Buckingham Water District MSR and SOI Nov.17, 2010

ADOPTED BUCKINGHAM PARK WATER DISTRICT MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW (MSR) AND SPHERE OF INFLUENCE (SOI) http://www.lcrem.com/western.html LAKE LAFCO Adopted November 17, 2010 LAFCo Resolution 2010-10 MSR LAFCo Resolution 2010-11 SOI Adopted LAKE LAFCO MSR/SOI Buckingham Park Water District Resolution 2010-0010 MSR and Resolution 2010-0011 SOI November 17, 2010 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1.1 LAFCO's Responsibilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1.2 Municipal Service Review Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1.3 Lake LAFCO Policies and Procedures related to Municipal Services . . . . . . . 1 1.4 Preparation of the MSR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1.5 Description of Public Participation Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1.6 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2 SERVICE AREA SETTING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.1 Lake County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.2 Lake County Population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.3 Lake County Surface Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3 BUCKINGHAM PARK WATER DISTRICT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3.1 Location of Buckingham Park . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3.2 History of Buckingham Park Water District . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3.3 Buckingham Park Population Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3.4 Buckingham Park Water District Government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3.5 Domestic Water Supply, Treatment and Distribution Background . . . . . . . . . 9 3.6 Buckingham Park Water District Water Supply . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 3.7 Buckingham Park Water District Water Storage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 3.8 Buckingham Park Water District Fire Flows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 3.9 Buckingham Park Water District Water Supply Infrastructure . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 3.10 Water Quality and Water Conservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 3.11 Finances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 4 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 4.1 Growth and Population Projections for the Buckingham Park Area . . . . . . . . 15 4.2 Capacity and Infrastructure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 4.3 Financial Ability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 4.4 Opportunities for Shared Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 4.5 Government Structure and Accountability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 5 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE (SOI) DETERMINATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 5.1 Sphere of Influence Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 5.2 Present and Planned Land Uses in the Buckingham Park Area, Including Agricultural and Open Space Lands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 5.3 Municipal Services—Present and Probable Capacity and Need . . . . . . . . . . 27 5.4 The Present Capacity of Public Facilities and Adequacy of Public Services Provided by the Buckingham Park Water District . . . . . . . . 28 5.5 Social or Economic Communities of Interest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 APPENDIX A LOCAL GOVERNMENT ISSUES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 ABBREVIATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 DEFINITIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 PREPARERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Map of Sphere of Influence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 1 Adopted LAKE LAFCO MSR/SOI Buckingham Park Water District Resolution 2010-0010 MSR and Resolution 2010-0011 SOI November 17, 2010 1 INTRODUCTION This Municipal Service Review is prepared for the Buckingham Park Water District. The Municipal Services Review (MSR) analyzes municipal services offered by the Buckingham Park Water District and the District’s capability to serve existing and future residents in the Buckingham Park area. The Municipal Service Review (MSR) includes the following information: • LAFCO requirements for MSRs • Lake County and Buckingham Park Area background • Description of water service provided by Buckingham Park Water District • Analysis of Buckingham Park Water District’s capability to serve existing and future residents in the area 1.1 LAFCO's Responsibilities Local Agency Formation Commissions are quasi-legislative local agencies created in 1963 to assist the State in encouraging the orderly development and formation of local agencies. 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 of each local agency. The Governor’s Office of Planning and Research has issued Guidelines for the preparation of an MSR. This MSR adheres to the procedures set forth in the MSR Guidelines. A Sphere of Influence 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 Sphere of Influence be updated not less than every five years, and §56430 provides that a Municipal Service Review shall be conducted in advance of the Sphere of Influence update. 1.2 Municipal Service Review Requirements The Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 (Government Code §56000 et seq.) as amended by AB1744 and regulations call for a review of the municipal services provided in the county or other appropriate area designated by the LAFCO. The LAFCO is required, as part of the MSR, to prepare a written statement of findings of its determinations with respect to each of the following: 1. Growth and Population 2. Capacity and Infrastructure 3. Financial Ability 4. Shared Facilities 5. Government Structure and Accountability 1.3 Lake LAFCO Policies and Procedures Related to Municipal Services The Lake LAFCO adopted policies and procedures related to municipal services on March 20, 2002. There were amended by action of the Lake LAFCO on July 16, 2003 and November 28, 2007. 1 Adopted LAKE LAFCO MSR/SOI Buckingham Park Water District Resolution 2010-0010 MSR and Resolution 2010-0011 SOI November 17, 2010 1.4 Preparation of the MSR Research for this Municipal Service Review (MSR) was originally conducted during 2009. Since that time, several modifications have been made to add additional information. This MSR is intended to support preparation and update of the Sphere of Influence, in accordance with the provisions of the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Act. The objective of this Municipal Service Review (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. While LAFCO prepared the MSR document; LAFCO did not engage the services of experts in engineering, geology, hydrology, fire protection, accounting, auditing or other specialists in related fields, but relied upon reports and Lake County and Buckingham Park Water District staff for information. Therefore, this MSR reflects LAFCO’s recommendations, based on available information during the research period and provided by Buckingham Park Water District 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 provision for Buckingham Park Water District. 1.5 Description of Public Participation Process Lake LAFCO is a legislative body authorized by the California Legislature and delegated powers as stated in the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 (the Act). The LAFCO proceedings are subject to the provisions 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. Lake 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 municipal service review process. Local MSR policies have been adopted by the Lake LAFCO. Lake LAFCO has discussed and considered the MSR process in open session, and has adopted a schedule for completing the various municipal service reviews and sphere of influence updates for Lake County. Each municipal service review will be prepared as a draft, and will be subject to public and agency comment prior to final consideration by the Lake LAFCO. 1.6 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) The Municipal Service Review is a planning study that will be considered by Lake LAFCO in connection with subsequent proceedings regarding the Buckingham Park Water District and the Sphere of Influence. The Sphere of Influence review or update that will follow has not been approved or adopted by LAFCO. This MSR is funded in the Lake LAFCO’s 2009-2010 Budget. This MSR includes an analysis, to the extent required by Section 15262 of the CEQA Guidelines, of the environmental factors that may be affected by the Municipal Service Review process, but will not include the preparation of an environmental review document. 2 Adopted LAKE LAFCO MSR/SOI Buckingham Park Water District Resolution 2010-0010 MSR and Resolution 2010-0011 SOI November 17, 2010 2 SERVICE AREA SETTING 2.1 Lake County Lake County is located in the northwestern part of California north of the San Francisco Bay Area, situated between the coast to the west and the Sacramento Valley to the East. As home to the State’s largest natural freshwater lake, Clear Lake, the area has been a strong attraction for family vacations, fishing tournaments, and general tourism destinations for many generations. There are two incorporated cities within the County: • City of Clearlake, on Clear Lake’s eastern shore, and • City of Lakeport, the County Seat, on the western shore. Many unincorporated communities dot the landscape, and provide year-round and summer homes, camping, hotels, and bed and breakfast inns, specialty retail, and access to outdoor recreational activities. Elevations in Lake County range from 1,000 feet above sea level near Hidden Valley Lake to 7,056 feet at Snow Mountain located in the Mendocino National Forest. The Mendocino National Forest comprises 31 percent of the land area within Lake County and an additional 17 percent of land area is located within other public lands encompassing 381,193 acres of the 806,976 total acreage of Lake County. 