, as required by LAFCO policy. (Note: Glenn LAFCO has no additional requirements.) Additional information on California tax laws and good governance is found in Appendix C at the end of this report. 1.3 Preparation of the MSR Research for this MSR was conducted from summer through winter of 2011 and updated in 2013. This MSR is intended to support preparation and update of the SOI, in accordance with the provisions of the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Act. The objective of this MSR is to develop recommendations that will promote more efficient and higher quality service patterns, identify areas for service improvement, and assess the adequacy of service provision as it relates to determination of appropriate sphere boundaries. 2 GLENN LAFCO MSR-SOI ELK CREEK CSD While Glenn LAFCO prepared the MSR document, LAFCO did not engage the services of experts in engineering, biology, chemistry, accounting, hydrology, geology, water law, fire protection, or other specialists in related fields, but relied upon reports and Glenn County and Elk Creek CSD staff for information. Therefore, this MSR reflects LAFCO’s recommendations, based on available information during the research period and provided by Glenn County staff to assist in its determinations related to promoting more efficient and higher quality service patterns, identifying areas for service improvement, and assessing the adequacy of service pro- vision for the Elk Creek CSD area. 1.4 Description of Public Participation Process The LAFCO proceedings are subject to the provisions of California’s open meeting law, the Ralph M. Brown Act (Government Code Sections 54950 et seq.). The Brown Act requires advance posting of meeting agendas and contains various other provisions designed to ensure that the public has adequate access to information regarding the proceedings of public boards and commissions. Glenn LAFCO complies with the requirements of the Brown Act. The State MSR Guidelines provide that all LAFCOs should encourage and provide multiple public participation opportunities in the MSR process. Each MSR will be prepared as a Draft, and will be subject to public and agency comment prior to final consideration by the Glenn LAFCO. 1.5 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) The MSR is a planning study that will be considered by Glenn LAFCO in connection with subsequent proceedings regarding the Elk Creek CSD and the SOI. This MSR is statutorily exempt pursuant to Section 15262, “Feasibility and Planning Studies”, of the Guidelines of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This MSR includes an analysis, to the extent required by Section 15262, of the environmental factors that may be affected by the MSR process, but will not include the preparation of an environmental review document. 3 GLENN LAFCO MSR-SOI ELK CREEK CSD 2 ELK CREEK AREA BACKGROUND 2.1 Elk Creek Overview The Elk Creek CSD is located in western Glenn County approximately 22 miles west of the City of Willows. Elk Creek is located adjacent to Stony Gorge Reservoir and is laid out in a north-south direction, which generally parallels County Road 306. The Elk Creek CSD occupies 136.75± acres. The topography within the service area is hilly and varies from about 700 to 900 feet above mean sea level. Stony Creek flows northerly through the Elk Creek area and Elk Creek flows from the foothills to the west and intersects Stony Creek in the commercial area of Elk Creek. Briscoe Creek also flows northerly and intersects Stony Creek approximately one half mile north of the District’s water treatment plant. Other unnamed springs, streams, and creeks traverse the area and drain in an easterly direction toward Stony Creek. The climate in Elk Creek is primarily semi-arid and is influenced by the Pacific Coast, the Sierra Nevadas, and the Cascade Mountains. The summers are typically dry with the average July high temperature of 96.2°F. Winter temperatures drop to an average January low temperature of 35.9°F. The average annual precipitation in the study area based on the Stony Gorge Reservoir Station is 21.15 inches. The heaviest rainfall occurs during January with an average precipitation of 4.52 inches.1 The Elk Creek CSD provides domestic water to the community of Elk Creek. The District also jointly maintains a community park with the Stony Creek Joint Unified School District and provides some street lighting. Wastewater disposal is provided by individual septic tanks. The source of water is the Stony Gorge Reservoir. All water is filtered and treated to meet the State requirements. Points of Interest:  Stony Gorge Reservoir  Bidwell Point – the best known nearby landmark  A Rancheria called Grindstone, which was formed in 1906, is located approximately 7 miles north of the town.  Stony Creek – provides fishing and some whitewater rafting. 1 http://www.clrsearch.com/Elk_Creek_Demographics/CA/95939/Weather-Forecast-Temperature-Precipitation, July 27, 2011 4 GLENN LAFCO MSR-SOI ELK CREEK CSD 2.2 Elk Creek Background Elk Creek, the town’s namesake, runs out of the Coast Range Mountains to the east into Stony Creek. Elk Creek was established in the late 1860’s as a trading center for the valleys drained by Stony Creek and its tributaries. A post office was established in 1872.2 Elk Creek was a stopping place for stagecoaches along the 50-mile stretch between Colusa and Newville. 3 Elk Creek once had a lumber mill, which provided employment to residents of the town; however, the mill closed in the early 1980’s. After the mill closed, approximately 26 households moved out of the area.4 The location is now a small solid waste disposal site operated by Louisiana Pacific for disposal of sawmill wastes. This site, which has been in operation since 1972, is regulated by waste discharge requirements issued by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. The community includes a small commercial area, convenience store, bar/restaurant, post office, fire station, elementary school, and high school.5 2.3 Elk Creek Population Data Elk Creek is a Census-designated place (CDP). This means that US Census data is collected even though the community is not an incorporated city. The population of the Elk Creek CSD is estimated by the District to be 300.6 However, the US 2010 Census reports a population of 163 in 73 households. Elk Creek residents had lower household incomes than residents of the State of California7 and also had lower estimated housing values as shown below:8 Estimated Median Household Income in 2010: Elk Creek: $45,000 California: $62,432 Elk Creek estimated per capita income in 2010: $20,338 Estimated median house or condo value in 2010 (based on places for sale): Elk Creek: $287,500 California: $295,249 This will limit the ability of the Elk Creek CSD to raise fees. 2 Durham, David L. (1998). California's Geographic Names: A Gazetteer of Historic and Modern Names of the State. Quill Driver Books. p. 231. ISBN 9781884995149. 3 Northeast Center of the California Historical Resources Information System, November 23, 2010 4 Elk Creek Community Services District, Arnold Kjer, Water Plant Operator, September 28, 2011 5 Glenn County General Plan, Environmental Setting Technical Paper, January 22, 1993, Page 49. 6 Elk Creek Community Services District, Arnold Kjer, Water Plant Operator, September 28, 2011 7 http://www.clrsearch.com/Elk_Creek_Demographics/CA/95939/Household-Income, July 25, 2011. 8 http://www.clrsearch.com/Elk_Creek_Demographics/CA/95939/Home-Values-and-Rental-Rates, July 25, 2011. 5 GLENN LAFCO MSR-SOI ELK CREEK CSD The following data on education, work, and marital status provide additional information on the population of Elk Creek: Education for population 25 years and over in Elk Creek: 9 Did Not Complete High School: 12.50% Completed High School: 40.28% Some College: 27.78% Completed Associate Degree: 6.94% Completed Bachelors Degree: 9.72% Completed Graduate Degree: 2.78% According to the 2010 US Census, there were 73 households, out of which 16 (21.9%) had children under the age of 18 living in them, 40 (54.8%) were opposite-sex married couples living together, 5 (6.8%) had a female householder with no husband present, 6 (8.2%) had a male householder with no wife present. There were 20 households (27.4%) made up of individuals and 8 (11.0%) had someone living alone who was 65 years of age or older. The average household size was 2.23. There were 51 families (69.9% of all households); the average family size was 2.65. The Elk Creek population was spread out in age as follows: Under the age of 18 25 people (15.3%) Aged 18 to 24 7 people (4.3%) Aged 25 to 44 21 people (12.9%) Aged 45 to 64 67 people (41.1%) 65 years of age or older 43 people (26.4%) The population is older than the population of California as shown below: Elk Creek Median age: 38.80 years California median age: 33.40 years10 The median age was 52.5 years. For every 100 females there were 101.2 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 97.1 males. There were 84 housing of which 58 (79.5%) were owner-occupied, and 15 (20.5%) were occupied by renters. The homeowner vacancy rate was 3.3%; the rental vacancy rate was 0%. 129 people (79.1% of the population) lived in owner-occupied housing units and 34 people (20.9%) lived in rental housing units. Elk Creek Unemployed: 11 8.43% Elk Creek Residents Travel time to work: 12 Less than 15 Minutes: 31.25% 15-29 Minutes: 31.2% 30-59 Minutes: 28.12% 60+ Minutes: 9.38% 9 http://www.clrsearch.com/Elk_Creek_Demographics/CA/95939/Education-Level-and-Enrollment-Statistics, July 25, 2011 10 http://www.clrsearch.com/Elk_Creek_Demographics/CA/95939/Population-Growth-and-Population-Statistics, July 22, 2011. 11 http://www.clrsearch.com/Elk_Creek_Demographics/CA/95939/Employment-Occupation-and-Industry, July 25, 2011 12 http://www.clrsearch.com/Elk_Creek_Demographics/CA/95939/Travel-Time-and-Mode-of-Transportation, July 25, 2011 6 GLENN LAFCO MSR-SOI ELK CREEK CSD Marital Status for population 15 years and over in Elk Creek CDP: 13 Never married: 10.59% Now married: 72.95% Widowed: 9.41% Divorced: 7.06% 2.4 Elk Creek Schools Educational services within Elk Creek are provided by the Stony Creek Joint Unified School District, which operates six public schools including two elementary schools, one Jr./Sr. High School, two alternative schools, and one continuation school. One elementary school (Indian Valley Elementary School) is located within the community of Stonyford in Colusa County and the five other schools are located within Elk Creek. The School District has the following schools located within Elk Creek: 14 Elk Creek Elementary School, 3434 County Road 309, Elk Creek, CA 95939 Phone: (530) 968-5288, Fax: (530) 968-5535 Grade Span: K-4 2009-10 Total Enrollment: 42 students Stony Creek Elementary Community Day School, 3432 County Road 309, Elk Creek, CA Phone: (530) 968-5177, Fax: (530) 968-5535 Grade Span: K-6 2009-10 Total Enrollment: 2 students Elk Creek Junior-Senior High School, 3430 County Road 309, Elk Creek, CA 95939 Phone: (530) 968-5361, Fax: (530) 968-5102 Grade Span: 7-12 2009-10 Total Enrollment: 44 students Stony Creek Community Day School, 3432 County Road 309, Elk Creek, CA 95939 Phone: (530) 968-5177, Fax: (530) 968-5535 Grade Span: 7-12 2009-10 Total Enrollment: 0 students Bidwell Point (Continuation) School, 3432 County Road 309, Elk Creek, CA 95939 Phone: (530) 968-5177, Fax: (530) 968-5535 Grade Span: 7-12 2009-10 Total Enrollment: 4 students 2.5 Stony Gorge Reservoir The town of Elk Creek is just north of Stony Gorge Reservoir, which is operated by the Federal Bureau of Reclamation. Stony Gorge Reservoir is the most prominent geographical feature in the Elk Creek area. The reservoir provides irrigation water, domestic water, recreation, aesthetic enjoyment, and preservation and enhancement of fish, wildlife, and other aquatic resources. The reservoir is a warm-water fishery with an 18-mile shoreline. There is excellent boating and shoreline accessibility. There is one boat ramp and free camping except for the group camping area. Stony Gorge Dam, completed in 1928, is on Stony Creek about 18 miles downstream from East Park Dam. The reservoir has a storage capacity of 50,380 acre-feet, regulates flows along the lower reaches of Stony Creek and stores surplus water for irrigation 13 http://www.clrsearch.com/Elk_Creek_Demographics/CA/95939/Population-Growth-and-Population-Statistics, July 25, 2011 14 http://www.scjusd.org/index.cfm, July 26, 2011 7 GLENN LAFCO MSR-SOI ELK CREEK CSD purposes. Hydroelectricity is generated for the City of Santa Clara. Releases from the reservoir travel 22 miles down Stony Creek to the Orland project's diversion points. 15 2.6 Other Municipal Service Providers in Elk Creek 2.6.1 General Services Elk Creek has no police station or officers. Glenn County Sheriff’s office provides all police services to the community of Elk Creek. In addition, Glenn County provides street maintenance, general planning, general administration, tax collection, and welfare services. 