Calpines CSD MSR

MODOC LAFCO California Pines Community Service District MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW http://www.calpines.com/photogallery.shtml ADOPTED February 9, 2010 RESOLUTION 2010-0001 i TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1.1 LAFCO's Responsibilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1.2 Municipal Service Review Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1.3 Preparation of the MSR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1.4 Description of Public Participation Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1.5 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2 SETTING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.1 County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.2 County Population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.3 Climate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3 CALIFORNIA PINES COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.1 Location and History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.2 Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.3 California Pines CSD Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3.3.1 Streets and Roads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3.3.2 California Pines CSD Water System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 A. Water System Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 B. Groundwater Basin Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 C. California Pines CSD Water System Overview . . . . . . . . 11 D. California Pines CSD Water System Concerns . . . . . . . . 12 3.3.3 Wastewater Treatment and Disposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13 A. Wastewater Treatment Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 B. California Pines CSD Wastewater Treatment . . . . . . . . 13 3.3.4 Fire Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14 A. Fire Protection Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 B. California Pines CSD Fire Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 3.3.5 California Pines CSD Airport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 3.3.6 Recreation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 3.3.7 Solid Waste Disposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 A. Solid Waste Regulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 B. California Pines CSD Solid Waste Disposal . . . . . . . . . . 18 3.3.8 Mosquito Abatement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 3.3.9 Vacant Lot Clearing and Mowing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 3.4 California Pines CSD Finances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 3.4.1 2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 3.4.2 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 A. Audit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 B. Retirement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 C. Revenue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 D. Budget . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 E. Savings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 i 4 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR CALIFORNIA PINES CSD . . . . . . . . . 23 4.1 Growth and Population Projections for the California Pines Area . . . . 24 4.1.1 Population Growth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24 4.1.2 MSR Determinations on Growth and Population for California Pines CSD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 4.2 Capacity and Infrastructure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 4.2.1 Infrastructure Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 4.2.2 MSR Determinations Regarding Capacity and Infrastructure for California Pines CSD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 A. Streets and Roads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 B. Water Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 C. Wastewater Collection and Treatment Service . . . . . . . 26 D. Fire Protection Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 E. Airport Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 F. Park and Recreation Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 G. Solid Waste Disposal Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 H. Mosquito Abatement Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 I. Vacant Lot Clearing and Mowing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 4.3 Financial Ability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 4.3.1 Financial Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 4.3.2 MSR Determinations on Financial Ability for California Pines CSD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 4.4 Opportunities for Shared Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 4.4.1 Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 4.4.2 MSR Determinations on Shared Facilities for California Pines CSD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 4.5 Government Structure and Accountability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 4.5.1 Government Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 4.5.2 MSR Determinations on Government Structure and Accountability for California Pines CSD . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 APPENDIX A LOCAL GOVERNMENT ISSUES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 PREPARERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Modoc LAFCO Resolution 2010-0001 ii Adopted Feb 9, 2010 California Pines CSD MSR ABBREVIATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 DEFINITIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 MAP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Modoc LAFCO Resolution 2010-0001 iii Adopted Feb 9, 2010 California Pines CSD MSR 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 LAFCO's Responsibilities LAFCOs in California are independent agencies created by the California Legislature in 1963 among whose major purposes include encouraging the orderly formation of local governmental agencies and conserving and preserving natural resources. The Cortese- Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 (Government Code §56000, et seq.) is the statutory authority for the preparation of a Municipal Service Review (MSR), and periodic updates of the Sphere of Influence of each local agency. LAFCOs are responsible for coordinating logical and timely changes in local governmental boundaries, conducting special studies that review ways to reorganize, simplify, and streamline governmental structure, preparing a review of services called a Municipal Service Review and preparing a Sphere of Influence thereby determining the future “probable” boundary for each city and special district within each county. The Commission's efforts are directed toward seeing that services are provided efficiently and economically while agricultural and open-space lands are protected. Often citizens are mystified as to what LAFCO’s role is. LAFCOs do not have enforcement authority nor do they have the authority to initiate a city or district annexation or detachment proceeding. LAFCOs may initiate consolidation or dissolution proceedings; however, these proceedings are subject to the voter approval or denial. The Legislature has given LAFCOs the authority to modify any proposal before it to ensure the protection of agricultural and open space resources, discourage urban sprawl and promote orderly boundaries and the provision of adequate services. 1.2 Municipal Service Review Requirements The Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 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 to prepare a written statement 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 Modoc LAFCO Resolution 2010-0001 1 Adopted Feb 9, 2010 California Pines CSD MSR 1.3 Preparation of the MSR Research for this Municipal Service Review was conducted primarily during a six month period during the spring and summer of 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 MSR is to develop recommendations that will achieve the following: • Promote more efficient and higher quality public service patterns. • Identify areas for public service improvements. • Assess the adequacy of service provision as it relates to determination of appropriate sphere of influence boundaries. While LAFCO prepared the MSR document, LAFCO did not engage the services of experts in engineering, law enforcement, fire protection, recreation and other specialists in related fields, but relied upon reports and California Pines CSD staff for information. Therefore, this MSR reflects LAFCO’s recommendations, based on available information during the research period and provided by California Pines CSD staff to assist in its determinations related to promoting more efficient and higher quality service patterns; identifying areas for service improvement; and assessing the adequacy of service pro- vision for the California Pines CSD. This MSR includes relevant information from the various reports. Since the reports were prepared at different times there may be occasional differences in data. 1.4 Description of Public Participation Process Modoc 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 of California’s open meeting law, the Ralph M. Brown Act (Government Code Sections 54950, et seq.) The Brown Act requires advance posting of meeting agendas and contains various other provisions designed to ensure that the public has adequate access to information regarding the proceedings of public boards and commissions. Modoc 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. Modoc LAFCO Resolution 2010-0001 2 Adopted Feb 9, 2010 California Pines CSD MSR MSR policies have been adopted by the Modoc LAFCO. Modoc 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 Modoc 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 Modoc LAFCO. 