LAFCO
Santitation Wastwater Treatment (2005)
Read the report at Local Agency Formation Commissions ↗
S W T
ANITATION AND ASTEWATER REATMENT
M S R
UNICIPAL ERVICE EVIEW
Phase I: Agency Profiles
Prepared for:
LAFCO of Napa County
Public Review Draft
Prepared by:
P&D Consultants
Assisted by The Planning Center
September 2005
T C
ABLE OF ONTENTS
Chapter Page
1.0 INTRODUCTION........................................................................1-1
I. Background.............................................................................................................1-1
II. Study Area and Agencies Covered......................................................................1-3
III. Data Sources and Methodology..........................................................................1-3
IV. Planning and Regulatory Context......................................................................1-5
2.0 NAPA SANITATION DISTRICT...................................................2-1
I. Introduction...........................................................................................................2-1
II. Population Growth...............................................................................................2-3
III. Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies...............................................................2-3
IV. Financial Issues......................................................................................................2-6
V. Administration and Operations.........................................................................2-9
VI. Public Accountability.........................................................................................2-12
VII. Citation List.........................................................................................................2-12
3.0 NAPA BERRYESSA RESORT IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT .............3-1
I. Introduction...........................................................................................................3-1
II. Population Growth...............................................................................................3-3
III. Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies...............................................................3-4
IV. Financial Issues......................................................................................................3-6
V. Administration and Operations.........................................................................3-9
VI. Public Accountability.........................................................................................3-12
VII. Citation List.........................................................................................................3-13
4.0 LAKE BERRYESSA RESORT IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT..............4-1
I. Introduction...........................................................................................................4-1
II. Population Growth...............................................................................................4-3
III. Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies...............................................................4-4
IV. Financial Issues......................................................................................................4-6
V. Administration and Operations.........................................................................4-9
VI. Public Accountability.........................................................................................4-12
VII. Citation List.........................................................................................................4-12
5.0 NAPA RIVER RECLAMATION DISTRICT.....................................5-1
I. Introduction...........................................................................................................5-1
II. Population Growth...............................................................................................5-3
III. Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies...............................................................5-4
IV. Financial Issues......................................................................................................5-6
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW TOC-1
SANITATION AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT
Table of Contents
V. Administration and Operations.........................................................................5-9
VI. Public Accountability.........................................................................................5-12
VII. Citation List.........................................................................................................5-12
6.0 SPANISH FLAT WATER DISTRICT .............................................6-1
I. Introduction...........................................................................................................6-1
II. Population Growth...............................................................................................6-3
III. Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies...............................................................6-4
IV. Financial Issues......................................................................................................6-6
V. Administration and Operations.......................................................................6-10
VI. Public Accountability.........................................................................................6-12
VII. Citation List.........................................................................................................6-12
7.0 CIRCLE OAKS WATER DISTRICT...............................................7-1
I. Introduction...........................................................................................................7-1
II. Population Growth...............................................................................................7-3
III. Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies...............................................................7-4
IV. Financial Issues......................................................................................................7-4
V. Administration and Operations.........................................................................7-6
VI. Public Accountability...........................................................................................7-7
VII. Citation List...........................................................................................................7-7
8.0 TOWN OF YOUNTVILLE .............................................................8-1