2.6.2 Fire Protection The Elk Creek Fire Protection District (FPD) provides fire protection within the boundaries of the Elk Creek CSD. The Elk Creek FPD provides services in the form of emergency fire response, medical response, and disaster aid. The Elk Creek area has one Fire Station located at 401 County Road 306, Elk Creek, CA 95939. In addition to the Elk Creek FPD, CALFIRE maintains a fire station south of Elk Creek with staff and equipment during the summer months. The Glenn County General Plan requires an ISO (Insurance Service Organization) rating of no less than 8 for rural areas and no less than 5 for areas within urban limit lines. The Elk Creek FPD has fifteen volunteers who meet on the first Tuesday of each month for a business meeting and the Saturday following for a training drill. The leadership is provided by Chief Steve Carpenter and Assistant Chief Jeremy Richards. There is one EMT (Assistant Chief Richards) and five First Responders. In addition to property taxes, the Elk Creek FPD charges $40.00 per dwelling unit and $40.00 per commercial/industrial building of any size. The Elk Creek FPD has adequate fire protection equipment and has access to a water system in the more populated parts of the District. The Elk Creek FPD maintains mutual aid agreements with other districts to supplement any equipment needs.16 2.6.3 Electricity The Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) provides gas and electrical service to the Elk Creek area. 2.6.4 Solid Waste Services Solid waste services are shared between the County Public Works Department and Waste Management. Waste Management provides waste pick-up only. The landfill is operated by the Glenn County Public Works Department. 15 http://www.usbr.gov/projects/Project.jsp?proj_Name=Orland Project, July 26, 2011 16Glenn LAFCO, Fire Protection Districts Municipal Service Review and Sphere of Influence, March 2011. 8 GLENN LAFCO MSR-SOI ELK CREEK CSD 2.7 General Water Supply, Treatment, and Distribution Process Overview In Glenn County, the critical season for water supply occurs in the late summer because demand is higher at this time and supply is lower until the winter rainy season starts again. Small community water treatment has posed an enormous problem for the drinking water regulatory community, drinking water professionals, and the people living in these communities. The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) and subsequent regulations require that all water in the distribution system and at every tap connected to the distribution system comply. Water treatment usually consists of filtration and disinfection. Water treatment standards essentially mandate central treatment for drinking water prior to entering the distribution system. No water that exceeds a primary standard may be used for drinking water. Primary Standards have been developed to protect human health and are rigorously enforced by the Department of Health Services. For very small communities, this may be a cost that poses an undue burden. Often it could be a cost that has negative public health implications. For a very low-income family, the money spent on water treatment may not be available for other essentials. 2.8 Water Conservation The Best Management Practices for water conservation recommended by the California Water Association are as follows:17 1. Water Survey Programs for Single-Family Residential and Multi-Family Residential Customers 2. Residential Plumbing Retrofit 3. System Water Audits, Leak Detection and Repair 4. Metering with Commodity Rates for All New Connections and Retrofit of Existing Connections 5. Large Landscape Conservation Programs & Incentives 6. High-Efficiency Washing Machine Rebate Programs 7. Public Information Programs 8. School Education Programs 9. Conservation Programs for Commercial, Industrial, and Institutional Accounts 10. Wholesale Agency Assistance Programs 11. Conservation Pricing Home 12. Conservation Coordinator 13. Water Waste Prohibition 14. Residential ULFT (ultra-low-flow-toilet) Replacement Programs 17 California Water Association, http://www.calwaterassn.com/conservation.htm, July 26, 2010. 9 GLENN LAFCO MSR-SOI ELK CREEK CSD 3 ELK CREEK COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT 3.1 Elk Creek CSD History The Elk Creek CSD was formed under the Community Services District Law and a Resolution was adopted for its formation by the Glenn County Board of Supervisors on July 18, 1960. The Elk Creek CSD provides domestic water to the community of Elk Creek. The District also jointly maintains a community park with the Stony Creek Joint Unified School District and provides some street lighting. The population of the District is estimated by the District to be 300 and there are 90 active water service connections. According to the District, there have been no major changes within Elk Creek in the last 20 years.18 There have been three service connections added during the last 10 years. In 1998, the District completed a major project to upgrade the treatment system. This $1,534,100.00 project was funded by a grant and loan from USDA Rural Development. This work included the following projects:  Installation of a bolted steel tank for water storage  Improvements to pipelines to the treatment plant  Installation of a phone line to the treatment plant office  Installation of a package water treatment plant  Installation of water meters The Elk Creek CSD includes 108 assessor’s parcels with an average value of land and improvements of $43,950. This low value is probably a reflection of few sales which would result in a higher tax base. There are 35 parcels which receive a home owner’s exemption on the property taxes. 3.2 Governance 3.2.1 Elk Creek CSD Contact Information Contact information for the Elk Creek Community Services District is as follows: Roberta H. Hunt, Director/Secretary P.O. Box 295, Elk Creek, CA 95939 460 Elm St., Elk Creek, CA 95939 (530) 968-5228 (530) 968-5359 fax Arnold P. Kjer, Water Plant Operator P.O. Box 72, Elk Creek, CA 95939 2709 County Road 306, Elk Creek, CA 95939 (530) 968-5193 (530) 513-1517 cell 3.2.2 Management Team The management team for the Elk Creek CSD is as follows: Arnold P. Kjer Water Plant Operator Roberta H. Hunt Director/Secretary 18 Elk Creek Community Services District, Arnold Kjer, Water Plant Operator, September 28, 2011. 10 GLENN LAFCO MSR-SOI ELK CREEK CSD 3.2.3 Board of Directors Members of the Board of Directors are elected for terms of four years. If there is no contested seat, the Board of Supervisors will appoint directors in lieu of election. Terms are staggered to allow for elections every two years. The Board members are strictly volunteer. The membership of the Board of Directors is as follows:19 Roberta H. Hunt Term End: 12/4/2015 P.O. Box 295, Elk Creek, CA 95939 Entry: Appointed in lieu of election 460 Elm St., Elk Creek, CA 95939 Sandra Benamati Term: End: 12/4/2015 P.O. Box 263, Elk Creek, CA 95939 Entry: Appointed in lieu of election 355 Main St., Elk Creek, CA 95939 (530) 968-5218 Stan E. Drummond Term End: 12/4/2017 P.O. Box 192, Elk Creek, CA 95939 Entry: Appointed in lieu of election Franklin D. Hunt Term End: 12/4/2017 P.O. Box 189, Elk Creek, CA 95939 Entry: Appointed in lieu of election Vacant Possible Appointment: Sharon Green It is important for the District to have a full five-member Board of Directors. The District should make every effort to have the Vacancy filled as soon as possible. The District Board of Directors holds meetings on a quarterly basis on the second Monday of the month at 5:00 p.m. at the Elk Creek High School. These meetings comply with the provisions of the Brown Act. An agenda is posted at the Elk Creek Post Office and at the Elk Creek High School. Government Code Section 61040 requires the Board of Directors to consist of five members. One of the current Board members has served the District for approximately 40 years.20 3.3 Elk Creek CSD Water Service 3.3.1 Water Source The Elk Creek CSD uses surface water from Stony Gorge Reservoir created by the Stony Gorge Dam. The concrete buttress dam was constructed between 1926 and 1928 by the US Bureau of Reclamation, with a height of 153 feet and 868 feet long at its crest.21 Structurally it's a relatively early example of an Ambursen-type dam, using contraction joints between all face slabs and buttresses for stability. 19 Glenn County Elections Office, Susie Alves, Phone: 530-934-6402, November 13, 2013. 20 Elk Creek Community Services District, Arnold Kjer, Water Plant Operator, September 28, 2011. 21 http://ce-npdp-serv2.stanford.edu/DamDirectory/DamDetail.jsp?npdp_id=CA10194 11 GLENN LAFCO MSR-SOI ELK CREEK CSD Stony Gorge Dam impounds Stony Creek for irrigation storage and flood control. Hydroelectric power is also produced. Along with the East Park Dam about fifteen miles upstream, it's part of the Orland Project in the Sacramento valley, one of the Bureau of Reclamation's first generation of water projects. The dam is owned by the Bureau and is operated by the local Orland Unit Water Users` Association. The reservoir it creates, Stony Gorge Reservoir, has a water surface of 1,280 acres, a shoreline of about eighteen miles, and a maximum capacity of 58,500 acre-feet. Recreation includes camping, boating, and fishing (for largemouth bass, smallmouth bass, bluegill, crappie, and catfish). Elk Creek CSD Water Source: Stony Gorge Reservoir 9-9-11 3.3.2 Elk Creek CSD Water Service Infrastructure A. Water Supply According to Jake Berens at the US Bureau of Reclamation, The Elk Creek CSD entered into a 40 year contract with the Bureau of Reclamation in 1967. That contract has expired and we are trying to ensure that Elk Creek CSD receives a contract for 100 acre-feet of supplemental Central Valley Project water. Due to litigation concerning Reclamation’s Operations Criteria and Plan for the Central Valley Project (Delta Smelt and Salmon cases) we are unable to enter into a long-term contract with Elk Creek CSD as this time. So, the current approach that we are exploring is to enter into what we 12 GLENN LAFCO MSR-SOI ELK CREEK CSD call in Interim Renewal contract that will allow Reclamation to continue to deliver water to Elk Creek CSD without affecting the litigation.22 B. Water Intake Pumps A new six-inch diameter raw water pipeline between Stony Gorge Dam and the District’s treatment plant was constructed on the south side of Stony Creek in 1998. This pipeline was in the same general location as the District’s previous six-inch pipeline.23 C. Water Treatment Facilities When the District water treatment facilities were improved in 1998 a package (factory assembled) water treatment plant with a two stage filtration system was chosen. During operation of the plant, chemically dosed raw water enters the plant at the bottom of the adsorption clarifier which contains granular buoyant media that traps and removes the coagulated particles. This process combines the processes of coagulation, flocculation and sedimentation into a one unit process. 24 Maps showing the location of the Elk Creek CSD facilities and the Elk Creek CSD water system are shown at the end of this report. Enclosures for filter backwash pumps and for pumps that feed the distribution system and fill the two large tanks 11-23-11 Water System Filters and Monitoring Equipment 11-23-11 22 US Bureau of Reclamation, Jake Berens, E-Mail: jberens@usbr.gov, Phone: 530-934-1359, Fax: 530-934-1302, E-Mail to Andy Popper, 1-4-12. 23 Elk Creek CSD, Preliminary Engineering Report, Prepare by cma, Charpier Martin & Associates, Sacramento, California, November 29, 1995, Page 8-1. 24 Elk Creek CSD, Preliminary Engineering Report, Prepare by cma, Charpier Martin & Associates, Sacramento, California, November 29, 1995, Page 7-14 to7-16. 13 GLENN LAFCO MSR-SOI ELK CREEK CSD D. Water Storage The improvements constructed in 1998 included demolishing an old redwood water storage tank and constructing a new 300,000 welded steel tank at the same location. The new tank was piped and valves install to operate in parallel with the existing welded steel tank. The water storage tank was equipped with a telemetry system with a tank level indicator at the water treatment plant. 25 Elk Creek CSD Water Storage 9-9-2011 E. Water Distribution System The water distribution system is designed to meet the fire flow requirements. F. Water Service Connections The population of the District is estimated by the District to be 300 and active water service connections number 90.26 There have been 3 new connections in the past 10 years. G. Water Quality The Consumer Confidence Report is shown in Appendix D at the end of this report. The Consumer Confidence Report is posted at the Water Treatment Plant and the rate payers are informed that they can get a copy of the Report from Plant Manager, Arnie Kjer when the water bills are sent out. According to Ray Bruun, PE, Associate Engineer with the California Department of Public Health Drinking Water Field Operations Branch, the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) deficiencies for the Elk Creek CSD will be examined in 2014 and additional monitoring equipment and lab testing will be required. The District is expected to be required to designate a shift operator in addition to Arnie Kjer.27 25 Elk Creek CSD, Preliminary Engineering Report, Prepared by cma, Charpier Martin & Associates, Sacramento, California, November 29, 1995, Page 7-21. 