1.5 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) The Municipal Service Review is a planning study that will be considered by Modoc LAFCO in connection with subsequent proceedings regarding the California Pines CSD and the Spheres of Influence. The Sphere of Influence review or update that will follow has not been approved or adopted by LAFCO. 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. http://www.deanneerrealty.com/images/pp%20shasta.jpg Modoc LAFCO Resolution 2010-0001 3 Adopted Feb 9, 2010 California Pines CSD MSR 2 SETTING 2.1 County Modoc County is located in the far northeast corner of California. The County's official slogans include "The last best place" and "Where the West still lives." Modoc County was formed when California Governor Newton Booth signed an Act of the California Legislature on February 17, 1874. Land for the County was taken from the eastern part of Siskiyou County. A large portion of Modoc County is Federal reservations. A patchwork of overlapping government agencies form a significant part of the economy and provide services to this rural area. The Federal presence includes the following five agencies and departments: • US Forest Service • Bureau of Land Management • National Park Service • Bureau of Indian Affairs • US Fish and Wildlife Service. The northern half of the County is the Modoc Plateau, a one mile high expanse of lava flows, cinder cones, juniper flats, pine forests, and seasonal lakes. Nearly a million acres of the Modoc National Forest lie on the Plateau between the Medicine Lake Highlands in the west and the Warner Mountains in the east. The Plateau supports large herds of mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus), Rocky Mountain Elk (Cervus canadensis), and pronghorn antelope (Antilocapra americana). There are also several herds of wild horses on the Plateau. The Clear Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Long Bell State Game Refuge are located on the plateau as well. The Lost River watershed drains the north part of the plateau, while southern watersheds either collect in basin reservoirs or flow into the large Big Sage Reservoir, which sits in the center of the county. 2.2 County Population As of the 2000 US Census there were 9,449 people living in 3,784 households residing in Modoc County. There were 4,807 housing units.1 The median income for a household in Modoc County was $33,317 in 2007.2 In Modoc County 77.1% of the population aged 25 and over were high school graduates; this is higher than the State of California percentage of 76.8%. However only 12.4% of the population in Modoc County graduated from college with a BA or higher compared to 1 http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06/06049.html 2 http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06/06049.html Modoc LAFCO Resolution 2010-0001 4 Adopted Feb 9, 2010 California Pines CSD MSR 26.6% for the State of California.3 The State Department of Housing and Community Development reports that the Modoc County Median Income for a four-person household in 2009 is $55,800 per year.4 MODOC COUNTY POPULATION 2000 TO 20095 Year Modoc County Alturas Unincorporated Area 2000 9,449 2,892 6,557 2001 9,493 2,889 6,604 2002 9,448 2,873 6,575 2003 9,492 2,860 6,632 2004 9,583 2,823 6,760 2005 9,636 2,818 6,818 2006 9,684 2,820 6,364 2007 9,685 2,816 6,869 2008 9,668 2,793 6,875 2009 9,698 2,792 6,916 2.3 Climate The climate in Modoc County is a high desert climate with warm, dry summers and cold wet winters. High/low temperatures are as follows: January High 40 Low 16 July High 88 Low 45 Annual precipitation is as follows: Valleys 8 inches per year Mountains 35 inches per year Alturas elevation is 4,300 feet above sea level.6 The elevation at California Pines is 4,368 feet above sea level. 3 http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06/06049.html 4 State of California, Department of Housing and Community Development, Memorandum Official State Income Limits for 2009, April 2, 2009. 5 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. http://www.dof.ca.gov/research/demographic/reports/estimates/e-4_2001-07 6 www.yippytio.com Modoc LAFCO Resolution 2010-0001 5 Adopted Feb 9, 2010 California Pines CSD MSR 3 CALIFORNIA PINES COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT 3.1 Location and History The California Pines Community Services District (CSD) is located west of Alturas in Modoc County. The California Pines CSD was formed in 1969 to serve the needs of the California Pines Subdivision. The subdivided area included 10,700+ acres but the District included 24,700+ acres. Additional land was annexed to the District in 1970 and 1975 so that the District now includes approximately 80 square miles. The District serves a population of approximately 400 people.7 Contact information for the District is as follows: California Pines CSD HCR-4 Box 43002, Alturas, CA 96101 530-233-2766, Email: cpcsd1@hdo.net Mission Statement: California Pines community Service District will strive to provide the full range of municipal services, at a reasonable cost applied consistently to all customers, while maintaining a healthy infrastructure, environmental integrity and promoting the economic development of our community. 3.2 Management The California Pines Community Services District is governed by a five-member elected Board of Directors as follows:8 Director Term Ends Henry “Hank” Drury 2010 Stanley Ehlinger 2010 Bruce Rodgers 2010 Charles Coiner 2012 Durward Fields 2012 The directors are paid $100 per meeting. The meetings are held at 6:00 p.m. on the third Wednesday of each month to allow a variety of people to attend.9 The meetings are held at the District Building.10 7 California Pines CSD, Vera Sphar, June 12, 2009. 8 County of Modoc, Clerk’s Office, Stephanie Northrup: stephanienorthrup@co.modoc.ca.us 9 California Pines CSD, Vera Sphar, November 18, 2009. 10 California Pines CSD, Modoc LAFCO Questionnaire, 2003. Modoc LAFCO Resolution 2010-0001 6 Adopted Feb 9, 2010 California Pines CSD MSR The General Manager is Ron Sherer and the Administrative Secretary is Vera Sphar. There are a total of nine employees.11 3.3 California Pines CSD Services When the California Pines CSD was formed in 1969 the following eleven services were proposed: 1. Water 2. Sewage collection and treatment 3. Garbage collection and disposal 4. Fire protection 5. Public recreation 6. Street lighting 7. Mosquito abatement 8. Sites for library 9. Streets 10. Bridges 11. Conversion of overhead electric to underground locations12 In 1984, Modoc LAFCO reported that police protection and airport services were added to the powers in the early 1970s.13 The District provides Fire Protection Services, Street Services, Recreation Services and Mosquito Abatement as Governmental Activities and Airport, Water, Wastewater, Vacant Lot Clearing/Mowing, and Solid Waste Disposal services as Business-Type activities. 3.3.1 Streets and Roads The Cal Pine Property Owners Association, with obligatory membership for all owners, has various responsibilities for improvements and maintenance, primarily for the maintenance of all roads except for those in the CSD assessment area (Lake Units 1B, 3, and 4; Mobilehome Park).14 The 2008 Audit reported that Street Services is considered a Governmental activity and that $144,014 was spent on Streets for fiscal year 2007-2008.15 The 2008-2009 Budget for Street Services was $179,360.16 11 California Pines CSD, Vera Sphar, June 12, 2009. 12 Modoc LAFCO, “Report RE: Proposed California Pines Community Services District,” Iris B. Turner, Executive Officer, October 24, 1969. 13 Modoc LAFCO, “Sphere of Influence Reports Special Districts and City of Alturas,” December 1984, page 47. 14 Modoc LAFCO, “Sphere of Influence Reports Special Districts and City of Alturas,” December 1984, page 48 15 California Pines CSD, “Financial Statements and Independent Auditor’s Report, June 30, 2008,” Page 5; Carlos E. Soler, CPA, 910 Florin Road, Suite 200, Sacramento CA 95381, 916-424-6233, www.solercpa.com. 16 California Pines CSD, Final Budget 2008-2009. Modoc LAFCO Resolution 2010-0001 7 Adopted Feb 9, 2010 California Pines CSD MSR The District maintains 15 miles of roads of which 5 miles are paved. The District owns the appropriate equipment including a road grader.17 3.3.2 California Pines CSD Water System 3.3.2.1 Water System Issues Modoc County Code requires that water wells be constructed with a continuous seal from ground level down 50 feet. The purpose of the seal is to assure that surface water cannot flow into the well casing and contaminate deeper aquifers that are penetrated by the well. Small community water treatment has posed an enormous problem for the drinking water regulatory community, drinking water professionals, and the people living in these communities. The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) and subsequent regulations require that all water in the distribution system and at every tap connected to the distribution system comply. Water treatment usually consists of filtration and disinfection. Water treatment standards essentially mandate central treatment for drinking water prior to entering the distribution system. No water that exceeds a primary standard may be used for drinking water. Primary Standards have been developed to protect human health and are rigorously enforced by the Department of Health Services. For very small communities, this may be a cost that poses an undue burden. Often it could be a cost that has negative public health implications. For a very low-income family, the money spent on water treatment may not be available for other essentials. Rather than spend that money, a community may apply for a variance or exemption. 