I. Introduction...........................................................................................................8-1
II. Population Growth...............................................................................................8-3
III. Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies...............................................................8-4
IV. Financial Issues......................................................................................................8-7
V. Administration and Operations.......................................................................8-10
VI. Public Accountability.........................................................................................8-13
VII. Citation List.........................................................................................................8-13
9.0 CITY OF CALISTOGA..................................................................9-1
I. Introduction...........................................................................................................9-1
II. Population Growth...............................................................................................9-3
III. Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies...............................................................9-4
IV. Financial Issues......................................................................................................9-6
V. Administration and Operations.........................................................................9-9
VI. Public Accountability.........................................................................................9-11
VII. Citation List.........................................................................................................9-12
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW TOC-2
SANITATION AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT
Table of Contents
10.0 CITY OF AMERICAN CANYON..................................................10-1
I. Introduction.........................................................................................................10-1
II. Population Growth.............................................................................................10-3
III. Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies.............................................................10-4
IV. Financial Issues....................................................................................................10-7
V. Administration and Operations.....................................................................10-10
VI. Public Accountability.......................................................................................10-12
VII. Citation List.......................................................................................................10-13
11.0 CITY OF ST. HELENA................................................................11-1
I. Introduction.........................................................................................................11-1
II. Population Growth.............................................................................................11-3
III. Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies.............................................................11-4
IV. Financial Issues....................................................................................................11-7
V. Administration and Operations.....................................................................11-10
VI. Public Accountability.......................................................................................11-12
VII. Citation List.......................................................................................................11-12
12.0 GLOSSARY AND ACRONYMS....................................................12-1
L
IST OF
T
ABLES
2.0 Napa Sanitation District...................................................2-1
2-1 Napa Sanitation District Agency Profile.............................................2-1
2-2 Napa Sanitation District Wastewater System......................................2-3
2-3 Napa Sanitation District Wastewater Flow and Capacity.................2-5
2-4 Napa Sanitation District Income and Expense Statement...............2-6
2-5 Napa Sanitation District Balance Sheet...............................................2-7
2-6 Napa Sanitation District Capital Replacement Plans.......................2-8
2-7 Napa Sanitation District Wastewater Service Fees.............................2-8
2-8 Napa Sanitation District Long-Term Debt..........................................2-9
3.0 Napa Berryessa Resort Improvement District.................3-1
3-1 Napa Berryessa RID Agency Profile.....................................................3-1
3-2 Napa Berryessa RID Wastewater System..............................................3-4
3-3 Napa Berryessa RID Wastewater Flow and Capacity........................3-6
3-4 Napa Berryessa RID Income and Expense Statement.......................3-6
3-5 Napa Berryessa RID Balance Sheet.......................................................3-7
3-6 Napa Berryessa RID Capital Replacement Plans...............................3-8
3-7 Napa Berryessa RID Wastewater Service Fees.....................................3-9
TOC-3 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
SANITATION AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT
Table of Contents
3-8 Napa Berryessa RID Wastewater Management Tools......................3-11
4.0 Lake Berryessa Resort Improvement District..................4-1
4-1 Lake Berryessa RID Agency Profile......................................................4-1
4-2 Lake Berryessa RID Wastewater System...............................................4-4
4-3 Lake Berryessa RID Wastewater Flow and Capacity..........................4-5
4-4 Lake Berryessa RID Income and Expense Statement........................4-6
4-5 Lake Berryessa RID Balance Sheet........................................................4-6
4-6 Lake Berryessa RID Capital Replacement Plans.................................4-7
4-7 Lake Berryessa RID Wastewater Service Fees......................................4-8
4-8 Lake Berryessa RID Wastewater Management Tools.......................4-11
5.0 Napa River Reclamation District......................................5-1
5-1 Napa River Reclamation Agency Profile.............................................5-1
5-2 Napa River Reclamation Wastewater System......................................5-4
5-3 Napa River Reclamation Wastewater Flow and Capacity.................5-5
5-4 Napa River Reclamation Income and Expense Statement...............5-6
5-5 Napa River Reclamation Balance Sheet...............................................5-6