26 Elk Creek Community Services District, Arnold Kjer, Water Plant Operator, September 28, 2011 27 State of California, Department of Public Health Drinking Water Field Operations Branch, Valley District, (No. 21), 364 Knollcrest Drive, #101, Redding CA 96002, Ray Bruun, P.E. Associate Engineer, Phone: 530-32542, Fax: 530-224-4844, E-Mail: rbruun@cdph.ca.gov, December 28, 2013. 14 GLENN LAFCO MSR-SOI ELK CREEK CSD 3.3.3 Elk Creek CSD Water Rates The Elk Creek CSD charges the following rates for Water Service:28 Minimum Monthly Charge: $44.00 Includes the first 2,000 cubic feet of water (14,961 gallons) delivered per unit. In addition to the minimum monthly charge, there is a charge of $1.00 per 100 cubic feet of water in excess of the first 2,000 cubic feet delivered during any month. Rates may need to be increased in the future because the cost of treating surface water is substantially higher than it is for districts that use groundwater. Additional water rates are shown in Chapter 4 of this report. 3.4 Elk Creek CSD Street Lighting Rates The Elk Creek CSD charges a monthly street lighting charge of $1.00 for each residence/business.29 3.5 Elk Creek CSD Park The Elk Creek CSD maintains a park with children’s play equipment. Elk Creek Park 9-9-11 The configuration of the land owned by the Elk Creek Community Services District was changed on November 19, 2013 by the acceptance of deeds as follows: a) From the Elk Creek CSD to the Board of Supervisors for the purpose of locating a Fire Station next to the County Maintenance Yard b) From the County of Glenn to the Elk Creek CSD and the School District for the purpose of access to the park and parking It is hoped that when the Fire Station is established adjacent to the park the Volunteer Fire Fighters will help to maintain the park. 28 Elk Creek Community Services District, Arnold Kjer, Water Plant Operator, September 28, 2011 29 Elk Creek Community Services District, Arnold Kjer, Water Plant Operator, September 28, 2011 15 GLENN LAFCO MSR-SOI ELK CREEK CSD 3.6 Elk Creek CSD Finances 3.6.1 Financial Background The Elk Creek CSD adopts a Budget every year. The fiscal year starts July 1 each year. The District carries commercial insurance to provide coverage for theft, damage, and injuries to employees. The CSD receives revenues from residential water sales and income from interest on savings. Reserve Funds are kept with the County of Glenn and invested with the other County funds. Interest is paid to the Elk Creek CSD. Service costs are minimized because the District is primarily run by the volunteer Board of Directors with paid assistance from Barbara Linquist Bookkeeping Service in Willows and Arnie Kjer, Water Plant Operator. 3.6.2 Budgets The Glenn County Department of Finance keeps separate budgets for the water system, the park, and the street lighting service. The 2013-14 Budget for the Elk Creek CSD Water System is shown below:30 ELK CREEK CSD WATER SYSTEM BUDGET 2013-14 Actual Actual Budget Budget FY 2008-09 FY 2009-2010 FY 2010-2011 FY 2013-14 Revenue Resident Water $81,149.05 $79,974.73 $79,416.00 $79,416.00 Interest $7,059.95 $2,433.69 $1,500.00 $750.00 Total Revenue $88,209.00 $82,408.42 $80,916.00 $80,166.00 Expenses Salaries/Wages $22,880.00 $22,880.00 $25,336.00 25,336.00 Social Security $1,418.56 $1,418.56 $1,571.00 1,571.00 Medicare $331.76 $331.76 $368.00 368.00 Worker Comp Ins $750.00 $723.00 $750.00 750.00 Communications $1,839.64 $1,762.68 $2,000.00 2,000.00 Insurance $843.00 $800.00 $1,000.00 1,000.00 Maint-Equipment $1,219.88 $2,912.72 $4,000.00 4,000.00 Maint-Structures $350.32 $588.86 $2,250.00 2,250.00 Office Expense $994.30 $2,769.38 $1,000.00 1,000.00 Prof Services $7,106.75 $8,631.31 $9,225.00 9,225.00 Publications $0.00 $0.00 $100.00 100.00 Small Tools $0.00 $217.68 $500.00 500.00 Special Dept. $6,788.91 $4,994.61 $8,000.00 8,000.00 Mileage $0.00 $0.00 $300.00 300.00 Utilities $7,018.05 $6,422.93 $7,000.00 7,000.00 Depreciation $59,850.01 $59,850.01 $59,900.00 59,900.00 A-87 Cost Alloc. $2,138.00 $2,024.00 $1,861.00 1,150.00 Inter Exp. $20,682.37 $20,677.00 $20,717.00 21,000.00 Inter Exp-#665 $0.00 $0.00 $1,193.00 1,200.00 Contingency $0.00 $0.00 $2,000.00 2,000.00 Total Expenses $134,211.55 $137,004.50 $149,071.00 $148,650.00 Net Cost ($46,002.55) ($54,596.08) ($68,155.00) ($68,484.00) 30 Glenn County, Department of Finance, Deborah Storz, 9/14/2011. 16 GLENN LAFCO MSR-SOI ELK CREEK CSD Although it appears that the revenue does not cover the expenses, the $59,900 scheduled for depreciation is not actually paid out so the deficit would be less. On November 18, 2013, the District had Cash in the Treasury of $331,761.54. The Glenn County Department of Finance recommended that this amount be viewed in comparison to the $315,300 that the District owes to the USDA Rural Development. If the loan were to be paid off, there would only be a small amount of funding available.31 The Buildings and improvements were valued at $1,672,634.04 minus depreciation of $1,020,754.17 for a net value of $651,879.87. The actual value may be different if some items are included in the list of fixed assets which have been removed. The 1996 water system project is listed at $1,447,164.00 with the Glenn County Department of Finance. The value of the Elk Creek CSD Park is listed at $52,025.00 with the Glenn County Department of Finance. The Recreation Budget for 2013-14 showed Cash in Treasury of $7117.18 on November 18, 2013 and $1000.00 budgeted for Maintenance of Equipment. The Street Lighting Budget showed $2,073.33 Cash in Treasury on November 18, 2013 and $1200.00 budgeted for Utilities. 3.6.3 Financial Summary The Glenn County Department of Finance prepared the following Financial Summary for the Elk Creek CSD as of June 30, 2013: Elk Creek Community Services District Funds Recap June 30, 2013 Cash $340,393 Total Assets $1,073,904 Total Liabilities $333,417 Fund Equity $740,487 Total Liability and Equity $1,073,904 Cash to Liability Ratio 1.02 Total Assets to Liability Ratio 3.22 The Assets to Liability Ration is low as is the Cash to Liability Ratio. For Glenn County special districts only Artois CSD has lower ratios for these two measures. 3.6.4 Audit Report The June 30, 2008 Audit Report for the Elk Creek CSD shows that the District had Net Assets of $951,129.00. The District had a Total Operating Revenue of $81,984.00 and Total Operating Expenses of $117,106.00. No Audit has been prepared since 2008 because the County of Glenn has not had an Internal Auditor and has not been able to provide this service for the special districts that 31 Glenn County Department of Finance, Deborah Storz, December 9, 2013. 17 GLENN LAFCO MSR-SOI ELK CREEK CSD keep funds with the County. The Board of Supervisors has authorized the Glenn County Department of Finance to hire and Internal Auditor in 2013-2014 and it is hoped that this will enable the Department of Finance to assist the special districts with Audit preparation. A sample Request for Proposals for audit services is shown in Appendix E at the end of this report. However, most of the special districts, including Elk Creek CSD, have not been able to hire outside consultants to prepare the required Audits. The California Government Code regarding Audits is as follows: 26909. (a) (1) The county auditor shall either make or contract with a certified public accountant or public accountant to make an annual audit of the accounts and records of every special district within the county for which an audit by a certified public accountant or public accountant is not otherwise provided. In each case, the minimum requirements of the audit shall be prescribed by the Controller and shall conform to generally accepted auditing standards. (2) Where an audit of a special district's accounts and records is made by a certified public accountant or public accountant, the minimum requirements of the audit shall be prescribed by the Controller and shall conform to generally accepted auditing standards, and a report thereof shall be filed with the Controller and with the county auditor of the county in which the special district is located. The report shall be filed within 12 months of the end of the fiscal year or years under examination. (3) Any costs incurred by the county auditor, including contracts with, or employment of, certified public accountants or public accountants, in making an audit of every special district pursuant to this section shall be borne by the special district and shall be a charge against any unencumbered funds of the district available for the purpose. (4) For a special district that is located in two or more counties, the provisions of this subdivision shall apply to the auditor of the county in which the treasury is located. (5) The county controller, or ex officio county controller, shall effect this section in those counties having a county controller, or ex officio county controller. (b) A special district may, by unanimous request of the governing board of the special district, with unanimous approval of the board of supervisors, replace the annual audit required by this section with one of the following, performed in accordance with professional standards, as determined by the county auditor: 18 GLENN LAFCO MSR-SOI ELK CREEK CSD (1) A biennial audit covering a two-year period. (2) An audit covering a five-year period, if the special district's annual revenues do not exceed an amount specified by the board of supervisors. (3) An audit conducted at specific intervals, as recommended by the county auditor, that shall be completed at least once every five years. (c) (1) A special district may, by unanimous request of the governing board of the special district, with unanimous approval of the board of supervisors, replace the annual audit required by this section with a financial review, in accordance with the appropriate professional standards, as determined by the county auditor, if the following conditions are met: (A) All of the special district's revenues and expenditures are transacted through the county's financial system. (B) The special district's annual revenues do not exceed one hundred fifty thousand dollars ($150,000). (2) If the board of supervisors is the governing board of the special district, it may, upon unanimous approval, replace the annual audit of the special district required by this section with a financial review in accordance with the appropriate professional standards, as determined by the county auditor, if the special district satisfies the requirements of subparagraphs (A) and (B) of paragraph (1). (d) Notwithstanding the provisions of this section, a special district shall be exempt from the requirement of an annual audit if the financial statements are audited by the Controller to satisfy federal audit requirements. 26910. The auditor may at any reasonable time and place examine the books and records of any special purpose assessing or taxing district located wholly in the county. 19 GLENN LAFCO MSR-SOI ELK CREEK CSD 4 COMPARISON OF WATER RATES 4.1 Comparison of Water Service Rates The following table is included to compare the cost of water rates from different districts in Northern California. It is difficult to compare one district with another because the base rates include different amounts of water. Where the base amount of water is low, the average bill will almost always be higher than the base fee shown. COMPARISON OF DOMESTIC WATER SERVICE RATES NORTHERN CALIFORNIA District/County Number of Connections Monthly Water Rate (Base Rate) Arbuckle PUD/Colusa 792 (mostly unmetered)32 $15.0033 Artois CSD/Glenn 59 metered34 $39.00 (16,000 gallons) Butte City CSD/Glenn 48 unmetered $20 per month Callayomi County Water 450 (366 active, 84 $35.00 (6,000 gallons) District/Lake inactive)35 California Pines CSD/Modoc 131 metered (April 30 to $32.25.37 October 31) 36 Clear Creek CSD/Lassen 156 unmetered38 $27.0039 CSA 1 Century Ranch/Colusa 112 metered $39.22 (8,000 gallons)40 CSA 2 Stonyford/Colusa 91 metered $45.58 (10,000 gallons)41 Elk Creek CSD/Glenn 90 metered42 $44.00 (14,961 gallons) Maxwell PUD/Colusa 400 (meters, not read) $32.00 (unlimited)43 Lassen Co. Waterworks 1, 172 metered44 35.00 (40,000 gallons)45 Bieber/Lassen Little Valley CSD/Lassen 50 unmetered $23.0046 Westwood CSD/Lassen 765 metered $35.78 (30,000 gallons)47 City of Colusa/Colusa 2088 metered $21.76 (300 cubic feet*)48 City of Susanville/Lassen 4200 metered $23.65 (300 cubic feet*)49 City of Williams/Colusa 1321 $15.72 (500 cubic feet)50 *(100 cubic feet of water = 748 gallons) 32 Arbuckle PUD, Small Water System 2011 Annual Report to the Drinking Water Program for year Ending December 31, 2011. 