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.18 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.19 17 California Pines CSD, Vera Sphar, June 22, 2009. 18 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 19 Brelje & Race Consulting Civil Engineers, “Preliminary Engineering Report Bonanza Springs Water System CSA #7 Lake County Special Districts,” December 2006, Page 8. Modoc LAFCO Resolution 2010-0001 8 Adopted Feb 9, 2010 California Pines CSD MSR 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.20 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.21 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 10% to 20% is considered acceptable by the American Water Works Association (AWWA). 3.3.2.2 Groundwater Basin Background 1. Alturas Groundwater Basin The California Pines CSD gets water from the South Fork Pit River Groundwater Subbasin which is part of the Alturas Groundwater Basin (Groundwater Basin No. 5- 2.01). The Alturas Groundwater Basin covers 178 square miles. In addition to the California Pines CSD, the City of Alturas and the Hot Springs Valley Irrigation District also take water from this groundwater basin.22 According to the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) “California’s Groundwater Bulletin 118”: The South Fork Pit River Groundwater Subbasin is bounded on the east by Plio- Pleistocene basalt and Pleistocene Pyroclastic rocks of the Warner Mountains, to the north by Pleistocene basalt of Devils Garden, to the south by Plio- Pleistocene basalt, and to the west by Warm Springs tuff. The South Fork Pit River enters the Basin near the community of Likely and flows north through the South Fork Pit River Valley to its confluence with the North Fork Pit at the town of Alturas. Annual precipitation ranges from 13 to 19 inches. 20 Brelje & Race Consulting Civil Engineers, “Preliminary Engineering Report Bonanza Springs Water System CSA #7 Lake County Special Districts,” December 2006, p. 10. 21 Brelje & Race Consulting Civil Engineers, “Preliminary Engineering Report Bonanza Springs Water System CSA #7 Lake County Special Districts,” December 2006, p. 11 22 California Department of Water Resources: http://www.dpla2.water.ca.gov/publications/groundwater/bulletin118/basins/pdfs_desc/5-2.01.pdf, September 19, 2008. Modoc LAFCO Resolution 2010-0001 9 Adopted Feb 9, 2010 California Pines CSD MSR The three principal water-bearing formations are as follows: • Holocene sedimentary deposits (which include alluvial fan deposits, intermediate alluvium, and basin deposits, each up to a thickness of 75 feet.) Alluvial fan deposits consist of unconsolidated to poorly consolidated crudely stratified silt, sand, and gravel with lenses of clay. These deposits generally have high permeability and are capable of yielding large amounts of water to wells. This unit may include confined as well as unconfined water. Intermediate alluvium consists of unconsolidated, poorly sorted silt and sand with some lenses of gravel. These deposits have moderate permeability and yield moderate amounts of water to shallow wells. Basin deposits consist of unconsolidated, interstratified clay, silt, and fine sand. These deposits have moderate to low permeability and yield small amounts of water to wells. • Pleistocene lava flows, and near-shore deposits Pleistocene near-shore deposits consist of slightly consolidated to cemented, poorly to well stratified, pebble and cobble gravel with lenses of sand and silt to a thickness of 200 feet. The most extensive near-shore deposits occur in the northeast corner of the basin where the North Fork Pit River enters the Valley. Other minor areas of these deposits occur but are not considered significant as water-bearing areas. These deposits have moderate permeability and may yield fair to moderate amounts of unconfined water to wells. The Pleistocene volcanic rocks consist of lava flows of layered, jointed basalt ranging in thickness from 50 to 250 feet. These basalt flows serve as recharge zones where exposed in the uplands surrounding the basin. Within the basin, where saturated, scoriaceous zones and joints in the basaltic flows occur interbedded with the upper member of the Alturas Formation in the Valley areas. • Plio-Pleistocene Alturas Formation and basalts.23 The Plio-Pleistocene Alturas Formation consists of moderately consolidated, flat- lying beds of tuff, ashy sandstone. and diatomite, and is widespread both at the surface and at depth. The upper and lower sedimentary members of the formation are each about 400 feet thick, and are separated by a basalt member and the Warm Springs tuff. 23 California Department of Water Resources: http://www.dpla2.water.ca.gov/publications/groundwater/bulletin118/basins/pdfs_desc/5-2.01.pdf, Sept. 19, 2008. Modoc LAFCO Resolution 2010-0001 10 Adopted Feb 9, 2010 California Pines CSD MSR The sediments have a moderate to high permeability and, where saturated, can yield large amounts of groundwater to wells. The formation contains both confined and unconfined groundwater. 2. Groundwater Quantity and Quality According to the California Department of Water Resources “California’s Groundwater Bulletin 118”: Water levels generally declined up to 10 feet in the northern part of the Basin during the period from the 1980s through the early 1990s and have recovered to former levels through 1999. The groundwater storage capacity to a depth of 800 feet is estimated to be approximately 7,500,000 acre feet for the entire Alturas Groundwater Basin (including the South Fork Pit River Subbasin and the Warms Springs Valley Subbasin). Estimates of groundwater extraction are based on surveys conducted by the California Department of Water Resources during 1997. Surveys included land use and sources of water. Estimates of groundwater extraction for agricultural use and for municipal/industrial use are 13,000 and 260 acre feet respectively. Deep percolation of applied water is estimated to be 9,600 acre feet. Sodium bicarbonate and sodium-calcium bicarbonate type waters are the predominant water types in the basin. The concentration of total dissolved solids ranges from 180-800 mg/L, averaging 357 mg/L. Some wells in the Alturas Groundwater Basin have high concentrations of total dissolved solids, nitrate, iron, or boron. Irrigation wells can produce from 55 to 5,000 gallons per minute. Domestic wells range from 34 to 750 feet deep. Irrigation wells range from 90 to 1,029 feet deep.24 3.3.2.3 California Pines CSD Water System Overview Water is provided in the following areas:25 • Lake Units 1B, 3, and 4 • The Mobilehome Park • Lake Unit 2 (part only) • Castle Rock Estates (part only) 24California Department of Water Resources: http://www.dpla2.water.ca.gov/publications/groundwater/bulletin118/basins/pdfs_desc/5-2.01.pdf, September 19, 2008 25 Modoc LAFCO, “Sphere of Influence Reports Special Districts and City of Alturas,” December 1984, page 48. Modoc LAFCO Resolution 2010-0001 11 Adopted Feb 9, 2010 California Pines CSD MSR There are two water storage tanks.26 There were 54 water connections in 198427 and there are 131 connections in 2009.28 Water is metered from April 30th to October 31st each year. The monthly charge for water is $32.25.29 A mailed ballot election held on May 5, 2009, approved a special tax of $14.00 per year for the water system for the Lake Units, Mobile Home Park, Lake Units 1b, 3, and 4. The vote was 63 in favor with 16 opposed so the measure was approved by 79.75% of the voters. There are 272 voters in the District but only 79 voted.30 The new water connection fees are as follows:31 California Pines CSD New Water Service Connection Fees Lake Unit 3 and parts of Unit 2 $2,500.00 Castlerock Estates $2,500.00 Lake Unit 4 $2,500.00 Lake Unit 1B $500.00 Mobile Home Park $500.00 3.3.2.4 California Pines CSD Water System Concerns Past health violations include the following four incidents: • MCL, Monthly (TCR) - In OCT-2003, Contaminant: Coliform. Follow-up actions: St Compliance achieved (NOV-10-2003), St Violation/Reminder Notice (NOV-10- 2003) • MCL, Monthly (TCR) - In SEP-2003, Contaminant: Coliform. Follow-up actions: St Compliance achieved (OCT-10-2003), St Violation/Reminder Notice (OCT-10- 2003) • MCL, Monthly (TCR) - In SEP-2002, Contaminant: Coliform • MCL, Monthly (TCR) - In AUG-2002, Contaminant: Coliform. Follow-up actions: St Violation/Reminder Notice (SEP-16-2002) Past monitoring violations include the following: • Initial Tap Sampling for Pb and Cu - Between JUL-1993 and DEC-2003, Contaminant: Lead & Copper Rule. Follow-up actions: Fed Compliance achieved (DEC-31-2003) • One minor monitoring violation 32 26 California Pines CSD, Vera Sphar, June 22, 2009. 27 Modoc LAFCO, “Sphere of Influence Reports Special Districts and City of Alturas,” December 1984, page 48. 28 California Pines CSD, Vera Sphar, June 12, 2009. 29 California Pines CSD Service Rates Effective June 2006. 30 Modoc County Clerk Recorder, Tracy Sides, 204 S. Court Street, Alturas, CA 96101, 530-233-6205, Fax 530-233- 6666, July 1, 2009. 31 California Pines CSD Service Rates Effective June 2006. 