2.2 Lake County Population Permanent population in Lake County as estimated by the California Department of Finance (2003) is 61,300. According the 2000 Census, the number of housing units is estimated to be 32,525. According to the 2000 Census, the unincorporated portion of the County has a permanent population of 40,347 and the estimated number of existing housing units is 22,529. Growth from 2000 to 2009 is shown in the following table: POPULATION ESTIMATES FOR LAKE COUNTY 2000-20091 Year Lake County City of Clearlake City of Lakeport Unincorporated Population Population Population Area Population 2000 58,325 13,147 4,820 40,358 2001 59,315 13,273 4,878 41,164 2002 60,565 13,452 4,971 42,142 2003 61,493 13,574 5,024 42,895 2004 62,292 13,729 5,053 43,510 2005 62,878 13,727 5,079 44,072 2006 63,404 13,767 5,071 44,566 2007 63,862 14,018 5,054 44,610 2008 63,805 14,189 5,024 44,592 1 State of California, Department of Finance, “E-4 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties and the State, 2001-2009, with 2000 Benchmark,” Sacramento, California, May 2009. 3 Adopted LAKE LAFCO MSR/SOI Buckingham Park Water District Resolution 2010-0010 MSR and Resolution 2010-0011 SOI November 17, 2010 2009 64,025 14,390 5,146 44,489 4 Adopted LAKE LAFCO MSR/SOI Buckingham Park Water District Resolution 2010-0010 MSR and Resolution 2010-0011 SOI November 17, 2010 Population characteristics throughout the study area (Lake County) are substantially affected by seasonal variations, distinct user groups and the abundance of second homes. According to the 2000 census, there are 8,884, unoccupied units representing a 26.30% vacancy rate. In order to plan for peak demand periods, part-time residents must be factored into population projections. The seasonal day user also creates a significant portion of peak demand on urban services, including wastewater collection and treatment. Assuming the number of persons per household (2.387) for seasonal as well as year-around units are the same, a total additional population of 20,418 persons could potentially reside in Lake County on a seasonal basis. This figure does not include population increases resulting from the hotel or resort industry. Therefore, a seasonal population in Lake County could be as much as 78,727 especially in light of the fact the Census is conducted on April 1st, which is not considered the peak season in Lake County. Lake County is forecasted by the State of California to have a substantial increase in population during the forecasted period (2000-2020).2 The population projections for Lake County are as follows: California Department of Finance Population Projections for Lake County Population Projections with and without Occupancy of Seasonal Units Year Lake County Year Lake County Total Population Peak Population* 2000 59,100 2000 79,518 2005 69,200 2005 89,618 2010 77,620 2010 98,038 2015 84,400 2015 104,818 2020 93,000 2020 113,418 Source: California Department of Finance, 2001. *Assumes existing number of vacant units are occupied. To illustrate the effect part-time residents have on the study area, projections are provided for the County with and without inclusion of part time residents. With inclusion of part- time residents, population and commensurate demand on water treatment, distribution and storage infrastructure increases approximately 26% above the figures used by the State Department of Finance. Using the State Department of Finance figures without accounting for vacant units, population projections for Lake County would reflect an annual +2.76% change in population between the years 2000 and 2010 and an annual +1.83% change in population between the years 2010 and 2020. Assuming this amount is realized the population of Lake County will increase by 31.3% between 2000 and 2010 and by another 19.8% between 2010 and 2020. It should be taken into account that areas of the County are growing at different rates. Given these figures one may project an increase in water demand assuming population growth rates remain consistent, the same ratio of the population added will be served by a water system and the vacancy rate will remain constant indicating a potential water demand increase of up to 26% since many of the residential second units are occupied during the summer months. 2 State Department of Finance, “Interim Population Projections Report” p.1, June 2001. 5 Adopted LAKE LAFCO MSR/SOI Buckingham Park Water District Resolution 2010-0010 MSR and Resolution 2010-0011 SOI November 17, 2010 2.3 Lake County Surface Water Since the Buckingham Park Water District takes water from Clear Lake a brief discussion of Clear Lake and the water rights is in order. 2.3.1 Surface Water Overview Three major drainages exist within Lake County as follows: • The Eel River Drainage • The Putah Creek Drainage • The Cache Creek Drainage The Eel River Drainage is located in the northern portion of the County, and goes north to Humboldt County and southwest to Mendocino County. The Putah Creek Drainage is located in the southern portion of the County, with a watershed that includes the Mayacmas Mountains, and flows in an east-southeast direction into Lake Berryessa in Napa County and then into the Central Valley. The third, Cache Creek Drainage, is the most dominant hydrologic feature of the County. The Clear Lake Basin area is the primary producer of waterflows to the Cache Creek drainage. This drainage collects water from the western and central portions of the County, and includes approximately 40 percent of the County’s drainage area within its boundaries. Clear Lake is located within the Cache Creek Drainage. The average depth of Clear Lake is about 26 feet. The Lake is composed of three arms as follows: Upper Arm, Oaks Arm, and Lower Arm (Highlands Arm)3 2.3.2 Surface Water Rights Water has always been an essential commodity in California and a complex system of water rights has developed. The Buckingham Park Water District has riparian rights to extract Clearlake water. There are two main types of surface water rights as follows: Riparian rights “Riparian rights” are the highest priority water rights and are attached to land that borders natural waterways. Based on legal precedents, riparian rights water can only be used on the property adjacent to the waterway and users are prohibited from transferring their water. Previously, riparian rights secured unlimited water use. A later court case established that riparian rights water users must be held to a standard of “reasonable use” and are prohibited from waste, unreasonable use, or unreasonable methods of diversion. Appropriative rights “Appropriative rights” are the second type of water rights and can be secured by properties that do not directly border waterways. Miners were the first to initiate this water rights system by posting a notice to divert water and secure the water right. Appropriative water rights were legally recognized in 1855 and are prioritized by a “first 3 Lake County Watershed Protection District, “Lake County Water Inventory and Analysis”, March 2006, page 2-5. 6 Adopted LAKE LAFCO MSR/SOI Buckingham Park Water District Resolution 2010-0010 MSR and Resolution 2010-0011 SOI November 17, 2010 in time, first in right” hierarchy. Appropriative water rights must be put to “beneficial use” and can expire if the water is not used for a period of five years.4 According to the “Lake County Water Inventory and Analysis”, Conflicts developed between water users over the distinctions between riparian and appropriative water rights. In order to address these issues, the Water Commission Act of 1913 declared water a property of the State of California. The Water Commission Act also created a permit process to control water rights and established the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) to govern the permit process. The Water Commission Act became the basis for appropriating water. The Act does not apply to riparian, appropriative, or groundwater rights established prior to 1914 (“Pre-1914” rights). During years of water shortage, appropriative rights users must cut back their water use. The most recent right-holders are the most junior and are subject to the cutbacks first. Appropriative rights holders continue to be cut back in an inverse priority until the shortage is corrected. 5 2.3.3 Clear Lake Water Rights According to the “Lake County Water Inventory and Analysis”, Yolo County, to the southeast of Lake County, holds the majority of the water rights to Clear Lake, its tributaries, and Cache Creek (which drains the Lake). Most Lake County water purveyors do not have rights to Clear Lake and must enter into contracts with Yolo County to purchase Clear Lake surface water. Numerous water and ditch companies dating back to the late 1800s acquired appropriative water rights from Cache Creek and its source, Clear Lake. The Yolo Water and Power Company later obtained many of these companies. In 1912, the Yolo Water and Power Company made an application for water from Cache Creek, including Clear Lake and all the streams flowing into the Lake. Up to this point Lake County had never applied for water rights and so the water right was given to the Yolo Water and Power Company. Eventually the Clear Lake Water Company purchased the Yolo County Water and Power Company, which was then purchased by Yolo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District. Today the Yolo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District’s appropriative water right allows them to divert up to 150,000 acre-feet of water annually from Clear Lake with certain conditions. The Gopcevic Decree (1920) established Yolo Water and Power’s water right for Clear Lake to be between 0 and 7.56 feet Rumsey6 and required the Lake to be operated between 0 and 7.56 feet Rumsey, with certain exceptions during flood conditions. The Solano Decree 4 Lake County Watershed Protection District, “Lake County Water Inventory and Analysis”, March 2006, page 3-1. 5 Lake County Watershed Protection District, “Lake County Water Inventory and Analysis”, March 2006, p 3-1 and 3-2. 