33 Arbuckle PUD, Water Rates as of January 1, 2009. 34 Artois Community Services District, Jack Cavier, Jr., President, March 1, 2012. 35 Callayomi County Water District, Secretary Janet Mondragon, E-Mail: janetccwd@mediacombb.net, January 10, 2013. 36 California Pines CSD, Vera Sphar, June 12, 2009. 37 California Pines CSD Service Rates Effective June 2006. 38 Clear Creek CSD, Pat Mudrich, Manager, August 22, 2012 39 Clear Creek CSD, Lassen LAFCO Questionnaire June 6, 2012. 40 Colusa County Ordinance No. 673, An Ordinance of the Colusa County Board of Supervisors Increasing water service Fees; authorizing administrative Fees; providing for the Collection of Delinquent Charges; and Directing That No New Water Hook-ups Be Permitted for County Service Area Number 1-Century Ranch, March 16, 2004., 41 Colusa County Ordinance No 674, An Ordinance of the Colusa County Board of Supervisors Increasing Water Service Fees; Authorizing Administrative Fees; Providing for the Collection of Delinquent charges; and Directing That No New Water Hook-ups be permitted for County Service Area Number 2-Stonyford, March 16, 2004. 42 Elk Creek Community Services District, Arnold Kjer, Water Plant Operator, September 28, 2011 43 Maxwell PUD, Diana Mason, Phone 438-2505, August 8, 2012. 44 Lassen County Waterworks District 1 (Bieber), Stephen Jackson, Manager, Phone: 530-294-5524, March 1, 2011. 45 Lassen County Waterworks District 1 (Bieber), Ordinance 09-2, An Ordinance amending the Ordinance Establishing the Rate for Water Service by the Lassen County Waterworks District 1 (Bieber), June 16, 2009. 46 Little Valley CSD, Director Devora Kelley, March 19, 2012. 47 Westwood Community Services District, Resolution 2011-01, A resolution of the Westwood Community Services District Increasing Water Rates, June 6, 2011. 48 City of Colusa, Water Department, Phone 458-4740 Ex100, August 7, 2012. 49 City of Susanville, 530-252-5111, August 3, 2012. 50 City of Williams, Greg Endeman, gendeman@cityofwilliams.org, October 1, 2012. 20 GLENN LAFCO MSR-SOI ELK CREEK CSD Areas that are served by the California Water Service (a public utility) usually have higher fees than those areas served by a government facility. For example, in the Willows area California Water Service charges $47.50 for the smallest meter size and 800 cubic feet of water.51 Although Elk Creek CSD does not have the highest water service rate listed in the above table, the base fee includes a large amount of water. It may be that the District should examine charging more for more water use starting sooner. In general, fewer rate- payers mean higher costs because the basic costs cannot be divided up as much. An additional concern for the Elk Creek CSD is that surface water is substantially more costly to treat than surface water. 4.2 Water Service Pricing Strategy Proposition 218 prohibits any formal subsidies that depart from cost-of-service principles. In other words, one customer class cannot pay more than its fair share of revenue requirements for the purpose of providing a subsidy to other customers. Informally, there are ways to design rate structures that benefit low income groups. For example, senior and low income customers tend to have smaller homes and yards that consume less water than higher income customers. Therefore, seniors and low income groups will benefit from: 1) Water rates that have lower fixed monthly charges 2) Water rates that include a lower minimum water consumption amount in the fixed charges 3) Water rates that have lower consumption rates for customers using less than the average amount of water52 To encourage water conservation it makes sense to charge for the number of gallons (or cubic feet) used in addition to the base rate because then the water bill always reflects consumption. There are water meters available that can be read electronically so the cost of a meter-reader can be eliminated. 51 California Water Service Company, 1720 North First Street, San Jose, California, 95112, Phone: 408-367-8200, Schedule No. WL-1-R Willows Tariff Area, Effective 5/3/12. 52 Average or slightly less than average water consumption is a good gage for setting lower tier water rates for this purpose, since most low income customers use less than average amount of water. Seniors in particular tend to have smaller household sizes that would benefit from this approach. 21 GLENN LAFCO MSR-SOI ELK CREEK CSD 5 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW The MSR Findings are required by the State Law. The findings serve the purpose of helping LAFCO to understand the special district or city involved in an annexation, detachment, or reorganization proposal. The determinations are not binding proposals for the special district or city. The determinations are subject to change because the jurisdiction involved is constantly changing, improving, or growing. The State requires the MSR to be reviewed every five years as part of the SOI update process. Glenn LAFCO is responsible for determining if an agency is reasonably capable of providing needed resources and basic infrastructure to serve areas within its boundaries and, later, within the SOI. LAFCO will do the following: 1) Evaluate the present and long-term infrastructure demands and resources available to the District. 2) Analyze whether resources and services are, or will be, available at needed levels. 3) Determine whether orderly maintenance and expansion of such resources and services are planned to occur in-line with increasing demands. The Final MSR Guidelines prepared by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research recommend issues relevant to the jurisdiction be addressed through written determinations called for in the Cortese-Knox Hertzberg Act. Determinations are provided for each of the five factors, based on the information provided in this MSR. 5.1 Growth and Population Projections for the Elk Creek Area Purpose: To evaluate service needs based on existing and anticipated growth patterns and population projections. 5.1.1 Elk Creek Area Population Projections Glenn County population growth from 2000 to 2010 is shown below:53 GLENN COUNTY POPULATION 2000 TO 2010 Year Glenn Unincorporated City of Willows City of Orland County Area 2000 26,453 13,952 6,220 6,281 2001 26,584 14,030 6,237 6,317 2002 26,702 14,157 6,218 6,327 2003 26,974 14,340 6,247 6,387 2004 27,210 14,529 6,244 6,437 2005 27,394 14,625 6,235 6,534 2006 27,628 14,647 6,174 6,807 2007 27,872 14,661 6,203 7,008 2008 28,066 14,695 6,210 7,161 2009 28,088 14,669 6,186 7,233 2010 28,120 14,671 6,164 7,285 53 State of California, Department of Finance, E-4 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2001-2010, with 2000 and 2010 Census Counts. Sacramento, California, August 2011. 22 GLENN LAFCO MSR-SOI ELK CREEK CSD The chart above shows that population growth within the unincorporated area of Glenn County leveled out starting in the year 2005. 5.1.2 MSR Determinations on Growth and Population Projections for the Elk Creek Area 1-1) The District should coordinate requirements for new development with the Glenn County Planning & Public Works Agency. 1-2) The District should work together with the Glenn County Planning & Public Works Agency to understand the zoning and general plan designations for the area and to develop specific population and building projections. 1-3) The population of Elk Creek is not expected to increase significantly in the future. 5.2 Location and Characteristics of any Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities (DUC) within or Contiguous to the District’s SOI On October 7, 2011, Governor Brown signed SB 244, which makes two principal changes to the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000. SB 244 requires LAFCOs to: (1) deny any application to annex to a city territory that is contiguous to a disadvantaged unincorporated community (DUC) unless a second application is submitted to annex the disadvantaged community as well; and (2) evaluate disadvantaged unincorporated communities in a municipal service review (MSR) upon the next update of a sphere of influence after June 30, 2012. The intent of the statute is to encourage investment in disadvantaged unincorporated communities that often lack basic infrastructure by mandating cities and LAFCOs to include them in land use planning. SB 244 defines disadvantaged unincorporated community as any area with 12 or more registered voters, or as determined by commission policy, where the median household income is less than 80 percent of the statewide annual median. 5.2.1 Determination of Elk Creek Disadvantaged Unincorporated Community (DUC) Status The estimated Median Household Income in 2010 for Elk Creek was $45,000. For California it was $62,432. Eighty per cent of the State Median Household Income was $49,946 so Elk Creek is a Disadvantaged Unincorporated Community. However, there is no city available that can annex Elk Creek. 23 GLENN LAFCO MSR-SOI ELK CREEK CSD 5.2.2 MSR Determinations on Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities near Elk Creek 2-1) Elk Creek is a Disadvantaged Unincorporated Community. 5.3 Capacity and Infrastructure for Elk Creek CSD Purpose: To evaluate the infrastructure needs and deficiencies in terms of supply, capacity, condition of facilities and service quality. LAFCO is responsible for determining that an agency is reasonably capable of providing needed resources and basic infrastructure to serve areas within its boundaries and later in the SOI. It is important that such determinations of infrastructure availability occur when revisions to the SOI and annexations occur. In the case of this MSR, it is prudent for Glenn LAFCO to evaluate the present and long- term infrastructure demands and resource availability of the District. Further, LAFCO needs to see that resources and services are available at needed levels and orderly maintenance and expansion of such resources and services are made if there are increasing demands. 5.3.1 Elk Creek CSD Infrastructure The Elk Creek CSD infrastructure is described above in this report. 5.3.2 MSR Determinations on Infrastructure for the Elk Creek CSD 3-1) The infrastructure for the Elk Creek CSD was significantly upgraded in 1998 with help from the USDA Rural Development loan and should be adequate for at least forty years. 3-2) The park equipment may need to be upgraded every few years. 3-3) The water treatment plant upgrade reduced the treatment plant capacity to 200 gpm because 22 houses for Louisiana Pacific Lumber Company had been razed when the Company left Elk Creek. 54 5.4 Financial Ability Purpose: To evaluate factors that affect the financing of needed improvements and to identify practices or opportunities that may help eliminate unnecessary costs without decreasing service levels. 54 Elk Creek CSD, Preliminary Engineering Report, Prepare by cma, Charpier Martin & Associates, Sacramento, California, November 29, 1995, Page 8-2. 24 GLENN LAFCO MSR-SOI ELK CREEK CSD LAFCO should consider the ability of the District to pay for improvements or services associated with annexed sites. This planning can begin at the SOI stage by identifying what opportunities there are to identify infrastructure and maintenance needs associated with future annexation and development and identifying limitations on financing such improvements, as well as the opportunities that exist to construct and maintain those improvements. LAFCO should consider the relative burden of new annexations to the community when it comes to its ability to provide public safety and administrative services, as well as capital maintenance and replacements required as a result of expanding District boundaries. Rate restructuring may be forced by shortfalls in funding, but the process may also reflect changing goals and views of economic justice or fairness within the community. LAFCO should evaluate the impact of SOI and annexation decisions on existing community rates for public water service. Water rates and rate structures are not subject to regulation by other agencies. Utility providers may increase rates annually, and often do so. Generally, there is no voter approval requirement for rate increases, although notification of utility users is required. Water providers must maintain an enterprise fund for the respective utility separate from other funds, and may not use revenues to finance unrelated governmental activities. 5.4.1 Financial Considerations for Elk Creek CSD The Elk Creek CSD financial information is summarized above in this report. 5.4.2 MSR Determinations on Financing for the Elk Creek CSD 4-1) The Elk Creek CSD should perform the required audit. 4-2) The Elk Creek CSD should provide a web site where financial information can be made available to the public. 