32 http://www.city-data.com/city/Alturas-California.html Modoc LAFCO Resolution 2010-0001 12 Adopted Feb 9, 2010 California Pines CSD MSR 3.3.3 Wastewater Treatment and Disposal 3.3.3.1 Wastewater Treatment Overview Wastewater is the water that drains from sinks, showers, washers, and toilets. Wastewater also includes water used for some outdoor purposes such as draining chlorinated pool water, commercial car washes, and industrial processes. Underground sanitary sewer pipelines carry sewage to a wastewater treatment plant, where it is treated, sanitized and discharged. Wastewater Treatment demand management strategies include the following: • Sewer infiltration and inflow (I&I) control • Industrial pretreatment and recycling • Water conservation. Service providers can reduce infiltration and inflow with capital improvements such as pipeline rehabilitation, manhole cover replacement, and root eradication. They can also address sources on private property (such as broken service lines, uncapped cleanouts and exterior drains) through public education, incentives, and regulatory strategies. Communities use various techniques to prohibit discharge of unwanted pollutants or to reduce the quantity and strength of wastewater discharged to sewers. These techniques include the following: • Permit limitations on the strength and contaminant levels of industrial and commercial wastewater • Increased rates or surcharges on high-strength wastes • Incentives or requirements for water recycling and reuse within the industrial or commercial operation Water conservation measures are effective for reducing average wastewater flows, but have less impact on peak flows, which are usually strongly influenced by infiltration and inflow contributions. Water conservation has little or no impact on organic loading to the treatment plant. 3.3.3.2 California Pines CSD Wastewater Treatment The California Pines CSD wastewater treatment system includes sewer lines and evaporation ponds.33 Of the 54 units connected to the water system in 1984, 31 were 33 California Pines CSD, Vera Sphar, June 22, 2009. Modoc LAFCO Resolution 2010-0001 13 Adopted Feb 9, 2010 California Pines CSD MSR also connected to the sewer system.34 In 2009 there were 120 sewer system connections.35 The monthly wastewater treatment fee is $38.00. A mailed ballot election held on May 5, 2009, approved a special tax of $14.00 per year for the sewer system for the Lake Units, Mobile Home Park, Lake Units 1b, 3, and 4. The vote was 63 in favor with 16 opposed so the measure was approved by 79.75% of the voters. There are 272 voters in the District but only 79 voted.36 The wastewater connection fees are as follows:37 California Pines CSD New Wastewater Connection Fees Lake Unit 4 and parts of Unit 2 $2,600.00 Castlerock Estates $2,600.00 Lake Unit 1B $500.00 Lake Unit 3 $500.00 The Water Budget for 2008-2009 was $77,412.38 According to the Independent Audit the District spent $99,870 for water service in 2007-2008.39 3.3.4 Fire Protection 3.3.4.1 Fire Protection Issues The following is a general discussion of five fire protection issues including the following: 1. Mutual Aid 2. Dispatch 3. Response Time 4. Staffing 5. Water Supply 1. Mutual/Automatic Aid Issues 34 Modoc LAFCO, “Sphere of Influence Reports Special Districts and City of Alturas,” December 1984, page 48. 35 California Pines CSD, Vera Sphar, June 12, 2009. 36 Modoc County Clerk Recorder, Tracy Sides, 204 S. Court Street, Alturas, CA 96101, Phone 530-233-6205, Fax 530- 233-6666, July 1, 2009. 37 California Pines CSD Service Rates Effective June 2006. 38 California Pines CSD, Final Budget 2008-2009. 39 California Pines CSD, “Financial Statements and Independent Auditor’s Report, June 30, 2008”; Carlos E. Soler, CPA, 910 Florin Road, Suite 200, Sacramento CA 95381, 916-424-6233, www.solercpa.com. Modoc LAFCO Resolution 2010-0001 14 Adopted Feb 9, 2010 California Pines CSD MSR Most of the fire protection and EMS providers primarily serve their own jurisdictions. Given the critical need for rapid response, however, there are extensive mutual aid efforts that cross jurisdictional boundaries. Mutual aid refers to reciprocal service provided under a mutual aid agreement, a pre- arranged plan and contract between agencies for reciprocal assistance upon request by the first-response agency. In addition, the jurisdictions rely on automatic aid primarily for coverage of areas with street access limitations and freeways. Automatic aid refers to reciprocal service provided under an automatic aid agreement, a prearranged plan or contract between agencies for an automatic response for service with no need for a request to be made. 2. Fire Protection Dispatch Issues Dispatch for fire and medical calls is increasingly becoming regionalized and specialized. This increased regionalization and specialization is motivated by the following factors: a. Constituents increasingly expect emergency medical dispatching (EMD), which involves over-the-phone medical procedure instructions to the 911 caller and requires specialized staff. b. Paramedics increasingly rely on EMD, which also involves preparing the paramedic en-route for the type of medical emergency and procedures. c. Dispatch technology and protocols have become increasingly complex. d. Modern technology has enabled better measurement and regulatory oversight of fire department (FD) response times, and increased pressure for FDs to meet response time guidelines. e. FDs need standard communication protocols due to their reliance on mutual aid. f. Dispatching of calls from cell phones is particularly inefficient due to multiple transfers, length of time the caller spends on hold and lack of location information. Response times are further delayed when callers that are unfamiliar with the area are unable to describe rural locations to the dispatch personnel. g. All new cell phones are now equipped with GPS; however, it will take a few years for all old phones to be replaced by phones with GPS capability and/or construction of specialized cell phone towers. h. The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) recommends a 60-second standard for dispatch time, the time between the placement of the 911 call and the notification of the emergency responders. The Center for Public Safety Excellence recommends a 50-second benchmark for dispatch time. Modoc LAFCO Resolution 2010-0001 15 Adopted Feb 9, 2010 California Pines CSD MSR i. There are clear economies of scale in providing modern fire and medical dispatch services. 3. Fire Protection Response Time Issues Response times reflect the time elapsed between the dispatch of personnel and the arrival of the first responder on the scene. For fire and paramedic service, there are service standards relating to response times, dispatch times, staffing, and water flow. Particularly in cases involving patients who have stopped breathing or are suffering from heart attacks, the chances of survival improve when the patient receives medical care quickly. Similarly, a quick fire suppression response can potentially prevent a structure fire from reaching the “flashover” point at which very rapid fire spreading occurs—generally in less than 10 minutes.40 The guideline established by the National Fire Protection Association41 for fire response times is six minutes at least 90 percent of the time, with response time measured from the 911-call time to the arrival time of the first-responder at the scene.42 The fire response time guideline established by the Center for Public Safety Excellence (formerly the Commission on Fire Accreditation International) is 5 minutes 50 seconds at least 90 percent of the time.43 4. Fire Protection Staffing Issues For structure fires, NFPA recommends that the response team include 14 personnel—a commander, five water supply line operators, a two-person search and rescue team, a two-person ventilation team, a two-person initial rapid intervention crew, and two support people. The NFPA guidelines require fire departments to establish overall staffing levels to meet response time standards, and to consider the hazard to human life, firefighter safety, potential property loss, and the firefighting approach. NFPA recommends that each engine, ladder, or truck company be staffed by four on- duty firefighters, and that at least four firefighters (two in and two out), each with protective clothing and respiratory protection, be on the scene to initiate fire-fighting inside a structure. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) standard 40 NFPA Standard 1710, 2004. 41 The National Fire Protection Association is a non-profit association of fire chiefs, firefighters, manufacturers and consultants. 42 Guideline for a full structure fire is response within ten minutes by a 12-15 person response team at least 90 percent of the time. 43 Commission on Fire Accreditation International, 2000. Modoc LAFCO Resolution 2010-0001 16 Adopted Feb 9, 2010 California Pines CSD MSR requires that when two firefighters enter a structure fire, two will remain on the outside to assist in rescue activities.44 For emergency medical response with advanced life support needs, NFPA recommends the response team include first responders. 5. Fire Protection Water Supply Issues For structure fires, NFPA recommends the availability of an uninterrupted water supply for 30 minutes with enough pressure to apply at least 400 gallons of water per minute. 