6 The Rumsey Gauge is a measurement of the lake level that was established back in 1872 when Capt. Rumsey created a gauge to measure the various lake levels. He came up with a standard that is still used today. Rumsey decided that when water ceased to flow over the Grigsby Riffle, the lake would be at zero on his gauge. Zero Rumsey is equal to a height of 1318.256 feet above sea level. When water was above the riffle it would be called plus Rumsey, such as 1 foot, 2 feet and so on. Below the riffle, the lake level would be measured as minus Rumsey. All measurements were based on zero Rumsey at the Grigsby Riffle, which is located on Cache Creek, about two miles from the dam. Yolo County was originally allowed to take the lake level down to zero on the Rumsey Gauge, however in 1978, eight years after Indian Valley Reservoir was built, Yolo County made an agreement with Lake County to stop taking water out of Clear Lake at plus-1 foot on the Rumsey Gauge.( http://www.record-bee.com/ci_10424164?source=most_emailed) 7 Adopted LAKE LAFCO MSR/SOI Buckingham Park Water District Resolution 2010-0010 MSR and Resolution 2010-0011 SOI November 17, 2010 (1978, revised March 30, 1995) regulates summer Lake levels and the maximum amount of water that Yolo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District can divert.7 7 Lake County Watershed Protection District, “Lake County Water Inventory and Analysis”, March 2006, p 3-2 and 3-3. 8 Adopted LAKE LAFCO MSR/SOI Buckingham Park Water District Resolution 2010-0010 MSR and Resolution 2010-0011 SOI November 17, 2010 3 BUCKINGHAM PARK WATER DISTRICT 3.1 Location of Buckingham Park The community of Buckingham Park is located on the western edge of Clear Lake, between the community of Soda Bay and Konocti Harbor. The community is surrounded on three sides by Clear Lake. A map of the District is shown at the end of this report. The Buckingham Park Water District provides domestic water to residential and commercial users within its jurisdiction. The Buckingham Park residents have a Kelseyville address. The Buckingham Homes Association provides the following history of the area:8 In 1875, Thomas H. Buckingham moved from San Francisco to Lake County where he purchased the land under the tip of Mt. Konocti. Mr. Buckingham owned the Buckingham Shoe Company. He built a cottage for his family and for visitors from the Bay Area. They held boat regattas, canoed in Little Borax Lake and held horse races around the lake in back of the cottage. In 1956, a meeting was held at Rickey's Restaurant in Stonestown, San Francisco, California. The purpose was to reactivate Buckingham Homes Association, Ltd., a non-profit corporation which was organized in 1930 by Buckingham Colonies, Limited. The purpose was to "promote the collective and individual interest of all persons owning lots in the subdivided areas of Buckingham Park, and to enforce the restrictions, conditions and covenants affecting the real property in Buckingham Park that were drawn up and recorded by Buckingham Colonies, Limited." 3.2 History of Buckingham Park Water District According to the Buckingham Park Water District “Financial Statements Audit Report”, “The Buckingham Park Water District (formerly known as the Buckingham Park County Water District) was formed on August 10, 1978” to replace County Service Area (CSA) No. 8. The District operates pursuant to California Water Code Section 30000 et seq. There are no annexations on record for the Buckingham Park Water District. The District bounds and Sphere of Influence (contiguous to District bounds) have not changed since the Sphere of Influence was set in 1985. 3.3 Buckingham Park Population Data According to the General Plan Background Report, the District serves a population of 800 permanent residents9 with a total of 448 connections.10 Growth in the community of Buckingham Park is limited to a large degree by the geography of the immediate area because Clear Lake surrounds the community on three sides. 8 Buckingham Homes Association, 2850 Eastlake Drive, Kelseyville, CA 95451-903, Office (707) 279- 0829, http://www.buckinghamhomesassociation.com/history/history.htm, August 28, 2009. 9 Buckingham Park WD, March 30, 2010. 10 Buckingham Park Water District, Budget 2009-2010, http://bpwd.web.officelive.com/publichearing.aspx 9 Adopted LAKE LAFCO MSR/SOI Buckingham Park Water District Resolution 2010-0010 MSR and Resolution 2010-0011 SOI November 17, 2010 Recent information provided by Buckingham Park Water District’s staff indicates that the part- time to full-time residents ratio for the District’s service area is considerably different. Based upon continual analysis of customer’s billing addresses, of the 448 active service connections 210 receive their mail locally and 231 receive their mail elsewhere. Considering this, it can be assumed that the District’s part-time residents versus full-time resident ratio is closer to 47% and 53%, respectively. 3.4 Buckingham Park Water District Government Contact information for the Buckingham Park Water District is as follows: Buckingham Park Water District 2880 East Lake Drive, Kelseyville, CA 95451 Phone: 707-279-8568 Fax: 707-279-2947 E-mail: bpwd@mchsi.com Web site: http://bpwd.web.officelive.com Office Hours: Monday through Thursday 9:00 - 2:00 Emergency Contact: Ellen Pearson, General Manager (707)349-1986 The current government structure of this service provider is a special district, organized under the principal act County Water District Law, California Water Code 30000 et seq. The District provides water service within an isolated system and within a geographically distinct area. The District uses the services of the Lake County Counsel for legal services. A five-member Board of Directors governs the District and its staff. Local accountability is attributed to open and publicized meetings, regular elections, and locally available staff. Directors are elected at-large by residents of the District to four-year terms. The Board of Directors meets the third Thursday of every month at 7:00 p.m. at the Buckingham Homes Association Clubhouse, 2880 Eastlake Drive, Kelseyville, CA 95451. There have been no violations of the Brown Act or its provisions related to the operation of special district meetings. The membership of the Board is as follows:11 President: Jim Horne E-Mail: jhornebpwd@mchsi.com Vice-President: George Hawley E-Mail: ghawleybpwd@mchsi.com Board Members: Taja Odom E-Mail: todombpwd@mchsi.com Mark Almind E-Mail: bpwd@mchsi.com Mark Boyle E-Mail: bpwd@mchsi.com 11 Buckingham Park Water District, http://bpwd.web.officelive.com/publichearing.aspx, and N. Brusha, Office Manager, 3/30/10 10 Adopted LAKE LAFCO MSR/SOI Buckingham Park Water District Resolution 2010-0010 MSR and Resolution 2010-0011 SOI November 17, 2010 According to the District’s General Manager, there are two and one half certified treatment plant operators at the Treatment Plant , which provides seven days per week plant coverage, including holidays. The District maintains a web site and has a periodic newsletter.12 3.5 Domestic Water Supply, Treatment and Distribution Background 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 California 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. Rather than spend that money, a community may apply for a variance or exemption.13 Exemptions and variances are intended to be temporary solutions to regulatory compliance. They may, however, extend indefinitely leaving a community with no water that meets the regulation.14 Secondary standards are intended to protect the taste, odor or appearance of drinking water. California Code requires that, if a community water system experiences an exceedance of certain secondary standard, quarterly sampling must be initiated. Compliance is then determined based upon the average of four consecutive quarterly samples. Non-compliant water must then be treated to meet the secondary standards.15 Water distribution systems carry water for both domestic use and for fire protection. The distribution system should be sized to perform both functions simultaneously, delivering sufficient water volume and pressure. Pipes should be made of durable and corrosion-resistant materials, and alignments located in areas that are easy to access for repairs and maintenance.16 Fire hydrants should be placed a maximum of 600 feet apart along the water mains and a maximum of 500 feet from the end of water lines.17 12 Buckingham Park Water District, http://bpwd.web.officelive.com/publichearing.aspx. 13 A Variance or an Exemption is a State Department of Health Services permission to exceed an MCL or to not comply with a treatment technique under certain conditions. 14 NSF International, “Feasibility of an Economically Sustainable Point-of-Use/Point-of-Entry Decentralized Public Water System Final Report”, March 2005, p18. nsf.org/business/.../pdf/GrimesFinalReport_Dec05.pdf 15 Brelje & Race Consulting Civil Engineers, “Preliminary Engineering Report Bonanza Springs Water System CSA #7 Lake County Special Districts”, December 2006, p 8. 16 Brelje & Race Consulting Civil Engineers, “Preliminary Engineering Report Bonanza Springs Water System CSA #7 Lake County Special Districts”, December 2006, p. 10 17 Brelje & Race Consulting Civil Engineers, “Preliminary Engineering Report Bonanza Springs Water System CSA #7 Lake County Special Districts”, December 2006, p. 11 11 Adopted LAKE LAFCO MSR/SOI Buckingham Park Water District Resolution 2010-0010 MSR and Resolution 2010-0011 SOI November 17, 2010 Some water loss in the distribution system can be expected. Water loss is the difference between the volume of water pumped from the water supply well and the volume of water sold to users. A loss of water from 5% to 15% is considered acceptable.18 3.6 Buckingham Park Water District Water Supply The Buckingham Park WD has riparian water rights to extract its water from below the surface of Clear Lake. According to the District, the maximum theoretical pumping capacity is 900 gallons per minute, however, the maximum treatment capacity is limited to 432,000 gallons per day, thereby restricting the pumping capacity to 300 gpm.19 The District has 448 customers.20 The District experiences a wide variation in the water demand from a low of 60,000 gpd during the wet, winter months and up to 390,000 gpd during the peak summer months.21 The water is pumped by a Peabody Flowway 5 HP turbine which pumps 350 gpm and a Jacuzzi submersible 5 stage 10 HP submersible pump which pumps 550 gpm. There is a 7 HP booster pump to pump the water up to the storage tanks. There are near future plans for the installation of back up generators at both the treatment plant and the pump station. The water is treated by flocculation, sedimentation, clarification, filtration and disinfection.22 The District’s Domestic Water Supply Permit, as issued by the California Department of Public Health, authorizes the District to use the following chemicals in the treatment process: 1. NTU 932 as a coagulant 2. NTU Propac 9890 as a coagulant aid Sodium Hypochlorite as both a primary and secondary disinfectant Powered The finished water is monitored for disinfectant residual, turbidity, , pH, and Temperature according to the District’s General Manager.” 