4-4) The Elk Creek CSD should review the water service fee structure to see if the fees need to be increased or revised. 4-5) The District charges $1100 for a new meter which is a good way to make the cost of a new connection fair to the existing rate payers. 4-6) The District should prepare a Capital Improvement Plan to be prepared for future capital expenditures. 4-7) The District should become familiar with Community Facilities Districts and Mello-Roos Bonds as a means for new development to pay infrastructure and operational costs. 25 GLENN LAFCO MSR-SOI ELK CREEK CSD 4-8) The cost of water plant management services and administrative services will increase in the future due to anticipated regulation and enforcement of the Safe Drinking Water Act. 55 5.5 Opportunities for Shared Facilities Purpose: To evaluate the opportunities for a jurisdiction to share facilities and resources to develop more efficient service delivery systems. In the case of annexing new lands into a district, LAFCO can evaluate whether services or facilities can be provided in a more efficient manner if the district can share them with another agency. In some cases, it may be possible to establish a cooperative approach to facility planning by encouraging agencies to work cooperatively in such efforts. 5.5.1 Elk Creek CSD Facilities The Elk Creek CSD is the only domestic water purveyor serving the Elk Creek area. 5.5.2 MSR Determinations on Shared Facilities for Elk Creek CSD 4-1) The District withdraws water from Stony Gorge Reservoir. 4-2) Geography in the area does not lend itself to shared water service facilities. 4-3) Joint use of water service infrastructure and facilities would be cost-prohibitive. 4-4) The District keeps finances and funds with the Glenn County Department of Finance. 4-5) The District provides water for fire protection and coordinates with the Elk Creek Fire Protection District. 5.6 Government Structure and Accountability Purpose: 1) To consider the advantages and disadvantages of various government structures that could provide public services. 2) To evaluate the management capabilities of the organization. 3) To evaluate the accessibility and levels of public participation associated with the agency’s decision-making and management processes. 55 State of California, Department of Public Health Drinking Water Field Operations Branch, Valley District, (No. 21), 364 Knollcrest Drive, #101, Redding CA 96002, Ray Bruun, P.E. Associate Engineer, Phone: 530-32542, Fax: 530-224-4844, E-Mail: rbruun@cdph.ca.gov, December 28, 2013. 26 GLENN LAFCO MSR-SOI ELK CREEK CSD One of the most critical components of LAFCO’s responsibilities is in setting logical service boundaries for communities based on their capacity to provide services to affected lands. Glenn LAFCO may consider the agency’s record of local accountability in its management of community affairs as a measure of the ability to provide adequate services to the SOI and potential annexation areas. 5.6.1 Elk Creek CSD Government Structure The Elk Creek CSD has only two members on the Board of Directors. The government is described above in this report. 5.6.2 MSR Determinations on Local Accountability and Governance for the Elk Creek CSD 5-1) Maintenance of a full five-member Board of Directors is the most important challenge for the Elk Creek CSD at this time. 5-2) Failure to maintain a full five-member Board of Directors could lead to conversion of this District to a County Service Area. 5-3) The Board of Directors should establish a web site for the District to help members of the community understand the District. 5-4) The fact that over 25% of the population is over 65 could make it difficult to attract new members for the Board of Directors. 27 GLENN LAFCO MSR-SOI ELK CREEK CSD 6 ELK CREEK COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT SPHERE OF INFLUENCE UPDATE This SOI Update is prepared for the Elk Creek CSD and is based upon a MSR for water services that analyzed the Elk Creek CSD’s capability to serve existing and future residents in the Elk Creek area. Information contained in this SOI is only as of the date of adoption. 6.1 SOI Requirements 6.1.1 LAFCO's Responsibilities The Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 (Government Code §56000 et seq.) is the statutory authority for the preparation of an MSR, and periodic updates of the SOI of each local agency. A SOI is a plan for the probable physical boundaries and service area of a local agency, as determined by the affected Local Agency Formation Commission (Government Code §56076). Government Code §56425(f) requires that each SOI be updated not less than every five years, and §56430 provides that a MSR shall be conducted in advance of the SOI update. 6.1.2 SOI Determinations In determining the SOI for each local agency, LAFCO must consider and prepare a statement of 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 which the agency provides, or is authorized to provide; and 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. 6.1.3 Possible Approaches to the SOI 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 of other LAFCOs in the State, various conceptual approaches have been identified from which to choose in designating an SOI. These seven approaches are explained below: 1) Coterminous Sphere: A Coterminous sphere means that the sphere for a city or special district that is the same as its existing boundaries. 28 GLENN LAFCO MSR-SOI ELK CREEK CSD 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. This is the recommendation for the Elk Creek CSD. 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. Territory designated as a limited service SOI may be considered for annexation to the limited purpose agency without detachment from the multi-service provider. This type of SOI is generally adopted when the following conditions exist: a) the limited service provider is providing adequate, cost effective, and efficient services, b) the multi-service agency is the most logical provider of the other services, c) there is no feasible or logical SOI alternative, and d) inclusion of the territory is in the best interests of local government organization and structure in the area. Government Code §56001 specifically recognizes that in rural areas it may be appropriate to establish limited purpose agencies to serve an area rather than a single service provider, if multiple limited purpose agencies are better able to provide efficient services to an area rather than one service district. Moreover, Government Code Section §56425(i), governing sphere determinations, also authorizes a sphere for less than all of the services provided by a district by requiring a district affected by a sphere action to “establish the nature, location, and extent of any functions of classes of services provided by existing districts” recognizing that more than one district may serve an area and that a given district may provide less than its full range of services in an area. 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. 29 GLENN LAFCO MSR-SOI ELK CREEK CSD 6.1.4 SOI Update Process 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 MSR and adopt related determinations. This report identifies preliminary SOI policy alternatives and recommends SOI options for the Elk Creek CSD. Development of actual SOI updates will involve additional steps, including opportunity for public input at a LAFCO public hearing, and consideration and changes made by Commissioners. 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. 6.1.5 SOI Amendments and CEQA LAFCO has the discretion to limit SOI updates to those that it may process without unnecessarily delaying the SOI update process or without requiring its funding agencies to bear the costs of environmental studies associated with SOI expansions. Any local agency or individual may file a request for an SOI amendment. The request must state the nature of and reasons for the proposed amendment, and provide a map depicting the proposal. LAFCO may require the requester to pay a fee to cover LAFCO costs, including the costs of appropriate environmental review under CEQA. LAFCO may elect to serve as lead agency for such a review, may designate the proposing agency as lead agency, or both the local agency and LAFCO may serve as co-lead agencies for purposes of an SOI amendment. Local agencies are encouraged to consult with LAFCO staff early in the process regarding the most appropriate approach for the particular SOI amendment under consideration. Certain types of SOI amendments are likely exempt from CEQA review. Examples are SOI expansions that include territory already within the bounds or service area of an agency, SOI reductions, and zero SOIs. SOI expansions for limited purpose agencies that provide services (e.g., fire protection, levee protection, cemetery, and resource conservation) needed by both rural and urban areas are typically not considered growth inducing and are likely exempt from CEQA. Similarly, SOI expansions for districts serving rural areas (e.g., irrigation water) are typically not considered growth inducing. Remy et al. write In City of Agoura Hills v. Local Agency Formation Commission (2d Dist.1988) 198 Cal.App.3d480, 493-496 [243 Cal.Rptr.740] (City of Agoura Hills), the court held that a LAFCO’s decision to approve a city’s SOI that in most respects was coterminous with the city’s existing 30 GLENN LAFCO MSR-SOI ELK CREEK CSD municipal boundaries was not a “project” because such action did not entail any potential effects on the physical environment.56 6.1.6 Recommendation for Elk Creek CSD Sphere of Influence The previously adopted SOI for Elk Creek CSD was over 700 acres in size and included lands which were planned and zoned for agricultural uses. The proposed SOI for the Elk Creek CSD will be smaller than the existing Sphere, so no environmental review will be required. However, if the District is unable to maintain a five-member Board of Directors as required by the State law governing Community Services Districts, LAFCO may have to consider a zero sphere of influence and conversion to a County Service Area. A County Service Area would be governed by the Board of Supervisors. 6.2 Present and Planned Land Uses in the Elk Creek CSD Area, Including Agricultural and Open Space Lands 6.2.1 Glenn County General Plan for Elk Creek The General Plan Designations within the Elk Creek Community Services District are as follows: Elk Creek General Plan Designations Estimated Acres GA General Agriculture 2.79 FA/F Foothill Agriculture/Forestry 31.92 SFR Single Family Residential 80.53 LC Local Commercial 3.92 IND Industrial 3.81 TOTAL 122.97 The General Plan Designation for the Elk Creek CSD SOI outside of the District boundary is as follows: Elk Creek Area General Plan Designations Estimated Acres SFR Single Family Residential 46.35 TOTAL 46.35 A map showing the General Plan designations for the Elk Creek Area is found at the end of this report. 56 Remy, Michael H., Tina A. Thomas, James G. Moose, Whitman F. Manley, Guide to CEQA, Solano Press Books, Point Arena, CA, February 2007, page 111. 31 GLENN LAFCO MSR-SOI ELK CREEK CSD 6.2.2 Glenn County Zoning for Elk Creek The zoning designations within the Elk Creek Community Services District are as follows: Elk Creek Zoning Estimated Acres AE-20 Exclusive Agricultural Zone 2.79 FA-160 Foothill Agricultural/Forestry Zone 31.92 R-1 Single Family Residential 80.53 LC Local Commercial District 3.92 M Industrial Zone 3.81 TOTAL 122.97 The zoning designation within the Elk Creek Community Services District SOI but not within the District boundary is as follows: Elk Creek Zoning Estimated Acres R-1 Single Family Residential 46.35 TOTAL 46.35 A map showing the Elk Creek CSD boundary and the County Zoning Designations is found at the end of this report. 6.2.3 SOI Determinations on Present and Planned Land Use for Elk Creek CSD 1-1] Placement in a sphere horizon is not intended to imply that annexation will take place. 1-2] Land annexed to the Elk Creek CSD and developed at Elk Creek CSD densities can help to preserve agricultural land by accommodating more development on less land. 1-3] Public health is better when development is connected to water systems. 1-4] LAFCO shall support appropriate buffer areas separating agricultural lands from lands with densities higher than 1 unit to 5 acres. 1-5] Any annexation to Elk Creek CSD would require expansion of the water treatment capacity. 32 GLENN LAFCO MSR-SOI ELK CREEK CSD 6.3 Municipal Services – Present and Probable Need 6.3.1 Municipal Services Background LAFCO is responsible for determining if an agency is reasonably capable of providing needed infrastructure and services to serve areas within its SOI. LAFCO is required to evaluate present and long-term infrastructure demands and resource availability and to evaluate whether the resources and services are available at needed service levels and that orderly maintenance and expansion of such resources and services are made in line with increasing demands. 