3.3.4.2 California Pines CSD Fire Protection The Lake Units are included in the Cal Pines CSD. The California Pines CSD funded the firehouse located in the Lake Units. The Pines Units 1 through 5 are not within the Canby Fire Protection District. There is an automatic aid agreement for all fires from the Canby Fire Protection District. The California Pines CSD funds six full-time paid fire fighters and has an additional five volunteer fire fighters. The Fire Department trains with CALFIRE nearly every month and with Canby Fire Department and Alturas Rural Fire Department and CALFIRE at least once per year. 45 The Cal Pines CSD has eight vehicles available for fire protection/EMS as follows:46 4121 International, 1997 Type III Engine 4122 International 2009 Type 1,2,3 Engine 4123 International, 2002 Type III Engine 4150 Dodge, 2001 Medical Unit 4131 Peterbuilt, 1994 4000 Gallon Tender 4132 K.W., 1978 4000 Gallon Tender 4124 Dodge, 1979 125 gallon; medical 4131 Chevy, 1986 Quick Attack Vehicle The State of California reports that California Pines had $136,771 in Revenue for Fire Protection and $60,731 in Expenses for Fire Protection in Fiscal Year 2006-07.47 The Independent Audit reports that $287,922 was spent for Fire Protection Services in 2007- 2008.48 The 2008-2009 Budget for Fire Protection was $153,560.49 A mailed ballot election held on May 5, 2009, approved a special tax of $20.00 per year for fire protection for the Hill Units 1-5, Lake Units 1a, 1b, 2, 3, and 4; and the Mobile 44 29 CFR 1910.134. 45 California Pines CSD, Vera Sphar, November 18, 2009. 46 “Modoc County Community Wildfire Protection Plan,” May 2008, p.31. 47 State of California, State Controller, “Special District Annual Report Fiscal Year 2006-07.” 48 California Pines CSD, “Financial Statements and Independent Auditor’s Report, June 30, 2008”; Carlos E. Soler, CPA, 910 Florin Road, Suite 200, Sacramento CA 95381, 916-424-6233, www.solercpa.com. 49 California Pines CSD, Final Budget 2008-2009. Modoc LAFCO Resolution 2010-0001 17 Adopted Feb 9, 2010 California Pines CSD MSR Home Park. The vote was 88 in favor with 41 opposed so the measure was approved by 68.22% of the voters. There are 272 voters in the District but only 129 voted.50 3.3.5 California Pines CSD Airport According to the State Controller’s Report for 2006-2007, the California Pines CSD maintained an Airport Enterprise Fund with Revenue of $7,486 and Expenditures of $27,017.51 The income comes in the form of a yearly grant from the State Department of Transportation.52 The District reported that the air strip needs to be resurfaced but there are insufficient funds available. Although in the past it was anticipated that at some time in the future the State may force the Airport to close;53 in 2009, the State paid $414,000 and the CSD paid $49,250 to have the runway repaved. The District hopes to promote more visitors by air with the improved facility.54 3.3.6 Recreation According to the Independent Audit the California Pines CSD spent $71,871 for Recreation and cultural services in 2007-2008.55 The Park and Recreation Budget for 2008-2009 was $37,025.56 3.3.7 Solid Waste Disposal 3.3.7.1 Solid Waste Regulations There are three regulatory bodies relevant to solid waste disposal: • California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB) • Local Enforcement Agencies – Environmental Health (LEA) • Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) In 1989, the California legislature passed the California Integrated Waste Management Act (AB 939) in an effort to conserve resources and extend landfill capacity. The Act established an unprecedented framework for integrated waste management planning and waste disposal compliance. Based on a 1990 disposal baseline, AB 939 required cities and counties to reduce the amount of solid waste generated in their jurisdictions and disposed in landfills by 25 50 Modoc County Clerk Recorder, Tracy Sides, 204 S. Court Street, Alturas, CA 96101, 530-233-6205, Fax 530-233- 6666, July 1, 2009. 51 State of California, State Controller, “Special District Annual Report Fiscal Year 2006-07.” 52 Modoc LAFCO, California Pines CSD Questionnaire, 2003. 53 Modoc LAFCO, California Pines CSD Questionnaire, 2003. 54 California Pines, CSD, Vera Sphar, November 18, 2009. 55 California Pines CSD, “Financial Statements and Independent Auditor’s Report, June 30, 2008,” Carlos E. Soler, CPA, 910 Florin Road, Suite 200, Sacramento CA 95381, 916-424-6233, www.solercpa.com. 56 California Pines CSD, Final Budget 2008-2009. Modoc LAFCO Resolution 2010-0001 18 Adopted Feb 9, 2010 California Pines CSD MSR percent by the year 1995 and by 50 percent by the year 2000.57 AB 939 also required local governments to prepare comprehensive integrated waste management plans that detail how the waste diversion mandates will be met and to update elements of those plans every five years. AB 939 established the CIWMB to oversee integrated waste management planning and compliance; CIWMB serves as the permitting and enforcement agency. The Board is responsible for approving permits for waste facilities, approving local agencies’ diversion rates, and enforcing the planning requirements of the law through Local Enforcement Agencies (LEAs). LEAs inspect and investigate solid waste collection, handling, storage and equipment. LEAs may also verify compliance with state and local minimum standards for the protection of the environment and public health. LEA reports are forwarded to CIWMB and the relevant operator upon completion. Any potential discharge to surface or groundwater is regulated by RWQCB. The owner or operator of any facility that discharges, or proposes to discharge, waste that may affect groundwater quality (including solid waste disposal facilities) must first obtain a waste discharge requirement permit (WDR) from the appropriate RWQCB. A WDR order adopted by RWQCB for an individual facility defines measures to mitigate any potential contamination of the groundwater. In addition to these two bodies, AB 2948 (enacted in 1986) established procedures for regional hazardous waste planning. Under this regulation, counties were to develop hazardous waste plans and projections by 2000. 3.3.7.2 California Pines CSD Solid Waste Disposal The Solid Waste Disposal fee is $10.50 per month.58 The Budget for Solid Waste Disposal for 2008-2009 was $67,750.59 The revenue for Solid Waste Disposal is based on a special assessment as well as the fee collection. The District owns the appropriate equipment including two waste-collection trucks. Waste is hauled to the Alturas Landfill.60 3.3.8 Mosquito Abatement The Mosquito Abatement Service Charge is $1.00 per month.61 The District provides the Mosquito Abatement Service and has the appropriate mosquito spray fogging equipment. 57 A Senate Bill passed in 1997 allowed for extensions through 2005 for jurisdictions that made a “good faith effort” to comply. 58 California Pines CSD Service Rates Effective June 2006. 59 California Pines CSD, Final Budget 2008-2009. 60 Modoc County, “California Pines Specific Plan and Draft EIR,” February 1983, Page 62. 61 California Pines CSD Service Rates Effective June 2006. Modoc LAFCO Resolution 2010-0001 19 Adopted Feb 9, 2010 California Pines CSD MSR 3.3.9 Vacant Lot Clearing and Mowing Vacant lot clearing and mowing service is provided in the Mobile Home Park and Lake Unit 4. The cost is $37.00 per year in the Mobile Home Park and $47.00 per year in the other areas.62 This service is required for fire prevention and mosquito abatement.63 3.4 California Pines CSD Finances 3.4.1 2002 For the Fiscal year ended June 30, 2002, the District had Governmental Revenue of $206,243 and expenditures of $160,937. Governmental Reserves on June 30, 2002 were $81,504. The Enterprise Funds had Revenue of $230,190 and expenses of $252,105; however, this included $101,552 of depreciation.64 3.4.2 2008 A. Audit For the year ended June 30, 2008, the District had Expenditures of $503,807 with a deficiency of revenues over expenditures of $125,288. However, depreciation of $74,110 was included in the expenses.65 As with most government agencies the largest expense is for salaries, wages and benefits which totaled $191,198 for 2007-2008.66 B. Retirement The District contributes to the California Public Employees Retirement System (PERS), an agent multiple-employer public employee defined benefit pension plan. The participants are required to contribute 3.815% of their annual covered salary. The District makes the contributions required of the District employees on their behalf and for their account. The District is required to contribute at an actuarially determined rate; the current rate is 3.2% for District employees of annual covered payroll.67 C. California Pines CSS Revenue 62 California Pines CSD, 530-233-2766, July 6, 2009. 63 California Pines, CSC, Vera Sphar, November 18, 2009. 64 California Pines CSD, “Audited Financial Statements, June 30, 2002.” 65 California Pines CSD, “Financial Statements and Independent Auditor’s Report June 30, 2008” Carlos E. Soler, CPA 910 Florin Road Suite 200, Sacramento CA 95381, Phone: 916-424-6233, www.solercpa.com. 66 California Pines CSD, “Financial Statements and Independent Auditor’s Report June 30, 2008” Carlos E. Soler, CPA 910 Florin Road Suite 200, Sacramento CA 95381, Phone: 916-424-6233, www.solercpa.com. 67California Pines CSD, “Financial Statements and Independent Auditor’s Report June 30, 2008” Carlos E. Soler, CPA 910 Florin Road Suite 200, Sacramento CA 95381, Phone: 916-424-6233, www.solercpa.com. Modoc LAFCO Resolution 2010-0001 20 Adopted Feb 9, 2010 California Pines CSD MSR The California Pines CSD Revenue for 2007-2008 is shown as follows:68 Taxes: Secured $11,657,507 Unitary $1,452,475 Unsecured $426,197 Home Owner Tax Exempt $147,602 Other $331,954 Total $14,015,735 Assessments: CSD $65,573.00 Solid Waste $30,752.00 Fire Protection $76,886.00 Total $173,211.00 Other: Lot Mowing $50,000 CDF S/B F/D $30,000 AIP Savings $2,326 Total $82,326 Enterprise: Water $34,000 Wastewater $28,000 Solid Waste $28,500 Connections Water $2,000 Wastewater $2,600 Extra Dumpster $2,400 ($7.50 each empty dump) Total $97,500 68 California Pines CSD Revenues 2007-2008. Modoc LAFCO Resolution 2010-0001 21 Adopted Feb 9, 2010 California Pines CSD MSR D. Budget The Budgets for 2005-2006 and 2008-2009 will be presented for comparison below: The 2005-2006 California Pines CSD Budget shows the following:69 Airport $12,333 Lot Mowing $28,392 Fire Protection $152,065 Water $42,434 Wastewater (Sewer) $62,958 Solid Waste Disposal $40,575 Streets $91,055 Parks/Recreation $42,600 Vector Control $19,415 TOTAL $491,827 The 2008-2009 California Pines CSD Budget shows the following:70 Airport $18,400 Lot Mowing $54,410 Fire Protection $153,560 Water $77,412 Wastewater $95,950 Solid Waste $67,750 Streets $179,360 Parks/Vector Control $37,025 TOTAL $684,367 E. Savings The District maintains $647,187 in various Certificates of Deposit.71 69 California Pines CSD, Final Budget 2005-2006. 