5-6 Napa River Reclamation Capital Replacement Plans.......................5-7
5-7 Napa River Reclamation Wastewater Service Fees.............................5-8
5-8 Napa River Reclamation Wastewater Management Tools..............5-11
6.0 Spanish Flat Water District..............................................6-1
6-1 Spanish Flat Water District Agency Profile.........................................6-1
6-2 Spanish Flat Water District Wastewater System.................................6-4
6-3 Spanish Flat Water District Income and Expense Statement..........6-6
6-4 Spanish Flat Water District Wastewater Flow and Capacity............6-7
6-5 Spanish Flat Water District Balance Sheet..........................................6-7
6-6 Spanish Flat Water District Capital Replacement Plans...................6-8
6-7 Spanish Flat Water District Wastewater Service Fees.........................6-9
6-8 Spanish Flat Water District Wastewater Management Tools.........6-11
7.0 Circle Oaks Water District................................................7-1
7-1 Circle Oaks County Water District Agency Profile...........................7-1
7-2 Circle Oaks CWD Wastewater System.................................................7-4
7-3 Circle Oaks CWD Balance Sheet..........................................................7-5
8.0 Town of Yountville...........................................................8-1
8-1 Town of Yountville Agency Profile......................................................8-1
8-2 Town of Yountville Wastewater System...............................................8-4
8-3 Town of Yountville Wastewater Flow and Capacity..........................8-6
8-4 Town of Yountville Income and Expense Statement........................8-7
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW TOC-4
SANITATION AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT
Table of Contents
8-5 Town of Yountville Balance Sheet........................................................8-8
8-6 Town of Yountville Capital Replacement Plans.................................8-9
8-7 Town of Yountville Wastewater Service Fees....................................8-10
9.0 City of Calistoga...............................................................9-1
9-1 City of Calistoga Agency Profile...........................................................9-1
9-2 City of Calistoga Wastewater System...................................................9-4
9-3 City of Calistoga Wastewater Flow and Capacity..............................9-5
9-4 City of Calistoga Income and Expense Statement.............................9-6
9-5 City of Calistoga Balance Sheet............................................................9-7
9-6 City of Calistoga Capital Replacement Plans.....................................9-8
9-7 City of Calistoga Wastewater Service Fees...........................................9-8
10.0 City of American Canyon................................................10-1
10-1 City of American Canyon Agency Profile.........................................10-3
10-2 City of American Canyon Wastewater System.................................10-4
10-3 City of American Canyon Wastewater Flow and Capacity............10-6
10-4 City of American Canyon Income and Expense Statement..........10-7
10-5 City of American Canyon Balance Sheet..........................................10-8
10-6 City of American Canyon Capital Replacement Plans...................10-9
10-7 City of American Canyon Wastewater Service Fees.........................10-9
11.0 City of St. Helena...........................................................11-1
11-1 City of St. Helena Agency Profile.......................................................11-1
11-2 City of St. Helena Wastewater System...............................................11-4
11-3 City of St. Helena Wastewater Flow and Capacity..........................11-6
11-4 City of St. Helena Income and Expense Statement.........................11-7
11-5 City of St. Helena Balance Sheet.........................................................11-7
11-6 City of St. Helena Capital Replacement Plans.................................11-8
11-7 City of St. Helena Wastewater Service Fees.......................................11-9
L
IST OF
F
IGURES
1-1 Napa County Sanitation and Wastewater Treatment Agencies.......1-4
2-1 Napa Sanitation District........................................................................2-2
3-1 Napa Berryessa Resort Improvement District....................................3-2
4-1 Lake Berryessa Resort Improvement District......................................4-2
5-1 Napa River Reclamation District..........................................................5-2
6-1 Spanish Flat Water District....................................................................6-2
7-1 Circle Oaks Water District.....................................................................7-2
8-1 Town of Yountville..................................................................................8-2
9-1 City of Calistoga......................................................................................9-2
TOC-5 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
SANITATION AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT
Table of Contents
10-1 City of American Canyon....................................................................10-2
11-1 City of St. Helena..................................................................................11-2
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW TOC-6
SANITATION AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT
1
I
NTRODUCTION
M S R
UNICIPAL ERVICE EVIEW
This chapter provides an introduction to the Municipal Service Review requirements,
agencies reviewed in this report, scope and organization of the report, and potential uses of
this report.
I. BACKGROUND
Legislative Authorization
In 1997, the State Legislature convened a special commission to study and make
recommendations to address California’s rapidly accelerating growth. The Commission
on Local Governance for the 21st Century focused their energies on ways to empower
Local Agency Formation Commissions (LAFCOs) to address this challenge. LAFCOs were
originally formed to oversee the orderly creation of new cities and districts, the annexation
of new territory to cities or districts, and the efficient provision of municipal services. The
Commission’s final report, Growth Within Bounds, recommended various changes to local
land use laws and LAFCO statutes in order to improve delivery of local government
services. The Commission’s recommendations were eventually folded into the Cortese-
Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act (CKH Act) of 2000.