6.3.2 SOI Determinations on Facilities and Services Present and Probable Need for Elk Creek CSD 2-1] There is a need for water service, street lighting and park service in Elk Creek and the Elk Creek Community Services District will meet these needs now and in the future. 6.4 Public Facilities Present and Future Capacity 6.4.1 Capacity Background The capacity of the Elk Creek Community Services District is described above in this report. 6.4.2 SOI Determinations on Public Facilities Present and Future Capacity for Elk Creek CSD 4-1] The Elk Creek CSD has the capacity to provide water service, street lighting and park services for the community of Elk Creek now and in the future. 6.5 Social or Economic Communities of Interest 6.5.1 Elk Creek Community Background Elk Creek is a census-designated-place (CDP). This means that US Census data is collected even though the community is not an incorporated city. Residents of Elk Creek have some services available but are still dependent on Willows for many stores and medical services. 33 GLENN LAFCO MSR-SOI ELK CREEK CSD 6.5.2 SOI Determinations on Social or Economic Communities of Interest for Elk Creek CSD 4-1] Elk Creek is both a social and an economic community. The community has a Post Office, social and religious organizations, restaurant, market, and an elementary and a high school. 4-2] The Elk Creek CSD shall be provider of municipal water in the Elk Creek CSD area. 4-3] The top priority for water service shall remain to serve the existing service area. 4-4] LAFCO is charged with overseeing orderly development in an area. The County is charged with Land Use Planning. 6.6 Disadvantaged Unincorporated Community Status SB 244 also requires LAFCOs to consider disadvantaged unincorporated communities when developing spheres of influence. Upon the next update of a sphere of influence on or after July 1, 2012, SB 244 requires LAFCO to include in an MSR (in preparation of a sphere of influence update): 1) The location and characteristics of any disadvantaged unincorporated communities within or contiguous to the sphere; and 2) The present and planned capacity of public facilities, adequacy of public services and infrastructure needs or deficiencies including needs or deficiencies related to sewers, municipal and industrial water, and structural fire protection in any disadvantaged unincorporated community within or contiguous to the sphere of influence. In determining spheres of influence, SB 244 authorizes LAFCO to assess the feasibility of and recommend reorganization and consolidation of local agencies to further orderly development and improve the efficiency and affordability of infrastructure and service delivery. 6.6.1 Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities The community of Elk Creek is a disadvantaged Unincorporated Community. There is no city that can annex this area. 6.6.2 Elk Creek Disadvantaged Unincorporated Community Status 5-1] The community of Elk Creek is a Disadvantaged Unincorporated Community because the Median Household Income is less than 80% of the State Median Household Income. 34 GLENN LAFCO MSR-SOI ELK CREEK CSD APPENDIX A COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICTS57 1 Background In unincorporated areas, basic services like water, sewer, security, and fire protection are usually provided by the county. Because counties often consist of large and diverse geographical areas such as Glenn County, providing a consistent and adequate service level across all areas can be difficult. Consequently, the Community Services District Law (Government Code §61000-61850) was created to provide an alternate method of providing services in unincorporated areas. 2 Community Services District Law The law allows residents of an unincorporated area to initiate the formation of a community services district (also referred to as “CSD”). A CSD is authorized to provide a wide variety of services, including water, garbage collection, wastewater management, security, fire protection, public recreation, street lighting, mosquito abatement, conversion of overhead utilities to underground, library services, ambulance services, and graffiti abatement. A CSD may span unincorporated areas of multiple cities and/or counties. A CSD may issue bonds, or form an improvement district for the purpose of issuing bonds, as any City or County might do. Any bond issuance or other long-term debt will require a 2/3rds majority approval of registered voters residing within the CSD. 3 Why is a Community Services District Needed? Small communities may not have the tax base necessary to incorporate into a city. Instead, residents must rely on the county to provide all essential services. In most cases, due to the scope of their requirements, counties cannot provide tailored services to any one community. This leaves residents with little if any local control over services and no easy way to address problems or complaints. Once a CSD is formed, the residents elect a board of local residents to oversee CSD management and operations. Through board meetings and local presence, the community has a direct say in what types and levels of service it receives. Overall, this independent form of local government is able to be much more responsive to a community’s needs. 4 How is a Community Services District Formed? A CSD is initiated by a petition of registered voters or by adoption of a resolution at the county level. A CSD cannot be formed without a 2/3rds majority vote of residents living within the proposed boundaries. Once approved, the CSD may take over functions previously operated by the county. Provision of any new services requires a majority vote of the registered voters in the CSD and requires approval by the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO). 57 http://www.californiataxdata.com/pdf/CSD.pdf, August 4, 2011 35 GLENN LAFCO MSR-SOI ELK CREEK CSD APPENDIX B BACKGROUND FOR LAFCO LEGISLATION 1 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.” 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 effectiveness and efficiency of services provided by districts, or to make comparisons with neighboring districts or services provided through a city or county.”58 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. 2 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 2000.59 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 58 Little Hoover Commission, Special Districts: Relics of the Past or Resources for the Future? 2000, page 24. 59 The Commission on Local Governance for the 21st Century ceased to exist on July 1, 2000, pursuant to a statutory sunset provision. 36 GLENN LAFCO MSR-SOI ELK CREEK CSD 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. 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,”60 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 five required findings and one optional finding as required by Commission policy. 60 Commission on Local Governance for the 21st Century, Growth within Bounds: Planning California Governance for the 21st Century, 2000, page 70. 37 GLENN LAFCO MSR-SOI ELK CREEK CSD APPENDIX C LOCAL GOVERNMENT ISSUES 1 Municipal Financial Constraints Municipal service providers are constrained in their capacity to finance services by the inability to increase property taxes, requirements for voter approval for new or increased taxes, and requirements of voter approval for parcel taxes and assessments used to finance services. Municipalities must obtain majority voter approval to increase or impose new general taxes and two-thirds voter approval for special taxes. Limitations on property tax rates and increases in taxable property values are financing constraints. Property tax revenues are subject to a formulaic allocation and are vulnerable to State budget needs. Agencies formed since the adoption of Proposition 13 in 1978 often lack adequate financing. 1.1 California Local Government Finance Background The financial ability of the cities and special districts to provide services is affected by financial constraints. City service providers rely on a variety of revenue sources to fund city operating costs as follows:  Property Taxes  Benefit Assessments  Special Taxes  Proposition 172 Funds  Other contributions from city or district general funds. As a funding source, property taxes are constrained by Statewide initiatives that have been passed by voters over the years and special legislation. Seven of these measures are explained below: A. Proposition 13 Proposition 13 (which California voters approved in 1978) has the following three impacts:  Limits the ad valorem property tax rate  Limits growth of the assessed value of property  Requires voter approval of certain local taxes. Generally, this measure fixes the ad valorem tax at one percent of value; except for taxes to repay certain voter approved bonded indebtedness. In response to the adoption of Proposition 13, the Legislature enacted Assembly Bill 8 (AB 8) in 1979 to establish property tax allocation formulas. B. AB 8 Generally, AB 8 allocates property tax revenue to the local agencies within each tax rate area based on the proportion each agency received during the three fiscal years preceding adoption of Proposition 13. This allocation formula benefits local agencies, which had relatively high tax rates at the time Proposition 13 was enacted. C. Proposition 98 Proposition 98, which California voters approved in 1988, requires the State to maintain a minimum level of school funding. In 1992 and 1993, the Legislature began shifting billions of local property taxes to schools in response to State budget deficits. Local property taxes were diverted from local governments into the Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund (ERAF) and transferred to school districts and community college districts to reduce the amount paid by the State general fund. 38 GLENN LAFCO MSR-SOI ELK CREEK CSD Local agencies throughout the State lost significant property tax revenue due to this shift. Proposition 172 was enacted to help offset property tax revenue losses of cities and counties that were shifted to the ERAF for schools in 1992. D. Proposition 172 Proposition 172, enacted in 1993, provides the revenue of a half-cent sales tax to counties and cities for public safety purposes, including police, fire, district attorneys, corrections and lifeguards. Proposition 172 also requires cities and counties to continue providing public safety funding at or above the amount provided in FY 92-93. E. Proposition 218 Proposition 218, which California voters approved in 1996, requires voter- or property owner- approval of increased local taxes, assessments, and property-related fees. A two-thirds affirmative vote is required to impose a Special Tax, for example, a tax for a specific purpose such as a fire district special tax. However, majority voter approval is required for imposing or increasing general taxes such as business license or utility taxes, which can be used for any governmental purpose. These requirements do not apply to user fees, development impact fees and Mello-Roos districts. F. Proposition 26 Proposition 26 approved by California voters on November 2, 2010, requires that certain state fees be approved by two-thirds vote of Legislature and certain local fees be approved by two- thirds of voters. This proposition increases the legislative vote requirement to two-thirds for certain tax measures, including those that do not result in a net increase in revenue. Prior to its passage, these tax measures were subject to majority vote. However, majority voter approval is required for imposing or increasing general taxes such as business license or utility taxes, which can be used for any governmental purpose. These requirements do not apply to user fees, development impact fees and Mello-Roos districts. G. Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act The Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982 allows any county, city, special district, school district or joint powers authority to establish a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District (a “CFD”) which allows for financing of public improvements and services. The services and improvements that Mello-Roos CFDs can finance include streets, sewer systems and other basic infrastructure, police protection, fire protection, ambulance services, schools, parks, libraries, museums and other cultural facilities. By law, the CFD is also entitled to recover expenses needed to form the CFD and administer the annual special taxes and bonded debt. A CFD is created by a sponsoring local government agency. The proposed district will include all properties that will benefit from the improvements to be constructed or the services to be provided. A CFD cannot be formed without a two-thirds majority vote of residents living within the proposed boundaries. Or, if there are fewer than 12 residents, the vote is instead conducted of current landowners. In many cases, that may be a single owner or developer. Once approved, a Special Tax Lien is placed against each property in the CFD. Property owners then pay a Special Tax each year. If the project cost is high, municipal bonds will be sold by the CFD to provide the large amount of money initially needed to build the improvements or fund the services. The Special Tax cannot be directly based on the value of the property. Special Taxes instead are based on mathematical formulas that take into account property characteristics such as use of the property, square footage of the structure and lot size. The formula is defined at the time of formation, and will include a maximum special tax amount and a percentage maximum annual increase. 