70California Pines CSD, Final Budget 2008-2009. 71 California Pines CSD Revenues 2007-2008. Modoc LAFCO Resolution 2010-0001 22 Adopted Feb 9, 2010 California Pines CSD MSR 4 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR CALIFORNIA PINES CSD Modoc 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. http://www.calpines.com/aboutus.shtml Modoc LAFCO Resolution 2010-0001 23 Adopted Feb 9, 2010 California Pines CSD MSR 4.1 Growth and Population Projections for the California Pines CSD Area Purpose: To evaluate service needs based on existing and anticipated growth patterns and population projections. 4.1.1 Population Growth Modoc County has traditionally been supported by logging, ranching, and government, which are in decline. Add to these problems with the basic area economy the 2008- 2009 economic recession it seems that only a small amount of population growth will be expected. There are 11,000+ lots in the Hill Units and additional vacant lots in the Lake Units so that the California Pines CSD could have a population of over 35,000 but this is not likely to occur in the foreseeable future. 4.1.2 MSR Determinations on Growth and Population for California Pines CSD 1-1) The CSD needs to maintain a close relationship with the Alturas County Planning Department to make sure that the zoning and general plan are compatible with the proposed development for the District. 1-2) The District needs to ensure that any growth will pay for the additional infrastructure and services needed. Modoc LAFCO Resolution 2010-0001 24 Adopted Feb 9, 2010 California Pines CSD MSR 4.2 Capacity and Infrastructure Purpose: To evaluate the infrastructure needs and deficiencies in terms of supply, capacity, condition of facilities and service quality. 4.2.1 Infrastructure Background The California Pines Community Services District provides the following nine services: 1. Street Maintenance 2. Fire Protection 3. Water 4. Wastewater Collection and Treatment 5. Airport 6. Park and Recreation Service 7. Solid Waste Disposal Service 8. Mosquito Abatement Service 9. Vacant Lot Clearing and Mowing Service 5.2.2 MSR Determinations Regarding Capacity and Infrastructure for California Pines CSD A. Streets and Roads 2-1) The District provides for adequate maintenance of streets and roads. B. Water Service 2-2) The California Pines CSD should prepare a Water Master Plan. A Water Master Plan would increase opportunities for funding of improvements. 2-3) New connection fees should be a part of the Water Rate analysis. 2-4) There is sufficient source water available to serve the expected population growth. Modoc LAFCO Resolution 2010-0001 25 Adopted Feb 9, 2010 California Pines CSD MSR C. Wastewater Collection and Treatment Service 2-5) The California Pines CSD should prepare a Wastewater Collection and Treatment Master Plan including an improvements plan. D. Fire Protection Services 2-6) The California Pines CSD has adequate equipment and some access to a water system but will still depend on mutual aid from other districts and Modoc Ambululance in most every emergency. 2-7) The California Pines CSD uses both paid and volunteer fire fighters. 2-8) The California Pines CSD needs to work with other fire protection districts as much as possible to continue joint training sessions and to coordinate fire protection efforts. 2-9) The California Pines CSD participates in the Modoc Fire Chiefs Association. 210) The California Pines CSD works with the Canby FPD and the Alturas Rural FPD to provide fire protection for the areas in those districts. E. Airport Services 2-11) The District should proactively seek funding for identified airport improvement projects. 2-12) The airport runway was improved in 2009. F. Park and Recreation Services 2-13) The District will continue to provide park and recreation services. Modoc LAFCO Resolution 2010-0001 26 Adopted Feb 9, 2010 California Pines CSD MSR G. Solid Waste Disposal Service 2-14) The District provides for adequate solid waste management. H. Mosquito Abatement Service 2-15) The District provides adequate mosquito abatement and vector control services for a very low cost. I. Vacant Lot Clearing and Mowing Service 2-16) The District provides adequate vacant lot clearing and mowing service which serves as a fire prevention measure. Modoc LAFCO Resolution 2010-0001 27 Adopted Feb 9, 2010 California Pines CSD MSR 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. 4.3.1 Financial Considerations All local governments spend a large part of each budget on personnel costs. In a small community it is necessary to make sure that financial records are transparent and that the District gets the most highly qualified personnel possible. Conversion of Financial Records to an electronic format such as Excel or Quick Books would be a vast improvement on the existing system of hand-written budgets. 5.3.2 MSR Determinations on Financial Ability for California Pines CSD 3-1) The District should establish Development Impact Fees to ensure that all new development pays the cost of development. 3-2) The District should prepare a Capital Improvement Plan to be prepared for future capital expenditures. 3-3) The District should become familiar with Community Facilities Districts and Mello-Roos Bonds as a means for new development to pay infrastructure and operational costs. 3-4) The District may need to change the organizational structure following a study of government efficiency. 3-5) The District should develop Master Plans and Capital Improvement Plans for all services. Modoc LAFCO Resolution 2010-0001 28 Adopted Feb 9, 2010 California Pines CSD MSR 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 or some other entity provides them (i.e., the County of Modoc, a County Service Area, or a special district). In some cases, it may be possible to establish a cooperative approach to facility planning by encouraging the District and the County to work cooperatively in such efforts. 4.4.1 California Pines CSD Facilities The facilities operated by the California Pines CSD are explained previously in this report. The District works with other districts for fire protection. Sharing equipment, training and administration services offer the greatest possibilities for inter-governmental coordination in the future. Many businesses and agencies have determined that the use of independent contractors is more cost-effective when compared to the cost of permanent employees. 4.4.2 MSR Determinations on Shared Facilities for California Pines CSD 4-1) The District shares facilities to the extent possible for fire protection. 4-2) The District could investigate ways to reduce administrative cost through computerization and/ or shared services. 4-3) Shared facilities for wastewater collection and treatment and water service are not feasible. Modoc LAFCO Resolution 2010-0001 29 Adopted Feb 9, 2010 California Pines CSD MSR 4.5 Government Structure and Accountability Purpose: To consider the advantages and disadvantages of various government structures that could provide public services, to evaluate the management capabilities of the organization and to evaluate the accessibility and levels of public participation associated with the agency’s decision-making and management processes. 4.5.1 Government Structure The California Pines CSD operates under the Community Service District laws of California. The District provides eight services which makes it a challenge to maintain qualified staff in all areas. The various services are funded in different ways. Clear communication with the public is vital at all levels of government. Many smaller districts maintain web sites where meeting minutes and information on the various services can be made available to the public. 4.5.2 MSR Determinations on Government Structure and Accountability for California Pines CSD 5-1) The District should develop a web site to communicate with tax-payers, residents and the public. 5-2) The District should study the most efficient manner to provide administrative services (including greater use of computer programs and the internet) and develop a plan to move to change as determined. 5-3) The District adopts budgets and rate changes at hearings where the public is notified and invited. Information is placed in the local newspaper, when required. 5-4) The District should evaluate all employees annually. 5-5) The District should develop Master Plans for all services provided. 