3.7 Buckingham Park Water District Water Storage 3.7.1 Water Storage and Equipment A. Reservoir Site23 Zone 2 Booster Pump 1 7.5 hp Zone 2 Booster Pump 2 10 hp Zone 2 Fire Pump 15 hp Zone 3 booster Pump 1 7.5 hp Zone 3 Booster Pump 2 7.5 hp Air Compressor 2 hp Other equipment B. Treatment Plant24 18 Brelje & Race Consulting Civil Engineers, “Preliminary Engineering Report Starview Water System CSA #18 Lake County Special Districts”, December 2006, p. 4. 19 Buckingham Park Water District, Ellen L. Pearson, General Manager, June 9, 2010. 20 Buckingham Park Water District, N. Brusha, Office Manager, March 30, 2010. 21Buckingham Park Water District, Internal Production Report for July 2004” 22 Lake LAFCO, District Questionnaire, July 13, 2007 23 Buckingham Park Water District, “Preliminary Design Clear Well and Standby Power Systems Project”, Whitley Burchett & Associates, Civil/Environmental Engineers, 1777 Oakland Blvd. Suite 200, Walnut Creek, California 94596, Phone: 925.945.6850, Fax: 925.945.7415, May 8, 2009. 12 Adopted LAKE LAFCO MSR/SOI Buckingham Park Water District Resolution 2010-0010 MSR and Resolution 2010-0011 SOI November 17, 2010 Lake Water Pump #1 5 hp Lake Water Pump #2 10 hp Flocculator/Clarifier Drive 0.5 hp Decant Water Pump 3 hp Filter Back Wash Pump 10 hp Filter Discharge Pump 1 1.25 hp Filter Discharge Pump 2 1.25 hp High Service Water Pump #1 30 hp High Service Water Pump #2 25 hp Other equipment C. Storage Tanks The District reports three water storage tanks as follows:25 100,000 gallon steel tank 1979 200,000 gallon steel tank 1993 *30,000 gallon clear well26 Total 330,000 gallons storage *This clear well is subject to short circuiting leading to inadequate disinfection of the treated water prior to its being put into the distribution system.27 3.7.2 Proposed Improvements Whitley Burchett & Associates prepared a Preliminary Design Report for the Clear Well and Standby Power Systems Project for the District.28 The report reviews the District’s needs for more storage capacity and improved detention time for disinfection by replacing the existing 30,000 gallon clear well with a new clear well of at least 200,000 gallons. It also reviews the State Health Department’s demand for standby power at the plant and at the reservoir site, as well as improvements to the Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) system. 3.8 Buckingham Park Water District Fire Flows According to the District, the fire flows range from 690 to 1190 gpm. The upper area near the 200,000 gallon tank is deficient in fire flows. There are dry barrel and wharf-head fire hydrants spaced 500 feet apart. The residual pressure is 45 to 95 psi. 24 Buckingham Park Water District, “Preliminary Design Clear Well and Standby Power Systems Project”, Whitley Burchett & Associates, Civil/Environmental Engineers, 1777 Oakland Blvd. Suite 200, Walnut Creek, California 94596, Phone: 925.945.6850, Fax: 925.945.7415, May 8, 2009. 25 Lake LAFCO, District Questionnaire, July 13, 2007 26 Buckingham Park Water District, “Preliminary Design Clear Well and Standby Power Systems Project”, Whitley Burchett & Associates, Civil/Environmental Engineers, 1777 Oakland Blvd. Suite 200, Walnut Creek, California 94596, Phone: 925.945.6850, Fax: 925.945.7415, May 8, 2009. 27 Buckingham Park Water District, “Preliminary Design Clear Well and Standby Power Systems Project”, Whitley Burchett & Associates, Civil/Environmental Engineers, 1777 Oakland Blvd. Suite 200, Walnut Creek, California 94596, Phone: 925.945.6850, Fax: 925.945.7415, May 8, 2009. 28 Buckingham Park Water District, “Preliminary Design Clear Well and Standby Power Systems Project”, Whitley Burchett & Associates, Civil/Environmental Engineers, 1777 Oakland Blvd. Suite 200, Walnut Creek, California 94596, Phone: 925.945.6850, Fax: 925.945.7415, May 8, 2009. 13 Adopted LAKE LAFCO MSR/SOI Buckingham Park Water District Resolution 2010-0010 MSR and Resolution 2010-0011 SOI November 17, 2010 Whitley Burchett & Associates report that, the existing 330,000 gallons of storage capacity is insufficient to meet normal daily demand requirements while keeping reserves for fire-fighting needs and other emergency situations, such as a local utility power supply failure.29 3.9 Buckingham Park Water District Water Supply Infrastructure According to the District the pipelines are made of asbestos-cement and there is 34,000 linear feet of pipeline within the District. The District plans to replace 1647 feet of old pipe on Little Borax Ridge.30 3.10 Water Quality and Water Conservation The 2008 Consumer Confidence Report for the Buckingham Park Water District is available on the District’s web site. The report shows that the water is high in iron but none of the Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCL) has been exceeded for any category.31 The General Manager reported in January 2009, that all of the leaks in the water system were fixed by December 2008 and the water consumption fell from 120,000 to 130,000 gpd to below 100,000 gallons per day.32 3.11 Finances 3.11.1 Audit In the June 30, 2006 “Financial Statements Audit Report” the District notes that “The District’s expenditures have exceeded revenues ten out of the last fifteen years....measures have been taken to rectify the situation....resulting in a net surplus for the year of $87,807 for the year ending on June 30, 2009. According to the Independent Audit for the year ended June 30, 2009, The District’s expenditures have exceeded revenues ten out of the last sixteen years. The District’s net assets have been reduced accordingly by almost 40 percent. Measures have been taken to rectify the situation. Income from operations for 2009 has increased to $488,027.33 The Independent Audit showed Net Assets of $990,657 for the year ended June 30, 2009.34 The District maintains its cash in a private bank and has no investments.35 29 Buckingham Park Water District, “Preliminary Design Clear Well and Standby Power Systems Project”, Whitley Burchett & Associates, Civil/Environmental Engineers, 1777 Oakland Blvd. Suite 200, Walnut Creek, California 94596, Phone: 925.945.6850, Fax: 925.945.7415, May 8, 2009. 30 Lake LAFCO, District Questionnaire, July 13, 2007 31Buckingham Park Water District, “2007 Consumer Confidence Report”, http://bpwd.web.officelive.com/publichearing.aspx. 32 Buckingham Park Water District, Minutes, January 9, 2009. 33 Buckingham Park Water District, Independent Auditor’s Report, Sturges, Pehling & Associates, 3385 White Oak Way, Kelseyville, CA 95451, Phone: 707.249.1168, www.SodaBayCPA.com, June 10, 2009, P.3. 34 Buckingham Park Water District, Independent Auditor’s Report, Sturges, Pehling & Associates, 3385 White Oak Way, Kelseyville, CA 95451, Phone: 707.249.1168, www.SodaBayCPA.com, June 10, 2009, P.9. 35 Buckingham Park Water District, Independent Auditor’s Report, Sturges, Pehling & Associates, 3385 White Oak Way, Kelseyville, CA 95451, Phone: 707.249.1168, www.SodaBayCPA.com, June 10, 2009, Page 14. 14 Adopted LAKE LAFCO MSR/SOI Buckingham Park Water District Resolution 2010-0010 MSR and Resolution 2010-0011 SOI November 17, 2010 Improvement Bonds were issued in 1980 in the amount of $1,124,200. The District currently owes $510,000 on long-term financing obtained in September 1993. The interest rate is 5.5%. The bonds are secured by assessments on land located in the Buckingham Park Water District assessment district. Assessments are collected by the County of Lake and remitted to the District.36 The District contracts with private insurance agencies for liability, property, crime damage, and employee and director insurance.37 3.11.2 Buckingham Park Water District Budget The 2005-06 Budget showed Income from Operations of $482,441 and tax assessments of $71,069. The expenditures were $390,075, including $131,884 for payroll expenses. The Proposed Budget for 2009-2010 shows Revenues as follows:38 Buckingham Park Water District Budget 2009-2010 Revenues Base Rate *$259,200.00 Water Sales **$178,945.86 Total $438,145.86 * Based on 450 connections @$48 per month. ** Based on Rate Proposal 1A The Proposed Budget for 2009-2010 shows Expenditures as follows:39 Buckingham Park Water District Budget 2009-2010 Expenditures Payroll $174,861.92 Water Treatment $131,755.60 Operating Sub-Total $306,617.52 Maintenance $42,000.00 Administration $42,367.48 TOTAL $390,985.00 3.11.3 Rates The basic charge for fixed costs plus improvement reserve funding and the loan payment is $65.00 monthly. Users are charged an additional fee according to the amount of water used according to the Ordinance No. 01-10-1 Water Rates and Other Fees, Charges and Regulations 36 Buckingham Park Water District, Independent Auditor’s Report, Sturges, Pehling & Associates, 3385 White Oak Way, Kelseyville, CA 95451, Phone: 707.249.1168, www.SodaBayCPA.com, June 10, 2009, Page 15. 37 Buckingham Park Water District, Independent Auditor’s Report, Sturges, Pehling & Associates, 3385 White Oak Way, Kelseyville, CA 95451, Phone: 707.249.1168, www.SodaBayCPA.com, June 10, 2009, Page 16. 38 Buckingham Park Water District, Proposed Budget FY 2009-2010, http://bpwd.web.officelive.com/publichearing.aspx, August 25, 2009. 39 Buckingham Park Water District, Proposed Budget FY 2009-2010, http://bpwd.web.officelive.com/publichearing.aspx, August 25, 2009. 