What is a Municipal Service Review?
The CKH Act of 2000 authorized LAFCO to conduct comprehensive, regional studies of
municipal services (Municipal Service Reviews, or MSRs) every five years in conjunction
with reviews of city and district spheres of influence. Spheres of influence (SOIs) are
boundaries, determined by LAFCO, which define the ultimate service area for cities and
special districts. The term “municipal services” refers to the full range of services that a
public agency provides or is authorized to provide. Service reviews are studies that
evaluate the existing and future service conditions from a local and regional perspective
and make determinations to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of municipal services.
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW 1-1
SANITATION AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT
Chapter 1
Introduction
The statutory intent of a municipal service review process is for LAFCO to evaluate how
agencies currently provide municipal services within the MSR study area and to evaluate
the impacts on those services from future growth and other changes that may occur in the
MSR area over the next 5, 10, 15 and 20 years. The MSR report is also required to identify
potential opportunities to address any shortfalls, gaps and/or impacts on services and
governmental structures that may exist currently or are anticipated in the future.
As part of the municipal service review process, LAFCO is also required to prepare a
written statement of determination with respect to each of the following issues:
1) Infrastructure needs or deficiencies;
2) Growth and population projections for the affected area;
3) Financing constraints and opportunities;
4) Cost avoidance opportunities;
5) Opportunities for rate restructuring;
6) Opportunities for shared facilities;
7) Governance options, including consolidation or reorganization of service
providers;
8) Evaluation of management efficiencies; and
9) Local accountability and governance.
How this report will be used
The CKH Act also requires LAFCO to develop and determine the sphere of influence of
each local governmental agency within the county, and to review and update the SOI every
five years. In determining the SOI, LAFCO must make determinations on four additional
topics:
1) Present and planned land uses, including agricultural and open-space lands;
2) Present and probable need for public facilities and services in the area;
3) Present capacity and adequacy of public facilities that the agency provides; and
4) Existence of any social or economic communities of interest in the area if LAFCO
determines that they are relevant to the agency.
The service review provides LAFCO with a tool to comprehensively study existing and
future public service conditions and to evaluate organizational options for accommodating
growth, preventing urban sprawl, and ensuring that critical services are efficiently and cost-
effectively provided. LAFCO may also use this MSR report in reviewing future proposals
for extension of service beyond an agency’s boundaries or for amendment of urban service
area.
1-2 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
SANITATION AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT
Chapter 1
Introduction
II. Study Area and Agencies Covered
The Study Area is Napa County. Illustrated on Figure 1-1, this Municipal Service Review
analyzes the 10 local agencies that provide wastewater collection and/or treatment services
in Napa County. These agencies are:
• Napa Sanitation District
• Napa Berryessa Resort Improvement District
• Lake Berryessa Resort Improvement District
• Napa River Reclamation District
• Spanish Flat Water District
• Circle Oaks County Water District
• Town of Yountville
• City of Calistoga
• City of American Canyon
• City of St. Helena
III. Data Sources and Methodology
In performing this MSR, a variety of data sources were used. To reduce the amount of
surveys and information required by service providers, this MSR relied on a number of
already published documents as well as an agency survey. Sources of information include,
but are not limited to, the following:
• Audited Financial Statements, 2003-2004
• Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports, 2003-2004
• Wastewater Discharge Requirements from the State Water Resources Control Board
• Napa LAFCO Water Service Municipal Service Review
• Fee Schedules, Rates, and Agency Rate Studies
• Capital Improvement Plans
• State Water Resources Control Board Wastewater Service Fee Survey
• LAFCO of Napa County Municipal Service Review Survey for Sanitation Providers
• ABAG 2003 Population Projections
• Interviews with Agency and City Staff
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW 1-3
SANITATION AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT
Chapter 1
Introduction
Figure 1.1
Napa County Sanitation and
Wastewater Treatment Agencies
1-4 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
SANITATION AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT
Chapter 1
Introduction
IV. PLANNING AND REGULATORY CONTEXT
Numerous federal, state and local laws and agencies regulate wastewater. Some of the state
and regional plans build upon federal legislation, while in other instances federal acts have
established broad goals which are implemented at the state and local levels. Finally, some
regulations are unique to California. The following discussion identifies a few of the
major federal, state and local regulatory bodies and requirements for wastewater programs.
Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972
The Federal Clean Water Act (CWA), with its amendments, is the principal law governing
the nation’s streams, lakes, and estuaries. It contains regulatory provisions that impose
progressively more stringent requirements on industries and cities to reduce and eliminate
pollution of waterways. The CWA establishes as national goals the elimination of
pollutant discharges to the navigable waters and the assurance that all navigable waters
would be fishable and swimable. It requires dischargers to obtain permits regulating the
amount, quality, location, and timing of pollutant discharges. Other applicable sections of
the CWA include:
1. Section 303(d) – Impaired Waters List and Total Maximum Daily Loads
2. Section 319 – Non-point Source Management Program
3. Section 401 – State Water Quality Certification Program
4. Section 402 (p) – The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
CWA Section 303 requires each state to identify waters that do not meet water quality
standards after application of technologically based controls. Applicable water quality
standards include designated beneficial uses and adopted water quality objectives.
Waterways are identified as designated Water Quality Limited Segments (WQLSs) and are
prioritized for purposes of developing Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) and
establishing Waste Load Allocations (WLAs) as well as Load Allocations (LAs). The TMDL
is the sum of waste load allocations (WLAs) for point sources of pollution, load allocations
(LAs) for non-point sources of pollution and natural background sources. The TMDL is
the amount of a pollutant that can be discharged into a water body and still maintain
water quality standards.
Section 319 regulates non-point source pollutants, which enter water from diffuse sources.
Non-point source pollutants are often chemicals from lawns, automobile residues or urban
runoff that enter the wastewater stream and water supply in large quantities and sudden
surges, largely due to storms. Although California adopted a Non-Point Source
Management Plan (NPSMP) in 1988, cities and counties have only recently begun adopting
local implementing rules and regulations. Control of this type of pollution has proven to
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW 1-5
SANITATION AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT
Chapter 1
Introduction
be difficult and is expected to require costly upgrades in existing facilities and permit costs,
particularly for wastewater facilities with high rates of infiltration.
The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) certifies the quality of surface waters
pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. Section 401 requires that
activities/facilities discharging pollutants into waters must obtain a state water quality
certification permit proving that the activity complies with all applicable water quality
standards, limitations, and restrictions. Section 402 requires municipalities and publicly
owned treatment works to obtain an NPDES permit which regulates discharge of
“pollutants from point sources to waters of the United States” to ensure that the discharges
do not adversely affect surface water quality or beneficial uses. NPDES permits are
authorized by the CWA, Section 402, Section 13370 of the California Water Code, and the
California Code of Regulations, Title 23, Chapters 3 and 4. The SWRCB is responsible for
issuing NPDES permits.
Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act of 1970
The California Water Code (CWC) is the principal state regulation governing the use of
water resources within the State of California. This law controls water rights, the
construction and management of dams and reservoirs, flood control, conservation,
development and utilization of state water resources, water quality protection and
management, and management of water-oriented agencies. The water quality provisions set
forth in the CWC have been written to supplement provisions of the Health and Safety
Code, Public Resources Code, Fish and Game Code, Food and Agriculture Code,
Government Code, Harbors and Navigation Code, California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) and California Endangered Species Act.
Division 7 of the CWC, the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act of 1970, regulates
water quality and pollution issues within California by protecting water quality and
beneficial uses of all state waters. The Porter-Cologne Act is administered regionally by the
State Water Resources Control Board and California Regional Water Quality Control
Boards (RWQCB). The Porter-Cologne Act is similar to federal water quality regulations
and programs. The SWRCB and regional offices have broad powers and implement the
CWA through the adoption of plans and policies, the regulation of discharges, the
regulation of waste disposal sites and the cleanup of hazardous materials and other
pollutants. It also requires reporting of unintended discharges of any hazardous substance,
sewage, or oil/petroleum product.