5-6) The District should modernize its accounting system using electronic media. Modoc LAFCO Resolution 2010-0001 30 Adopted Feb 9, 2010 California Pines CSD MSR 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 and special districts to provide services is affected by financial constraints. City service providers rely on a variety of revenue sources to fund city operating costs as follows: • Property Taxes • Benefit Assessments • Special Taxes • Proposition 172 Funds • Other contributions from city or district general funds. As a funding source, property taxes are constrained by Statewide initiatives that have been passed by voters over the years and special legislation. Seven of these measures are explained below: A. Proposition 13 Proposition 13 (which California voters approved in 1978) has the following three impacts: • Limits the ad valorem property tax rate • Limits growth of the assessed value of property • Requires voter approval of certain local taxes. Generally, this measure fixes the ad valorem tax at one percent of value, except for taxes to repay certain voter approved bonded indebtedness. In response to the adoption of Proposition 13, the Legislature enacted Assembly Bill 8 (AB 8) in 1979 to establish property tax allocation formulas. B. AB 8 Generally, AB 8 allocates property tax revenue to the local agencies within each tax rate area based on the proportion each agency received during the three fiscal years preceding adoption of Proposition 13. This allocation formula benefits local agencies, which had relatively high tax rates at the time Proposition 13 was enacted. Modoc LAFCO Resolution 2010-0001 31 Adopted Feb 9, 2010 California Pines CSD MSR 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. 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. Modoc LAFCO Resolution 2010-0001 32 Adopted Feb 9, 2010 California Pines CSD MSR 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 five taxes: • Special taxes such as parcel taxes • Increases in general taxes such as utility taxes • Sales and use taxes • Business license taxes • Transient occupancy taxes Communities may elect to form business improvement districts to finance supplemental services, or Mello-Roos districts to finance development-related infrastructure extension. Agencies may finance facilities with voter-approved (general obligation) bonded indebtedness. 1.3 Financing Opportunities that Do Not Require Voter Approval Financing opportunities that do not require voter approval include imposition of or increases in fees to more fully recover the costs of providing services, including user fees and Development Impact Fees to recover the actual cost of services provided and infrastructure. Development Impact Fees and user fees must be based on reasonable costs, and may be imposed and increased without voter approval. Development Impact Fees may not be used to subsidize operating costs. Agencies may also finance many types of facility improvements through bond instruments that do not require voter approval. Water rates and rate structures are not subject to regulation by other agencies. Utility providers may increase rates annually, and often do so. Generally, there is no voter approval requirement for rate increases, although notification of utility users is required. Water providers must maintain an enterprise fund for the respective utility separate from other funds, and may not use revenues to finance unrelated governmental activities. Modoc LAFCO Resolution 2010-0001 33 Adopted Feb 9, 2010 California Pines CSD MSR 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 • 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 Modoc LAFCO Resolution 2010-0001 34 Adopted Feb 9, 2010 California Pines CSD MSR REFERENCES Brelje & Race Consulting Civil Engineers, “Preliminary Engineering Report Bonanza Springs Water System CSA #7 Lake County Special Districts,” December 2006. California Pines CSD, “Audited Financial Statements, June 30, 2002.” California Pines CSD, Final Budget 2005-2006. California Pines CSD, Final Budget 2008-2009. California Pines CSD, “Financial Statements and Independent Auditor’s Report June 30, 2008” Carlos E. Soler, CPA, 910 Florin Road, Suite 200, Sacramento CA 95381, 916-424-6233, www.solercpa.com. California Pines CSD, Vera Sphar, 530-233-2766, June 12, 2009, June 22, 2009, November 18, 2009. California Pines CSD, Revenues 2007-2008. California Pines CSD, Service Rates Effective June 2006. County of Modoc, Clerk’s Office, Stephanie Northrup: stephanienorthrup@co.modoc.ca.us. Modoc County, “California Pines Specific Plan and Draft EIR,’ February 1983. Modoc County Clerk Recorder, Tracy Sides, 204 S. Court Street, Alturas, CA 96101, 530-233- 6205, Fax 530-233-6666, July 1, 2009. http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06/06049.html, November 18, 2009. http://geology.com/dictionary/glossary-f.shtml, 2009. http://rubicon.water.ca.gov/v1cwp/glssry.html, 2009. http://www.californiataxdata.com/A_Free_Resources/glossary_PS.asp#ps_08, 2009. http://www.dof.ca.gov/research/demographic/reports/estimates/e-4_2001-07, 2009. Modoc LAFCO, California Pines CSD Questionnaire, 2003. Modoc LAFCO, “Report RE: Proposed California Pines Community Services District,” Iris B. Turner, Executive Officer, October 24, 1969. Modoc LAFCO, “Sphere of Influence Reports Special Districts and City of Alturas,” December 1984. 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. http://www.dof.ca.gov/research/demographic/reports/estimates/e-4_2001-07 Modoc LAFCO Resolution 2010-0001 35 Adopted Feb 9, 2010 California Pines CSD MSR State of California, Department of Housing and Community Development, Memorandum Official State Income Limits for 2009, April 2, 2009. State of California, Department of Water Resources: http://www.dpla2.water.ca.gov/publications/groundwater/bulletin118/basins/pdfs_desc/5- 2.01.pdf, September 19, 2008. State of California, State Controller, “Special District Annual Report Fiscal Year 2006-07.” www.yippytio.com, 2009. PREPARERS 1. John Benoit, Executive Officer MODOC LAFCO PO Box 2694, Granite Bay CA 95746 916-797-6003, johnbenoit@surewest.net 2. Christy Leighton, Planning Consultant 555 East Willow Street, Willows CA 95988 530-934-4597, christyleighton@sbcglobal.net www.davidrumsey.com Modoc LAFCO Resolution 2010-0001 36 Adopted Feb 9, 2010 California Pines CSD MSR ABBREVIATIONS AB Assembly Bill CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CFD Mello-Roos Community Facilities District CIWMB California Integrated Waste Management Board CKH Act Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 CSA County Service Area CSD Community Services District District California Pines Community Services District DHS Department of Health Services (California) DWR California Department of Water Resources EMD emergency medical dispatching ERAF Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund FD Fire Department FY Fiscal Year gpd gallons per day GPS Global Positioning System I&I infiltration and inflow (wastewater collection) LAFCO Local Agency Formation Commission LEAs Local Enforcement Agencies (Solid Waste) MCL Maximum Contaminant Level MCLG Maximum Contaminant Level Goal MRDL Maximum Residual Disinfectant Level MRDLG Maximum Residual Disinfectant Level Goal MSR Municipal Service Review (LAFCO) NFPA National Fire Protection Association 37 OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration (US) PDWS Primary Drinking Water Standards PERS Public Employees Retirement System (California) PHG Public Health Goal (water quality) ppm parts per million or milligrams per liter (mg/L) ppb parts per billion or micrograms per liter (ug/L) ppt parts per trillion or nanograms per liter (ng/L) pCi/L picocuries per liter (a measure of radiation) psi pounds per square inch RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board (California) SDA Special Districts Administration SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act SDWS Secondary Drinking Water Standards SOI Sphere of Influence (LAFCO) TT Treatment Technique WDR Waste Discharge Requirement Permit (California) USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Modoc LAFCO Resolution 2010-0001 38 Adopted Feb 9, 2010 California Pines CSD MSR DEFINITIONS Acre foot: The volume of water that will cover one acre to a depth of one foot, 325,850 U.S. Gallons or 1,233,342 liters (approximately). Agriculture: Use of land for the production of food and fiber, including the growing of crops and/or the grazing of animals on natural prime or improved pasture land. Alluvium: A general term for clay, silt, sand, gravel, or similar unconsolidated detrital material, deposited during comparatively recent geologic time by a stream or other body of running water, (1) as sediment in the bed of the stream or on its flood plain or delta, (2) as a cone or fan at the base of a mountain slope; esp., such a deposit of fine-grained texture (silt or silty clay) deposited during time of flood.72 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. Avigation Easement: Airspace or an easement in such airspace above the surface of property where necessary to permit imposition upon such property of excessive noise, vibration, discomfort, inconvenience, interference with use and enjoyment, and any consequent reduction in market value, due to the operation of aircraft to and from the airport. Avigation easements are deemed a property right and to be valid and enforceable, must be recorded by the local county Register of Deeds. These easements may permit use or occupation of the underlying land for certain land uses, such as cropping or livestock farming and related agricultural activities as may be stated in the easement. Specific land uses may be prohibited such as land uses attracting birds or other wildlife which could pose a hazard to aircraft. 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. 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. 