15 Adopted LAKE LAFCO MSR/SOI Buckingham Park Water District Resolution 2010-0010 MSR and Resolution 2010-0011 SOI November 17, 2010 Pertaining Thereto. The District hook-up fee is $9,575. This fee is based on a $575 charge for meter installation40 and a $9,000 restricted capacity expansion fee to cover the cost of facilities. Anyone in the District having access to an auxiliary water supply other than or along with water received from a public water system must have a backflow prevention device in place as required by Title 17 of the California Code of Regulations and the District’s current Cross Connection Control/Backflow Prevention Program. This includes District residents who live on the Lake, or who have a well, a water storage system or who draw water for any purpose from Clear Lake. The District’s Cross Connection Control/Backflow Prevention Program requires annual testing of Backflow Prevention devices to ensure the device is functioning properly. The District is required to have a test report on file for each backflow prevention device. Each property owner has the sole responsibility of paying the testing service for this annual service.41 40 Buckingham Park Water District, Ordinance Number 5-08-1, WATER RATES AND OTHER FEES, CHARGES AND REGULATIONS PERTAINING THERETO, MARCH 12, 2008. 41 Buckingham Park Water District, April 2009 Billing Newsletter, May 2009 Billing Newsletter. 16 Adopted LAKE LAFCO MSR/SOI Buckingham Park Water District Resolution 2010-0010 MSR and Resolution 2010-0011 SOI November 17, 2010 4 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW Lake 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 Sphere of Influence. 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 Municipal Service Review 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 Municipal Service Review. 4.1 Growth and Population Projections for the Buckingham Park Area Purpose: To evaluate service needs based on existing and anticipated growth patterns and population projections. 4.1.1 Buckingham Park Population Projections There are two opposing views regarding population growth in the Buckingham Park area as follows: 1) The real estate community describes Buckingham Park in positive terms, saying: Buckingham Park located in the Kelseyville area of beautiful Lake County has all the required amenities for a satisfying resort lifestyle. In addition to the beautiful golf course, there is a clubhouse on the lake that offers a private beach area with barbecue and picnic areas. There is also a boat launch area and boat dock/pier for members of the Buckingham area to enjoy! Konocti Harbor Resort & Spa, with its world class summer concert series is located only 5 minutes away!42 42 http://www.artfullyelegantinbuckingham.com/ 17 Adopted LAKE LAFCO MSR/SOI Buckingham Park Water District Resolution 2010-0010 MSR and Resolution 2010-0011 SOI November 17, 2010 2) A proposal for a new subdivision met with the following objections: Proposal: Subdivide 50 acres into 91 single-family lots to create an age-delimited retirement community on the walnut orchard in the center of Buckingham Peninsula. Land is currently zoned Suburban Residential; address is 8200 & 8250 Orchard Dr. Applicant: Spike Wheeler, Shellanu Development, 403 N. Fulton St, Ojai, CA 93023 Issues are mostly infrastructure: Buckingham Park Water District will require a capacity study and possible system upgrades, as required by its Domestic Water Supply Permit, issued by the California Department of Public Health. . No sewage connections are available so houses would all be on septic; until planned improvements are made water pressure for fire hydrants is inadequate; roads can't handle the increased traffic. Although a perimeter foot trail is proposed, there is no provision for common open space, because as a retirement community "the residents are not likely to have need for such use." Comment letters from the Sierra Club and Buckingham Homes Association were submitted on a previous (2004) application on this property. Current Sierra Club comments are also available. EIR requested.43 4.1.2 MSR Determinations on Growth and Population Projections for the Buckingham Park Area 1-1) The District has minimal capacity for population growth at this time. 1-2) There is little building expected within the Buckingham Park Water District. 1-3) The District should work together with the Lake County Community Development Department to understand the zoning and general plan designations for the area and to develop specific population and building projections. 43http://www.lakelive.org/subdivisions/buckinghampk.htm 18 Adopted LAKE LAFCO MSR/SOI Buckingham Park Water District Resolution 2010-0010 MSR and Resolution 2010-0011 SOI November 17, 2010 4.2 Capacity and Infrastructure 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 the District and later in the Sphere of Influence. It is important that such findings of infrastructure availability occur when revisions to the Sphere of Influence and annexations occur. In the case of this Municipal Service Review, it is prudent for Lake 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 inline with increasing demands. 4.2.1 Buckingham Park Water District Infrastructure Background The Buckingham Park Water District has the necessary equipment to pump water from Clear Lake, treat the water, store the water and convey it to 515 residential connections. The District is making plans to upgrade the storage and power supply equipment. 4.2.2 MSR Determinations on Infrastructure for Buckingham Park Water District 2-1) The District water supply is currently adequate however some landowners have an additional water supply from a private well or Clear Lake. 2-2) The District water storage will be adequate if the planned improvements are made. The Whitley Burchett & Associates report stated that, the existing 330,000 gallons of storage capacity is insufficient to meet normal daily demand requirements while keeping reserves for fire-fighting needs and other emergency situations. 2-3) The District does not have back-up generators to use in case of power failure but has a proposal from Whitley Burchett & Associates to design and install them. 2-4) Additional water storage for fire protection would be a benefit to the community. 2-5) According to the Sierra Club Lake Group, “The water smells like algae from spring to late fall.” 2-6) The District will have to maintain and improve the water system in the future. While the Buckingham Park WD has riparian water rights to extract its water from below the surface of Clear Lake. According to the District, the maximum theoretical pumping capacity is 900 gallons per minute, however, the maximum treatment capacity is limited to 432,000 gallons per day, thereby restricting the pumping capacity to 300 gpm. The District has 448 customers and according to district records the peak daily water consumption is 390,000 gallons per day. 19 Adopted LAKE LAFCO MSR/SOI Buckingham Park Water District Resolution 2010-0010 MSR and Resolution 2010-0011 SOI November 17, 2010 4.3 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. LAFCO should consider the ability of the District to pay for improvements or services associated with annexed sites. This planning can begin at the Sphere of Influence 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. 4.3.2 Financial Considerations for Buckingham Park Water District The District maintains funds in a private bank account as well as the Local Agency Investment Fund. The District has audits performed by a qualified firm on a timely basis. The Audit Report as of June 30, 2006, June 30, 2008 and June 30, 2009 made no findings or recommendations for changes or improvements. The District Budget and rates are discussed earlier in this report. Although it may seem that the cost of $65.00 per month plus additional charges for the water used is high; there are several other water purveyors in Lake County with higher monthly charges. 4.3.2 MSR Determinations on Financial Ability for the Buckingham Park Water District 3-1) The District should exhaust all possible funding sources, including AB 1905 Funds, State Water System grants, rate increases or possibly loans from the State of California to ensure maintenance and operation of the water system. 3-2) The District’s budgeting process provides a forum for cutting unnecessary costs and placing resources where most needed. 3-3) The District has an Emergency Disinfection Plan updated in 2005. 3-4) The Buckingham Park WD adopted a fee schedule in 2009 which provides for an annual CPI increase of not more than 3.0%. As a result the District is in a better financial position with revenues exceeding expenditures. 3-5) The fee schedule should be evaluated annually to keep fees current with costs and to avoid large increases in the future. 3-6) Rates and fees for services are established using the provisions of State Law. Public outreach is performed and hearings are held. 20 Adopted LAKE LAFCO MSR/SOI Buckingham Park Water District Resolution 2010-0010 MSR and Resolution 2010-0011 SOI November 17, 2010 4.4 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. 4.4.1 Buckingham Park WD Facilities The Buckingham Park WD facilities are located on the Buckingham peninsula which extends into Clear Lake. The located of the facilities prohibits sharing these facilities with other water service providers. The District could look into sharing administrative services or employees with another water district or with Lake County. The Master Plan prepared by the District indicates that the District has been shown to meet water quality standards and has adequate infrastructure. There are no community service districts, cities, or other local government agencies in the area that could feasibly be joined with the District to improve service levels to residents of the District. 4.4.2 MSR Determinations on Opportunities for Shared Facilities for the Buckingham Park Water District 4-1) The District is not located in an area appropriate for shared facilities. 4-2) The District should evaluate opportunities for shared services in addition to using the County Counsel for legal services. 21 Adopted LAKE LAFCO MSR/SOI Buckingham Park Water District Resolution 2010-0010 MSR and Resolution 2010-0011 SOI November 17, 2010 4.5 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. 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. Lake 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 Sphere of Influence and potential annexation areas. 