39 GLENN LAFCO MSR-SOI ELK CREEK CSD If bonds were issued by the CFD, special taxes will be charged annually until the bonds are paid off in full. Often, after bonds are paid off, a CFD will continue to charge a reduced fee to maintain the improvements. H. Development Impact Fees A county, cities, special districts, school districts, and private utilities may impose development impact fees on new construction for purposes of defraying the cost of putting in place public infrastructure and services to support new development. To impose development impact fees, a jurisdiction must justify the fees as an offset to the impact of future development on facilities. This usually requires a special financial study. The fees must be committed within five years to the projects for which they were collected, and the district, city or county must keep separate funds for each development impact fee. 1.2 Financing Opportunities that Require Voter Approval Financing opportunities that require voter approval include the following five taxes:  Special taxes such as parcel taxes  Increases in general taxes such as utility taxes  Sales and use taxes  Business license taxes  Transient occupancy taxes Communities may elect to form business improvement districts to finance supplemental services, or Mello-Roos districts to finance development-related infrastructure extension. Agencies may finance facilities with voter-approved (general obligation) bonded indebtedness. 1.3 Financing Opportunities that Do Not Require Voter Approval Financing opportunities that do not require voter approval include imposition of or increases in fees to more fully recover the costs of providing services, including user fees and Development Impact Fees to recover the actual cost of services provided and infrastructure. Development Impact Fees and user fees must be based on reasonable costs, and may be imposed and increased without voter approval. Development Impact Fees may not be used to subsidize operating costs. Agencies may also finance many types of facility improvements through bond instruments that do not require voter approval. Water rates and rate structures are not subject to regulation by other agencies. Utility providers may increase rates annually, and often do so. Generally, there is no voter approval requirement for rate increases, although notification of utility users is required. Water providers must maintain an enterprise fund for the respective utility separate from other funds, and may not use revenues to finance unrelated governmental activities. 2 Public Management Standards While public sector management standards do vary depending on the size and scope of an organization, there are minimum standards. Well-managed organizations do the following eight activities: 1. Evaluate employees annually. 2. Prepare a budget before the beginning of the fiscal year. 3. Conduct periodic financial audits to safeguard the public trust. 4. Maintain current financial records. 5. Periodically evaluate rates and fees. 6. Plan and budget for capital replacement needs. 7. Conduct advance planning for future growth. 8. Make best efforts to meet regulatory requirements. 40 GLENN LAFCO MSR-SOI ELK CREEK CSD Most of the professionally managed and staffed agencies implement many of these best management practices. LAFCO encourages all local agencies to conduct timely financial record- keeping for each city function and make financial information available to the public. 3 Public Participation in Government The Brown Act (California Government Code Section 54950 et seq.) is intended to insure that public boards shall take their actions openly and that deliberations shall be conducted openly. The Brown Act establishes requirements for the following:  Open meetings  Agendas that describe the business to be conducted at the meeting  Notice for meetings  Meaningful opportunity for the public to comment  Few exceptions for meeting in closed sessions and reports of items discussed in closed sessions. According to California Government Section 54959 Each member of a legislative body who attends a meeting of that legislative body where action is taken in violation of any provision of this chapter, and where the member intends to deprive the public of information to which the member knows or has reason to know the public is entitled under this chapter, is guilty of a misdemeanor. Section 54960 states the following: (a) The district attorney or any interested person may commence an action by mandamus, injunction or declaratory relief for the purpose of stopping or preventing violations or threatened violations of this chapter by members of the legislative body of a local agency or to determine the applicability of this chapter to actions or threatened future action of the legislative body. 41 GLENN LAFCO MSR-SOI ELK CREEK CSD APPENDIX D CONSUMER CONFIDENCE REPORT 42 GLENN LAFCO MSR-SOI ELK CREEK CSD APPENDIX E SAMPLE REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR AUDIT SERVICES _________________COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT PO Box --------------, ___________, CA Zip Code REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR ACCOUNTING SERVICES TO PROVIDE REQUIRED AUDITS FOR ____________________COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT 1. Introduction The ____________________Community Services District seeks proposals from Certified Public Accountants to perform annual or biannual audits as required by the State of California. The scope of work involves securing the information from the __________CSD and providing the Audit to the District by the required June 30, 2011 deadline. The Certified Public Accountant chosen will need to cooperate with the Modoc County Department Auditor to procure the necessary information. ______CSD processes all claims and maintains all funds with the ______________________Bank. 2. Submittal Requirements There is no expressed or implied obligation for _____________CSD to reimburse responding firms for any expenses incurred in preparing proposals in response to this request. To be considered, a response to this request must be received by the _______________Community Services District, PO Box ----, ___________CA by______________, 2014. Proposals sent by private delivery may be sent to --------------- ---- CA by Noon __________________2014. 3. Evaluation Process During the evaluation process, ________________CSD reserves the right, where it may serve ________________CSD’s best interest, to request additional information or clarifications from responders, or to allow corrections of errors or omissions. At the discretion of ________________CSD, firms submitting proposals may be requested to make oral presentations as part of the evaluation process. ________________CSD reserves the right to retain all proposals submitted and to use any ideas in a proposal regardless of whether or not that proposal is selected. Submission of a proposal is acceptance by the firm of the conditions contained in this request for proposals, unless clearly and specifically noted in the proposal submitted and confirmed in the contract between the District and the firm selected. It is anticipated that the selection of a firm will be completed by ___________________2011. Following the notification of the selected firm, it is expected a contract will be executed between both parties no later than five days thereafter. 4. Proposal Requirements Responses to the RFP must include all of the following: 1. A statement about the firm that describes history, competencies and resumes of the principal and of all the professionals who will be involved in the work. This statement should address the following: a. Experience with Audits for Special Districts in California and completion of necessary reports to the California State Controller b. Ability to work cooperatively with the Modoc County Auditor c. Ability to perform the work, stay within budget and meet deadlines d. A statement that the firm carries errors and omissions, general liability and workers’ compensation insurance, and the limits of liability on all of those. 2. A proposed form of contract for the work, and the rates and estimates of total cost. The proposal should include the cost for completion of the Biennial Audit for Fiscal Years 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 by June 30, 2011 and the cost to perform Annual or Biennial Audits in the future. 43 GLENN LAFCO MSR-SOI ELK CREEK CSD 5. Evaluation Criteria Proposals will be evaluated based upon their response to the provisions of this Request for Proposals and by the following criteria: a. Expertise with Audits for Special Districts in California b. Ability to work with pertinent parties and knowledgeable experts c. Cost Estimates d. Ability to complete the work in a timely manner Please note that this will be a competitive selection process. Based on the criteria above, the completeness of the responses, cost and the overall project approach identified in the proposals received, the most qualified firms may be invited, at their expense, for an interview with the ______________CSD Board of Directors. Following interviews, the most qualified firm will be selected and a recommended agreement including budget, schedule and a scope of services will be negotiated. 6. Additional Information Firms are encouraged to contact __________________, at 530----------or E-Mail _________________with any questions relating to this RFP. This is an Equal Opportunity Program. Discrimination is prohibited by Federal Law. Complaints of discrimination may be filed with the Secretary of Agriculture, Washington, D.C. 20250. 44 GLENN LAFCO MSR-SOI ELK CREEK CSD ABBREVIATIONS AB Assembly Bill AF Acre-Foot AL Regulatory Action Level (water quality) CA California CALFIRE California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection CCR Consumer Confidence Report CDP Census-designated place CDPH California Department of Public Health CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CFD Community Facilities District CIP Capital Improvement Plan CKH Act Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 CPA Certified Public Accountant CRWQCB California Regional Water Quality Control Board CSA County Service Area CSD Community Services District CWC California Water Code District Elk Creek Community Services District DUC Disadvantaged Unincorporated Community DWR Department of Water Resources (California) ERAF Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund FPD Fire Protection District FY Fiscal Year GASB Governmental Accounting Standards Board hp horse power ISO Insurance Service Organization (Fire Protection) LAFCO Local Agency Formation Commission 45 GLENN LAFCO MSR-SOI ELK CREEK CSD MCL Maximum Contaminant Level (water quality) MCLG Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (water quality) mgd million gallons per day MHI Median Household Income MRDL Maximum Residual Disinfectant Level (water quality) MRDLG Maximum Residual Disinfectant Level Goal (water quality) MSL Mean Sea Level MSR Municipal Service Review (LAFCO) NPDWRs National Primary Drinking Water Regulations NSDWRs National Secondary Drinking Water Regulations OPR Office of Planning and Research (California) pCi/I picocuries per liter (a measure of radioactivity) PDWS Primary Drinking Water Standards PG&E Pacific Gas and Electric Company psi pounds per square inch PHG Public Health Goal ppb parts per billion ppm parts per million ppq parts per quadrillion ppt parts per trillion psi pounds per square inch psig pound-force per square inch gauge PVC polyvinyl chloride RFP Request for Proposals SB Senate Bill SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act (US) SFD Single Family Dwelling SOI Sphere of Influence (LAFCO) 46 GLENN LAFCO MSR-SOI ELK CREEK CSD USDA United States Department of Agriculture USBR United States Bureau of Reclamation ULFT ultra-low-flow-toilet WTP Water Treatment Plant 47 GLENN LAFCO MSR-SOI ELK CREEK CSD DEFINITIONS Acre Foot: The volume of water that will cover one acre to a depth of one foot, 325,850 U.S. Gallons or 1,233,342 liters (approximately). Agriculture: Use of land for the production of food and fiber, including the growing of crops and/or the grazing of animals on natural prime or improved pastureland. Aquifer: An underground, water-bearing layer of earth, porous rock, sand, or gravel, through which water can seep or be held in natural storage. Aquifers generally hold sufficient water to be used as a water supply. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA): A State Law requiring State and local agencies to regulate activities with consideration for environmental protection. If a proposed activity has the potential for a significant adverse environmental impact, an environmental impact report (EIR) must be prepared and certified as to its adequacy before taking action on the proposed project. Community Facilities District: Under the Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982 (Section 53311, et seq.) a legislative body may create within its jurisdiction a special tax district that can finance tax-exempt bonds for the planning, design, acquisition, construction, and/or operation of public facilities, as well as public services for district residents. Special taxes levied solely within the district are used to repay the bonds. Community Services District (CSD): A geographic subarea of a county used for planning and delivery of parks, recreation, and other human services based on an assessment of the service needs of the population in that subarea. A CSD is a taxation district with independent administration. Groundwater: Water under the earth’s surface, often confined to aquifers capable of supplying wells and springs. Groundwater infiltration: Infiltration that enters pipeline and manhole defects located below the groundwater table. Groundwater infiltration is at a maximum during wet weather and might drop to near zero in the dry months. Infrastructure: Public services and facilities such as sewage-disposal systems, water-supply systems, and other utility systems, schools and roads. Land Use Classification: A system for classifying and designating the appropriate use of properties. Leapfrog Development; New development separated from existing development by substantial vacant land. Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO): A five-or seven-member commission within each county that reviews and evaluates all proposals for formation of special districts, incorporation of cities, annexation to special districts or cities, consolidation of districts, and merger of districts with cities. Each county’s LAFCO is empowered to approve, disapprove, or conditionally approve such proposals. The LAFCO members generally include two county supervisors, two city council members, and one member representing the general public. Some LAFCOs include two representatives of special districts. 48 GLENN LAFCO MSR-SOI ELK CREEK CSD Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL): The designation given by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) to water-quality standards promulgated under the Safe Drinking Water Act. The MCL is the greatest amount of a contaminant that can be present in drinking water without causing a risk to human health.61 Mean Sea Level: The average altitude of the sea surface for all tidal stages. Ordinance: A law or regulation set forth and adopted by a governmental authority. Per Capita Water Use: The water produced by or introduced into the system of a water supplier divided by the total residential population; normally expressed in gallons per capita per day (gpcd).62 Percolation: The downward movement of water through the soil or alluvium to a ground water table.63 pH: a measure of the relative acidity or alkalinity of water. Water with a pH of 7 is neutral; lower pH levels indicate increasing acidity, while pH levels higher than 7 indicate increasingly basic solutions.64 Potable Water: Water of a quality suitable for drinking.65 Primary Drinking Water Standards (PDWS): MCLs and MRDLs for contaminants that affect health along with their monitoring and reporting requirements, and water treatment requirements. Proposition 13: (Article XIIIA of the California Constitution) Passed in 1978, this proposition enacted sweeping changes to the California property tax system. Under Prop. 13, property taxes cannot exceed 1% of the value of the property and assessed valuations cannot increase by more than 2% per year. Property is subject to reassessment when there is a transfer of ownership or improvements are made.66 Proposition 218: (Article XIIID of the California Constitution) This proposition, named "The Right to Vote on Taxes Act", filled some of the perceived loopholes of Proposition 13. Under Proposition 218, assessments may only increase with a two-thirds majority vote of the qualified voters within the District. In addition to the two-thirds voter approval requirement, Proposition 218 states that effective July 1, 1997, any assessments levied may not be more than the costs necessary to provide the service, proceeds may not be used for any other purpose other than providing the services intended, and assessments may only be levied for services that are immediately available to property owners.67 Public Health Goal (PHG): The level of a contaminant in drinking water below which there is no known or expected risk to health. PHGs are set by the California Environmental Protection Agency. Ranchette: A single dwelling unit occupied by a non-farming household on a parcel of 2.5 to 20 acres that has been subdivided from agricultural land. 61 http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/dictionary.html 62 http://rubicon.water.ca.gov/v1cwp/glssry.html 63 http://rubicon.water.ca.gov/v1cwp/glssry.html 64 http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/dictionary.html#P, November 29, 2011. 65 http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/dictionary.html 66 http://www.californiataxdata.com/A_Free_Resources/glossary_PS.asp#ps_08 67 http://www.californiataxdata.com/A_Free_Resources/glossary_PS.asp#ps_08 49 GLENN LAFCO MSR-SOI ELK CREEK CSD Regulatory Action Level (AL): The concentration of a contaminant which, if exceeded, triggers treatment or other requirements that a water system must follow. Secondary Drinking Water Standards (SDWS): MCLs for contaminants that affect taste, odor, or appearance of the drinking water. Contaminants with SDWSs do not affect the health at the MCL levels. Sphere of Influence (SOI): The probable physical boundaries and service area of a local agency, as determined by the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) of the county. Treatment Technique (TT): A required process intended to reduce the level of a contaminant in drinking water. Urban: Of, relating to, characteristic of, or constituting a city. Urban areas are generally characterized by moderate and higher density residential development (i.e., three or more dwelling units per acre), commercial development, and industrial development, and the availability of public services required for that development, specifically central water and sewer service, an extensive road network, public transit, and other such services (e.g., safety and emergency response). Development not providing such services may be “non-urban” or “rural”. CEQA defines “urbanized area” as an area that has a population density of at least 1,000 persons per square mile (Public Resources Code Section 21080.14(b)). Urban Services: Utilities (such as water, gas, electricity, and sewer) and public services (such as police, fire protection, schools, parks, and recreation) provided to an urbanized or urbanizing area. Variances and Exemptions: Department permission to exceed an MCL or not comply with a treatment technique under certain conditions. Zoning: The division of a city by legislative regulations into areas, or zones, that specify allowable uses for real property and size restrictions for buildings within these areas; a program that implements policies of the general plan. 50 GLENN LAFCO MSR-SOI ELK CREEK CSD REFERENCES Arbuckle PUD, Small Water System 2011 Annual Report to the Drinking Water Program for year Ending December 31, 2011. Arbuckle PUD, Water Rates as of January 1, 2009. Artois Community Services District, Jack Cavier, Jr., President, March 1, 2012. Callayomi County Water District, Secretary Janet Mondragon, E-Mail: janetccwd@mediacombb.net, January 10, 2013. California Pines CSD, Vera Sphar, June 12, 2009. California Pines CSD Service Rates Effective June 2006. City of Colusa, Water Department, Phone 458-4740 Ex100, August 7, 2012. City of Susanville, 530-252-5111, August 3, 2012. City of Williams, Greg Endeman, gendeman@cityofwilliams.org, October 1, 2012. Clear Creek CSD, Pat Mudrich, Manager, August 22, 2012 Clear Creek CSD, Lassen LAFCO Questionnaire June 6, 2012. Colusa County Ordinance No. 673, An Ordinance of the Colusa County Board of Supervisors Increasing water service Fees; authorizing administrative Fees; providing for the Collection of Delinquent Charges; and Directing That No New Water Hook-ups Be Permitted for County Service Area Number 1-Century Ranch, March 16, 2004., Colusa County Ordinance No 674, An Ordinance of the Colusa County Board of Supervisors Increasing Water Service Fees; Authorizing Administrative Fees; Providing for the Collection of Delinquent charges; and Directing That No New Water Hook-ups be permitted for County Service Area Number 2-Stonyford, March 16, 2004. California Water Service Company, 1720 North First Street, San Jose, California, 95112, Phone: 408-367-8200, Schedule No. WL-1-R Willows Tariff Area, Effective 5/3/12. Commission on Local Governance for the 21st Century, Growth within Bounds: Planning California Governance for the 21st Century, 2000, page 70. Durham, David L. (1998). California's Geographic Names: A Gazetteer of Historic and Modern Names of the State. Quill Driver Books. p. 231. ISBN 9781884995149. Elk Creek Community Services District, Arnold Kjer, Water Plant Operator, meeting, September 28, 2011. Elk Creek CSD, Preliminary Engineering Report, Prepare by cma, Charpier Martin & Associates, Sacramento, California, November 29, 1995 Glenn County, Department of Finance, Deborah Storz, September 14, 2011, December 9, 2013. County General Plan, Environmental Setting Technical Paper, January 22, 1993, Page 49. http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/dictionary.html 51 GLENN LAFCO MSR-SOI ELK CREEK CSD http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/dictionary.html#P, November 29, 2011. http://rubicon.water.ca.gov/v1cwp/glssry.html http://www.californiataxdata.com/A_Free_Resources/glossary_PS.asp#ps_08 http://www.californiataxdata.com/pdf/CSD.pdf, August 4, 2011 Lassen County Waterworks District 1 (Bieber), Stephen Jackson, Manager, Phone: 530-294- 5524, March 1, 2011. Lassen County Waterworks District 1 (Bieber), Ordinance 09-2, An Ordinance amending the Ordinance Establishing the Rate for Water Service by the Lassen County Waterworks District 1 (Bieber), June 16, 2009. Little Hoover Commission, Special Districts: Relics of the Past or Resources for the Future? 2000, page 24. Little Valley CSD, Director Devora Kelley, March 19, 2012. Maxwell PUD, Diana Mason, Phone 438-2505, August 8, 2012. Westwood Community Services District, Resolution 2011-01, A resolution of the Westwood Community Services District Increasing Water Rates, June 6, 2011. Northeast Center of the California Historical Resources Information System, Record Search, November 23, 2010. Remy, Michael H., Tina A. Thomas, James G. Moose, Whitman F. Manley, Guide to CEQA, Solano Press Books, Point Arena, CA, February 2007, page 111. State of California, Department of Finance, E-4 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2001-2010, with 2000 and 2010 Census Counts. Sacramento, California, August 2011. State of California, Department of Public Health Drinking Water Field Operations Branch, Valley District, (No. 21), 364 Knollcrest Drive, #101, Redding CA 96002, Ray Bruun, P.E. Associate Engineer, Phone: 530-32542, Fax: 530-224-4844, E-Mail: rbruun@cdph.ca.gov, December 28, 2013. US Bureau of Reclamation, Jake Berens, E-Mail: jberens@usbr.gov, Phone: 530-934-1359, Fax: 530-934-1302, E-Mail to Andy Popper, 1-4-12. PREPARERS Christy Leighton, Executive Officer Glenn LAFCO 555 E. Willow Street, Willows CA 95988 Phone: 530-934-4597, E-Mail: christyleighton@sbcglobal.net Andy Popper, Glenn County Planning and Public Works Agency PO Box 1070, Willows CA 95988 52 GLENN LAFCO MSR-SOI ELK CREEK CSD Elk Creek Community Services District Facilities Map 53 Elk Creek Community Services District Water Distribution System =EAST Water Tanks WEST GLENN LAFCO MSR-SOI ELK CREEK CSD Elk Creek Community Services District Air Photo Map 55 GLENN LAFCO MSR-SOI ELK CREEK CSD Elk Creek Community Services District Topography Map 56 GLENN LAFCO MSR-SOI ELK CREEK CSD Elk Creek Community Services District General Plan Designations Map 57 GLENN LAFCO MSR-SOI ELK CREEK CSD Elk Creek Community Services District Zoning Designations Map 58