72 http://www.maden.hacettepe.edu.tr/dmmrt/index.html Modoc LAFCO Resolution 2010-0001 39 Adopted Feb 9, 2010 California Pines CSD MSR Flume: An open artificial water channel, in the form of a gravity chute, that leads water from one place to another. A flume can be used to measure the rate of flow. Specific designs include the Parshall, Palmer-Bowlus, Trapezoidal, and H-Flume. Formation: A laterally continuous rock unit with a distinctive set of characteristics that make it possible to recognize and map from one outcrop or well to another. The basic rock unit of stratigraphy. 73 Groundwater: Water under the earth’s surface, often confined to aquifers capable of supplying wells and springs. Groundwater recharge: Groundwater recharge or deep drainage or deep percolation is a hydrologic process where water moves downward from surface water to groundwater. This process usually occurs in the vadose zone below plant roots and is often expressed as a flux to the water table surface. Recharge occurs both naturally (through the water cycle) and anthropologically (i.e., "artificial groundwater recharge"), where rainwater and or reclaimed water is routed to the subsurface. Groundwater is recharged naturally by rain and snow melt, though this may be impeded somewhat by human activities including paving, development, or logging. These activities can result in enhanced surface runoff and reduction in recharge. Use of groundwater, especially for irrigation, may also lower the water tables. Groundwater recharge is an important process for sustainable groundwater management, since the volume-rate abstracted from an aquifer should be less than or equal to the volume-rate that is recharged. Recharge can help move excess salts that accumulate in the root zone to deeper soil layers, or into the ground water system. Another environmental issue is the disposal of waste through the water flux such as dairy farms, industrial, and urban runoff.74 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 73 http://geology.com/dictionary/glossary-f.shtml 74 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groundwater_recharge Modoc LAFCO Resolution 2010-0001 40 Adopted Feb 9, 2010 California Pines CSD MSR supervisors, two city council members, and one member representing the general public. Some LAFCOs include two representatives of special districts. Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL): The highest level of a contaminant that is allowed in drinking water. Primary MCLs are set as close to the PHGs (or MCLGs) as is economically and technologically feasible. Secondary MCLs are set to protect the odor, taste, and appearance of drinking water. Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG): The level of a contaminant in drinking water below which there is no known or expected risk to health. MCLGs are set the US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). Maximum Residual Disinfectant Level (MRDL): The level of a disinfectant added for water treatment that may not be exceeded at the consumer’s tap. 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. 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. These bonds are named after the program’s legislative authors. Ordinance: A law or regulation set forth and adopted by a governmental authority. Pleistocene Epoch: The first epoch of the Quaternary Period, beginning 2 to 3 million years ago and ending approximately 10,000 years ago.75 Primary Drinking Water Standards (PDWS): Maximum Contaminant Levels for contaminants. Proposition 13: (Article XIIIA of the California Constitution) Passed in 1978, this proposition enacted sweeping changes to the California property tax system. Under Proposition 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.76 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.77 75http://www.webref.org/geology/p/pleistocene_epoch.htm 76http://www.californiataxdata.com/A_Free_Resources/glossary_PS.asp#ps_08 77http://www.californiataxdata.com/A_Free_Resources/glossary_PS.asp#ps_08 Modoc LAFCO Resolution 2010-0001 41 Adopted Feb 9, 2010 California Pines CSD MSR Public Health Goal (PHG): The level of a contaminant in drinking water below which there is no known or expected risk to health. PHGs are set by the California Environmental Protection Agency. Quaternary: The second period of the Cenozoic era, following the Tertiary; also, the corresponding system of rocks. It began 2 to 3 million years ago and extends to the present. It consists of two grossly unequal epochs; the Pleistocene, up to about 10,000 years ago, and the Holocene since that time.78 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. Regulatory Action Level (AL): The concentration of a contaminant which, if exceeded, triggers treatment of other requirements which 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). Secondary Drinking Water Standards (SDWS): MCLs for contaminants that affect taste, odor, or appearance of the drinking water. Contaminants with SDWSs do not affect the health at the MCL levels. Sludge is the residual semi-solid material left from wastewater treatment processes. When fresh sewage or wastewater is added to a settling tank, approximately 50% of the suspended solid matter will settle out in about an hour and a half. This collection of solids is known as raw sludge or primary solids and is said to be "fresh" before anaerobic processes become active. Once anaerobic bacteria take over, the sludge will become putrescent in a short time and must be removed from the sedimentation tank before this happens. Specific Capacity: The specific capacity of a water well depends on hydraulic characteristics of the aquifer and on the construction of the well. Specific capacity is determined by dividing the wells production by the drawdown that occurs during pumping. Higher specific capacities in wells tend to be indicative of higher aquifer production.79 Specific Yield: The specific yield for a water well is the percent of space in the ground that will drain by gravity when the water table drops. Specific yield is reported as a percent. Higher specific yields tend to be indicative of higher aquifer production. An example of a good specific yield is 7 percent, which is a typical average specific yield of aquifers in the Sacramento Valley.80 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. Total Dissolved Solids (TDS): A quantitative measure of the residual minerals dissolved in water that remains after evaporation of a solution. Total Dissolved Solids is usually expressed in milligrams per liter. Abbreviation: TDS.81 78 http://www.webref.org/geology/q/quaternary.htm 79 Lake County Watershed Protection District, “Lake County Groundwater Management Plan”, March 31, 2006, P. 2-4. 80 Lake County Watershed Protection District, “Lake County Groundwater Management Plan”, March 31, 2006, P.2-4. 81 http://rubicon.water.ca.gov/v1cwp/glssry.html Modoc LAFCO Resolution 2010-0001 42 Adopted Feb 9, 2010 California Pines CSD MSR Transmissivity: Transmissivity is a term used to define the ability of an aquifer to convey or transport water, similar to the capacity of a pipeline. Transmissivity is related to hydraulic conductivity and saturated thickness of an aquifer or groundwater basin. Hydraulic conductivity is that rate at which groundwater moves through the aquifer. More porous aquifers, such as sand and gravel aquifers, have high hydraulic conductivities. The saturated thickness is the total depth of groundwater in an aquifer or basin. The term transmissivity combines both these terms so it is a good overall indication of the capacity of a groundwater basin to produce water. Higher transmissivity values tend to be indicative of higher aquifer production. An example of a good transmissivity is 100,000 gallons per day per foot (gpd/ft), which is the average transmissivity of a productive aquifer in the Sacramento Valley.82 Treatment Technique (TT): A required process intended to reduce the level of a contaminant in drinking water. Urban: Of, relating to, characteristic of, or constituting a city. Urban areas are generally characterized by moderate and higher density residential development (i.e., three or more dwelling units per acre), commercial development, and industrial development, and the availability of public services required for that development, specifically central water and sewer service, an extensive road network, public transit, and other such services (e.g., safety and emergency response). Development not providing such services may be “non-urban” or “rural”. CEQA defines “urbanized area” as an area that has a population density of at least 1,000 persons per square mile (Public Resources Code Section 21080.14(b)). Urban Services: Utilities (such as water, gas, electricity, and sewer) and public services (such as police, fire protection, schools, parks, and recreation) provided to an urbanized or urbanizing area. Variances and Exemptions: Department permission to exceed an MCL for drinking water or not comply with a drinking water treatment technique under certain conditions. 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.83 Water Year: A water year is 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.84 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. 82 Lake County Watershed Protection District, “Lake County Groundwater Management Plan”, March 31, 2006, P. 2-4. 83 http://rubicon.water.ca.gov/v1cwp/glssry.html 84 http://rubicon.water.ca.gov/v1cwp/glssry.html Modoc LAFCO Resolution 2010-0001 43 Adopted Feb 9, 2010 California Pines CSD MSR MAP Modoc LAFCO Resolution 2010-0001 44 Adopted Feb 9, 2010 California Pines CSD MSR