4.5.1 Buckingham Park WD Governmental Structure The Buckingham Park Water District has a five-member governing board and a staff of four employees. This is an appropriate governmental structure for this District. The District was a County Service Area in the past. The residents of the area want to maintain local control of the District. The District serves municipal water to 44844 customers. The District employs one full-time General Manager and three staff members. Staff members hold all licenses and certificates required to operate a water system of this size and nature. The District operates under the direction of a Board of Directors, with a General Manager to oversee planning and operations of the District. The District operates efficiently and effectively, and has financial and administrative practices and policies in place to ensure service provision. A five-member Board of Directors governs the Buckingham Park Water District and its staff. The District Board meets at 7:00 PM on the third Thursday of each month at the Buckingham Homes Association Clubhouse, located at 2880 Eastlake Drive, Kelseyville, CA 95451. Local accountability is attributed to open and publicized meetings (agendas are posted), regular elections, and locally available staff. Directors are elected at-large by residents of the District to four-year terms. 44 Buckingham Park Water District, Nakia Brusha, Office Manager, March 30, 2010. 22 Adopted LAKE LAFCO MSR/SOI Buckingham Park Water District Resolution 2010-0010 MSR and Resolution 2010-0011 SOI November 17, 2010 4.5.2 MSR Determinations on Government Structure and Accountability for the Buckingham Park Water District 5-1) Changes in government structure are generally hard to justify in small rural communities, and such is the case in the Buckingham Park area. 5-2) The Buckingham Park Water District employs a District manager and necessary staffing to ensure both managerial duties as well as fieldwork for operation of the water system is adequate. Given the nature of the system and overall workload, this appears to be the best possible management structure. 5-3) Development of a Capital Improvements program would also be useful when assessing need for repairs, upgrades and additional infrastructure. 5-4) Overall, the District appears to have an efficient management structure, responsive to legal, administrative, and operational issues that arise in the provision of water service. 5-5) The District complies with necessary regulations and has regularly scheduled meetings whereby the public is invited. 5-6) The District has maintained relationships with the local media and is available to the ratepayers and the public. 5-7) The District has developed an online website. 5-8) The District adopts budgets and rate changes at hearing where the public is notified and invited. 5-9) When building permits are considered for construction within District boundaries the County will include the District in their review process. 23 Adopted LAKE LAFCO MSR/SOI Buckingham Park Water District Resolution 2010-0010 MSR and Resolution 2010-0011 SOI November 17, 2010 5 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE (SOI) DETERMINATIONS 5.1 Sphere of Influence Requirements 5.1.1 Sphere of influence Background The determination of Sphere of Influence Plans is the most important planning function given to LAFCO by the State Legislature. Spheres of Influence are described by the Cortese-Knox- Hertzberg Act as an important tool for “planning and shaping the logical and orderly development and coordination of local governmental agencies so as to advantageously provide for the present and future needs of the county and its communities.” Spheres serve a similar function in LAFCO determinations as general plans do for cities and counties. Consistency with the adopted sphere plan is mandatory, and changes to the plan require careful review. It is intended that written determinations adopted by LAFCO and the Sphere Diagram will together guide the provision of street maintenance services for the Buckingham Park area. While LAFCO encourages the participation and cooperation of the subject agency, the sphere of influence plan is a LAFCO responsibility, and the Commission is the sole authority as to the sufficiency of the documentation and the plan’s consistency with law and LAFCO policy. The proposed Sphere of Influence for Buckingham Park Water District is the same as the CSA Boundary. This will be the Sphere of Influence for all time frames. A map of the Sphere of Influence is shown at the end of this report. Future SOI amendments will require demonstrated capacity for infrastructure maintenance and expansion prior to Lake LAFCO approval. 5.1.2 Sphere of Influence Required Determinations In determining the Sphere of Influence 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. 24 Adopted LAKE LAFCO MSR/SOI Buckingham Park Water District Resolution 2010-0010 MSR and Resolution 2010-0011 SOI November 17, 2010 5.1.3 Possible Approaches to the Sphere of Influence 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 Lake LAFCO as well as 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: The sphere for a city or special district that is the same as its existing boundaries. This is the recommendation for the Buckingham Park Water District. 2) Annexable Sphere: A sphere larger than the agency’s boundaries identifies areas the agency is expected to annex. The annexable area is outside its boundaries and inside the sphere. 3) Detachable Sphere: A sphere that is smaller than the agency’s boundaries identifies areas the agency is expected to detach. The detachable area is the area within the agency bounds but not within its sphere. 4) Zero Sphere: A zero sphere indicates the affected agency’s public service functions should be reassigned to another agency and the agency should be dissolved or combined with one or more other agencies. 5) Consolidated Sphere: A consolidated sphere includes two or more local agencies and indicates the agencies should be consolidated into one agency. 6) Limited Service Sphere: A limited service sphere is the territory included within the SOI of a multi-service provider agency that is also within the boundary of a limited purpose district which provides the same service (e.g., fire protection), but not all needed services. 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 four 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. 25 Adopted LAKE LAFCO MSR/SOI Buckingham Park Water District Resolution 2010-0010 MSR and Resolution 2010-0011 SOI November 17, 2010 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. 5.1.4 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 municipal service review (MSR) and adopt related determinations. This report identifies preliminary SOI policy alternatives and recommends SOI options for the Buckingham Park Water District. Development of an adopted SOI update 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. 5.1.5 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 26 Adopted LAKE LAFCO MSR/SOI Buckingham Park Water District Resolution 2010-0010 MSR and Resolution 2010-0011 SOI November 17, 2010 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 sphere of influence that in most respects was coterminous with the city’s existing municipal boundaries was not a “project” because such action did not entail any potential effects on the physical environment.45 Since the recommendation is for the Sphere of Influence for the boundary of the Buckingham Park Water District to remain the same, there will be no environmental impacts from the adoption of the Sphere and no environmental document is required. 45 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. 27 Adopted LAKE LAFCO MSR/SOI Buckingham Park Water District Resolution 2010-0010 MSR and Resolution 2010-0011 SOI November 17, 2010 5.2 Present and Planned Land Uses in the Buckingham Park Area, Including Agricultural and Open Space Lands 5.2.1 Lake County General Plan Lake County is currently in the process of updating its 21-year old General Plan. The proposed Land Use Map for the Buckingham Park area is shown below: http://www.westplanning.com/docs/lake/library.htm 5.2.2 Lake County Zoning Lake County adopted a revised Zoning Ordinance in November 1986 pursuant to its authority of Section 65800 of the Government Code. This ordinance contains a zone districting plan and general and specific provisions governing existing and future land uses throughout the unincorporated portions of Lake County. The revised Zoning Ordinance adopted in 1986. 5.2.3 Present and Planned Land Use The present land use in the Buckingham Park area is primarily residential and conforms to the land use and zoning designations. 5.2.4 SOI Determinations on Present and Planned Land Use for Buckingham Park Water District 1-1] The Sphere of Influence should be coterminous with the Boundary of the Buckingham Park Water District. 1-2] The Buckingham Park Water District is not capable of serving additional land. 28 Adopted LAKE LAFCO MSR/SOI Buckingham Park Water District Resolution 2010-0010 MSR and Resolution 2010-0011 SOI November 17, 2010 5.3 Municipal Services—Present and Probable Capacity and Need LAFCO is responsible for determining if an agency is reasonably capable of providing needed resources and basic infrastructure to serve areas within the District and its Sphere of Influence. It is important that such findings of infrastructure availability occur when revisions to the Sphere of Influence occur. In the case of the Sphere of Influence Update, it is prudent for LAFCO to evaluate the present and long term infrastructure demands and resource availability and to see that 1) resources and services are available at needed levels and 2) orderly maintenance and expansion of such resources and services are made in line with increasing demands. 5.3.1 Present and Probable Capacity and Need Background The Buckingham Park Water District provides water for residential, commercial and fire protection needs to residents within District boundaries. 5.3.2 SOI Determinations on Present and Probable Capacity and Need for Buckingham Park Water District 2-1] LAFCO encourages development of a Capital Improvements Plan. Developers fund all new infrastructure associated with new growth. There should be no extra cost imposed on existing customers to fund new development. 2-2] LAFCO shall support the concurrent provision of potable water service and fire protection service by the Buckingham Park Water District. 2-3] The water distribution system and fire flows are inadequate within the existing service boundary. 29 Adopted LAKE LAFCO MSR/SOI Buckingham Park Water District Resolution 2010-0010 MSR and Resolution 2010-0011 SOI November 17, 2010 5.4 The Present Capacity of Public Facilities and Adequacy of Public Services 5.4.1 Adequacy of Services Provided by Buckingham Park WD The Buckingham Park WD provides adequate services. The District will have to increase fees and/or taxes in the future to provide the same level of service because costs and regulations will probably increase. 5.4.2 SOI Determinations on Adequacy of Services Provided by Buckingham Park Water District 3-1] The Buckingham Park Water District has adequate public facilities to provide services to the residents of the District provided that the planned improvements are made. 5.5 Social or Economic Communities of Interest 5.5.1 Community Background The Buckingham Park community does not have a separate zip code but is centered around the Buckingham Golf & Country Club and the Buckingham Homeowners Association. The Buckingham Golf & Country Club includes a nine-hole golf course, restaurant and boat dock. http://www.buckinghamgolf.com/course.html 5.5.2 SOI Determinations on Social or Economic Communities of Interest for Buckingham Park Water District 4-1] The Buckingham Park Water District shall be the provider of municipal potable water service and distribution, including water for fire suppression needs in the area within its Sphere of Influence. 4-2] Priority for water service and distribution and fire protection shall remain within the existing service area and the Sphere of Influence. 4-3] LAFCO is charged with overseeing orderly development in an area. The County is charged with Land Use Planning. 30 Adopted LAKE LAFCO MSR/SOI Buckingham Park Water District Resolution 2010-0010 MSR and Resolution 2010-0011 SOI November 17, 2010 APPENDIX A 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 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 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: • It limits the ad valorem property tax rate. • It limits growth of the assessed value of property. • It requires voter approval of certain local taxes. Generally, this measure fixes the ad valorem tax at one percent of the value at most recent sale; 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 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 (1978). 31 Adopted LAKE LAFCO MSR/SOI Buckingham Park Water District Resolution 2010-0010 MSR and Resolution 2010-0011 SOI November 17, 2010 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. 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. 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. 32 Adopted LAKE LAFCO MSR/SOI Buckingham Park Water District Resolution 2010-0010 MSR and Resolution 2010-0011 SOI November 17, 2010 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. 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. G. 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: 1) Special taxes such as parcel taxes 2) Increases in general taxes such as the following: • 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. 33 Adopted LAKE LAFCO MSR/SOI Buckingham Park Water District Resolution 2010-0010 MSR and Resolution 2010-0011 SOI November 17, 2010 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. 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 34 Adopted LAKE LAFCO MSR/SOI Buckingham Park Water District Resolution 2010-0010 MSR and Resolution 2010-0011 SOI November 17, 2010 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,... 35 Adopted LAKE LAFCO MSR/SOI Buckingham Park Water District Resolution 2010-0010 MSR and Resolution 2010-0011 SOI November 17, 2010 ABBREVIATIONS AB Assembly Bill BPWD Buckingham Park Water District CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CFD Community Facilities District CKH Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 CSA County Service Area District Buckingham Park Water District DHS Department of Health Services DWR Department of Water Resources EDU equivalent dwelling unit EPA Environmental Protection Agency FY Fiscal Year gpd gallons per day gpm gallons per minute LAFCO Local Agency Formation Commission mgd million gallons per day MSR Municipal Service Review (LAFCO) ND Not detectable at testing limit (water quality) ppm parts per million or milligrams per liter (mg/L) psi pounds per square inch SCADA Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act SOI Sphere of Influence (LAFCO) WD Water District 36 Adopted LAKE LAFCO MSR/SOI Buckingham Park Water District Resolution 2010-0010 MSR and Resolution 2010-0011 SOI November 17, 2010 DEFINITIONS 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 pasture land. 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. Bond: An interest-bearing promise to pay a stipulated sum of money, with the principal amount due on a specific date. Funds raised through the sale of bonds can be used for various public purposes. 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. Coagulation: A process using coagulant chemicals and mixing by which colloidal and suspended materials are destabilized and agglomerated into flocs. 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. Conventional Filtration Treatment: A series of processes including coagulation, flocculation, sedimentation, and filtration resulting in substantial particulate removal. Disinfectant: A chemical (commonly chlorine, chloramine, or ozone) or physical process (e.g., ultraviolet light) that kills microorganisms such as bacteria, viruses, and protozoa. Disinfection: A process which inactivates pathogenic organisms in water by chemical oxidants or equivalent agents. Distribution System: A network of pipes leading from a treatment plant to customers' plumbing systems. Domestic water use: Water used for household purposes, such as drinking, food preparation, bathing, washing clothes, dishes, and dogs, flushing toilets, and watering lawns and gardens. About 85% of domestic water is delivered to homes by a public-supply facility, such as a county 37 Adopted LAKE LAFCO MSR/SOI Buckingham Park Water District Resolution 2010-0010 MSR and Resolution 2010-0011 SOI November 17, 2010 water department. About 15% of the Nation's population supplies their own water, mainly from wells.46 Environmental Impact Report (EIR): A report required pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act that assesses all the environmental characteristics of an area, determines what effects or impact will result if the area is altered or disturbed by a proposed action, and identifies alternatives or other measures to avoid or reduce those impacts. (See California Environmental Quality Act.) Filtration: A process by which solids are filtered out of liquids, a stage in water treatment, a process for removing particulate matter from water by passage through porous media. Finished Water: Water that has been treated and is ready to be delivered to customers. Flocculation: A process where a solute comes out of solution in the form of floc or "flakes." The term is also used to refer to the process by which fine particulates are caused to clump together into floc. The floc may then float to the top of the liquid, settle to the bottom of the liquid, or can be readily filtered from the liquid. Groundwater: Water under the earth’s surface, often confined to aquifers capable of supplying wells and springs. Human consumption: the ingestion or absorption of water or water vapor as the result of drinking, cooking, dishwashing, hand washing, bathing, showering or oral hygiene. Impact Fee: A fee, also called a development fee, levied on the developer of a project by a county, or other public agency as compensation for otherwise-unmitigated impacts the project will produce. California Government Code Section 66000, et seq., specifies that development fees shall not exceed the estimated reasonable cost of providing the service for which the fee is charged. To lawfully impose a development fee, the public agency must verify its method of calculation and document proper restrictions on use of the fund. 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. 46 http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/dictionary.html 38 Adopted LAKE LAFCO MSR/SOI Buckingham Park Water District Resolution 2010-0010 MSR and Resolution 2010-0011 SOI November 17, 2010 Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL): The highest level of a contaminant that EPA allows in drinking water. MCLs ensure that drinking water does not pose either a short-term or long-term health risk. EPA sets MCLs at levels that are economically and technologically feasible. Some states set MCLs which are stricter than EPA's. Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG): The level of a contaminant at which there would be no risk to human health. This goal is not always economically or technologically feasible, and the goal is not legally enforceable. Maximum residual disinfectant level (MRDL): the maximum allowable level of disinfectant in public drinking water. Most often, compliance with an MRDL is based on an average of multiple samples. Maximum Residual Disinfectant Level Goal (MRDLG): The level of a disinfectant added for water treatment below which there is no known or expected risk to health. MRDLGs are set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Mean Sea Level: The average altitude of the sea surface for all tidal stages. Milligrams per liter (mg/L): The weight in milligrams of any substance dissolved in one liter of liquid; nearly the same as parts per million. Mello-Roos Bonds: Locally issued bonds that are repaid by a special tax imposed on property owners within a community facilities district established by a governmental entity. The bond proceeds can be used for public improvements and for a limited number of services. Named after the program’s legislative authors. Monitoring: Testing that water systems must perform to detect and measure contaminants. A water system that does not follow EPA's monitoring methodology or schedule is in violation, and may be subject to legal action. Municipal water system: A water system that has at least five service connections or which regularly serves 25 individuals for 60 days; also called a public water system.47 Ordinance: A law or regulation set forth and adopted by a governmental authority. Potable Water: Water of a quality suitable for drinking.48 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).49 Primary Drinking Water Standards (PDWS): Maximum Contaminant Levels for contaminants. 47 http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/dictionary.html 48 http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/dictionary.html 49 http://rubicon.water.ca.gov/v1cwp/glssry.html 39 Adopted LAKE LAFCO MSR/SOI Buckingham Park Water District Resolution 2010-0010 MSR and Resolution 2010-0011 SOI November 17, 2010 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.50 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.51 Public Health Goal (PHG): The level of a contaminant in drinking water below which there is no known or expected risk to health. PHG’s are set by the California Environmental Protection Agency. Public Notification: An advisory that EPA requires a water system to distribute to affected consumers when the system has violated MCLs or other regulations. The notice advises consumers what precautions, if any, they should take to protect their health. Public Water Systems (PWS): A public water system provides piped water for human consumption to at least 15 service connections or serves an average of at least 25 people for at least 60 days each year, and includes the source of the water supply (i.e., surface or groundwater). PWSs can be community, nontransient noncommunity, or transient noncommunity systems, as defined by the EPA's Public Water System Supervision (PWSS) Program. 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. Raw Water: Water in its natural state, prior to any treatment for drinking. Regulatory Action Level: The concentration of a contaminant which, if exceeded, triggers treatment or other requirements that a water system must follow. Sanitary Sewer: A system of subterranean conduits that carries refuse liquids or waste matter to a plant where the sewage is treated, as contrasted with storm drainage systems (that carry surface water) and septic tanks or leech fields (that hold refuse liquids and waste matter on-site). Sanitary Survey: An on-site review of the water sources, facilities, equipment, operation, and maintenance of a public water systems for the purpose of evaluating the adequacy of the facilities for producing and distributing safe drinking water. 50 http://www.californiataxdata.com/A_Free_Resources/glossary_PS.asp#ps_08 51 http://www.californiataxdata.com/A_Free_Resources/glossary_PS.asp#ps_08 40 Adopted LAKE LAFCO MSR/SOI Buckingham Park Water District Resolution 2010-0010 MSR and Resolution 2010-0011 SOI November 17, 2010 Secondary Drinking Water Standards (SDWS): Non-enforceable federal guidelines regarding cosmetic effects (such as tooth or skin discoloration) or aesthetic effects (such as taste, odor, or color) of drinking water. Sedimentation: A process of settling particles out of a liquid in a treatment plant, a process for removal of solids before filtration by gravity or separation. Service area: The geographical land area served by a distribution system of a water agency.52 Source Water: Water in its natural state, prior to any treatment for drinking. 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. Surface Water: The water that systems pump and treat from sources open to the atmosphere, such as rivers, lakes, and reservoirs. Total dissolved solids (TDS): A quantitative measure of the residual minerals dissolved in water that remains after evaporation of a solution. TDS is usually expressed in milligrams per liter.53 Treatment Technique: A required process intended to reduce the level of a contaminant in drinking water. Turbidity: The cloudy appearance of water caused by the presence of tiny particles. High levels of turbidity may interfere with proper water treatment and monitoring. Water quality: Used to describe the chemical, physical, and biological characteristics of water, usually in regard to its suitability for a particular purpose or use.54 Water year: A continuous 12-month period for which hydrologic records are compiled and summarized. In California, it begins on October 1 and ends September 30 of the following year.55 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. 52 http://rubicon.water.ca.gov/v1cwp/glssry.html 53 http://rubicon.water.ca.gov/v1cwp/glssry.html 54 http://rubicon.water.ca.gov/v1cwp/glssry.html 55 http://rubicon.water.ca.gov/v1cwp/glssry.html 41 Adopted LAKE LAFCO MSR/SOI Buckingham Park Water District Resolution 2010-0010 MSR and Resolution 2010-0011 SOI November 17, 2010 Violation: A failure to meet any state or federal drinking water regulation. Vulnerability Assessment: An evaluation of drinking water source quality and its vulnerability to contamination by pathogens and toxic chemicals. water quality: Used to describe the chemical, physical, and biological characteristics of water, usually in regard to its suitability for a particular purpose or use.56 water year: A continuous 12-month period for which hydrologic records are compiled and summarized. In California, it begins on October 1 and ends September 30 of the following year.57 Watershed: The land area from which water drains into a stream, river, or reservoir. 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. 56 http://rubicon.water.ca.gov/v1cwp/glssry.html 57 http://rubicon.water.ca.gov/v1cwp/glssry.html 42 Adopted LAKE LAFCO MSR/SOI Buckingham Park Water District Resolution 2010-0010 MSR and Resolution 2010-0011 SOI November 17, 2010 REFERENCES Brelje & Race Consulting Civil Engineers, “Preliminary Engineering Report Bonanza Springs Water System CSA #7 Lake County Special Districts”, December 2006, p 8. Brelje & Race Consulting Civil Engineers, “Preliminary Engineering Report Starview Water System CSA #18 Lake County Special Districts”, December 2006, p. 4. Buckingham Homes Association, 2850 Eastlake Drive Kelseyville, CA 95451-903, Office (707) 279-0829, http://www.buckinghamhomesassociation.com/history/history.htm, August 28, 2009 Buckingham Park Water District, “2006 Consumer Confidence Report” June 1, 2007. Buckingham Park Water District, April 2009 Billing Newsletter, May 2009 Billing Newsletter. Buckingham Park Water District, Nakia Brusha, Office Manager, March 30, 2010. Buckingham Park Water District, Ellen L. Pearson, General Manager, June 9, 2010 Buckingham Park Water District, “Financial Statements Audit Report, June 30, 2006.” Buckingham Park Water District, http://bpwd.web.officelive.com/default.aspx Buckingham Park Water District, Independent Auditor’s Report, Sturges, Pehling & Associates, 3385 White Oak Way, Kelseyville, CA 95451, Phone: 707.249.1168, www.SodaBayCPA.com, June 10, 2009 Buckingham Park Water District, Minutes, January 9, 2009. Buckingham Park Water District, “Operations Plan Outline”, June 2, 2004. Buckingham Park Water District, Ordinance Number 5-08-1, WATER RATES AND OTHER FEES, CHARGES AND REGULATIONS PERTAINING THERETO, MARCH 12, 2008. Buckingham Park Water District, Ordinance No. 6-06-1 Water Rates and other Fees, Charges and Regulations Pertaining Thereto, May 10, 2006. Buckingham Park Water District, “Preliminary Design Clear Well and Standby Power Systems Project”, Whitley Burchett & Associates, Civil/Environmental Engineers, 1777 Oakland Blvd. Suite 200, Walnut Creek, California 94596, Phone: 925.945.6850, Fax: 925.945.7415, May 8, 2009. Buckingham Park Water District, Proposed Budget FY 2009-2010, http://bpwd.web.officelive.com/publichearing.aspx, August 25, 2009. Buckingham Park Water District, Questionnaire Answers, July 13, 2007. 43 Adopted LAKE LAFCO MSR/SOI Buckingham Park Water District Resolution 2010-0010 MSR and Resolution 2010-0011 SOI November 17, 2010 http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/dictionary.html http://ops.dot.gov/init/usa/dwwater.htm, September 8, 2007. http://rubicon.water.ca.gov/v1cwp/glssry.html http://www.artfullyelegantinbuckingham.com/ http://www.buckinghamgolf.com/course.html, September 8, 2007. http://www.californiataxdata.com/A_Free_Resources/glossary_PS.asp#ps_08 http://www.city-data.com/city/Kelseyville-California.html, September 8, 2007. http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/drinkingwater/glossary.htm, September 8, 2007. http://www.epa.state.oh.us/ddagw/DWbasics/Definitions.htm, September 8, 2007. http://www.lakelive.org/subdivisions/buckinghampk.htm http://www.lcrem.com/western.html, September 8, 2007. http://www.state.sd.us/denr/des/Drinking/glossary.htm, September 8, 2007. http://www.westplanning.com/docs/lake/library.htm, September 8, 2007. Lake County Watershed Protection District, “Lake County Water Inventory and Analysis”, March 2006, p 3-2 and 3-3. NSF International, “Feasibility of an Economically Sustainable Point-of-Use/Point-of-Entry Decentralized Public Water System Final Report”, March 2005, p18. nsf.org/business/.../pdf/GrimesFinalReport_Dec05.pdf Sierra Club Lake Group Comments on Buckingham Estates Subdivision Proposal; SD 04-02, IS 04-08, 26 Feb 2004. State of California, Department of Finance, E-4 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties and the State, 2001-2009, with 2000 Benchmark. Sacramento, California, May 2009. State of California, Department of Finance, “Interim Population Projections Report” p.1, June 2001. PREPARERS John Benoit, Executive Officer LAKE LAFCO PO Box 2694, Granite Bay CA 95746 Phone: 916-797-6003 johnbenoit@surewest.net Christy Leighton, Planning Consultant 44 Adopted LAKE LAFCO MSR/SOI Buckingham Park Water District Resolution 2010-0010 MSR and Resolution 2010-0011 SOI November 17, 2010 555 East Willow Street, Willows CA 95988 Phone: 530-934-4597 christyleighton@sbcglobal.net 45 Adopted LAKE LAFCO MSR/SOI Buckingham Park Water District Resolution 2010-0010 MSR and Resolution 2010-0011 SOI November 17, 2010 Buckingham Park Water District Lake County, California 46 Adopted LAKE LAFCO MSR/SOI Buckingham Park Water District Resolution 2010-0010 MSR and Resolution 2010-0011 SOI November 17, 2010 47