1-6 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
SANITATION AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT
2
N S D
APA ANITATION ISTRICT
I. INTRODUCTION
Napa Sanitation District (NSD) provides
wastewater collection, treatment and disposal
services to the residents and businesses in the
City of Napa and surrounding
unincorporated areas.1 NSD has been serving
the public since it was organized under the
California Health and Safety Code in
November 1945. NSD is the largest
wastewater collection, treatment, and Aerial of the Napa River
reclamation agency in Napa County.
Table 2-1 NSD currently covers an area of
Napa Sanitation District approximately 20 square miles or 12,448
Agency Profile
acres. The adopted sphere of influence is
Date Formed 1945 23 square miles or about 14,699 acres.
Enabling Legislation Sanitation District Act NSD is located in southern Napa County
Agency Type Special District serving the City of Napa and surrounding
Agency Size 20.13 sq. mi. unincorporated area. According to the
Sewer and Water District, NSD currently serves
Services Provided
Reclamation approximately 78,000 residents. Figure 2-
Population in 2000 1 shows the District boundaries and
78,000
Permanent Residents landmarks.
Source: Napa LAFCO Survey, 2005.
1 NSD also provides reclaimed water services. A review of NSD’s reclamation program was included as part of the
Commission’s Comprehensive Water Service Study.
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW 2-1
SANITATION AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT
Chapter 2
Napa Sanitation District
Figure 2.1
Napa Sanitation District
2-2 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
SANITATION AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT
Chapter 2
Napa Sanitation District
II. POPULATION GROWTH
The Napa Sanitation District traverses the territory of two land use authorities, the City of
Napa and the County of Napa. The District’s jurisdiction can be described, generally, as
including all territory within the City’s Rural-Urban Limit line, the Silverado Urban Area,
and the Airport Industrial Area (north of Fagan Creek). In total, the NSD jurisdictional
boundary encompasses 13,167 acres, with 10,308 incorporated acres (78%) and 2,859
unincorporated acres (22%). The NSD Master Plan is based on the General Plans of the
two land use authorities; NSD staff monitors land use development proposals submitted to
both agencies to ensure that the District’s system can meet the demands of growth.
In 1986, the District Board commissioned the preparation of a 25-year Master Plan. When
the draft Master Plan was released in 1988, a significant determination of the
accompanying report was the need for substantial upgrades to the collection, treatment,
and disposal capacities of the system. Following three years of community outreach and
discussion with the City and County of Napa, a final plan was adopted that included a
component called the “Soscol Plant Modification Project.” The District began
implementing this plan in 1991 in order to improve system performance and meet growth
projects in the General Plans of the City of Napa and the County of Napa. The District
intends to initiate a review and update of its Master Plan in the fall of 2005, which will
allow it to account for 1998 revisions to the City General Plan as well as the current
update of the County General Plan.
III. INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS AND DEFICIENCIES
This section reviews the wastewater infrastructure needs and deficiencies of the NSD based
on a review of wastewater reports and
wastewater treatment plant design, capital
Table 2-2
improvement program, and interviews with
Napa Sanitation District
District staff. Wastewater System
Connections 33,712
The District provides wastewater collection
Residential 29,973
and treatment services to 33,712 connections,
NonResidential 3,379
of which 29,973 are for residential uses and
Sewer Lines (mi.) 257 miles
3,379 for commercial and industrial uses
Gravity Lines 255 miles
(Table 2-2). The District has 257 miles of
Force Mains 2 miles
sewer lines, of which 255 miles are gravity fed
Lift Stations 6
lines. With respect to infrastructure age, 40%
Secondary &
of all of the sewer lines are between 25 to 50
Treatment Level:
Tertiary
years old, 40% are between 50 and 75 years
old, and the remaining 20% are less than 25 Source: Napa LAFCO Survey, 2005.
years old. NSD’s wastewater treatment plant,
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW 2-3
SANITATION AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT
Chapter 2
Napa Sanitation District
Soscol Water Recycling Facility (SWRF),
provides secondary treatment of domestic and
industrial wastewater during the winter and
tertiary treatment during the summer.
The SWRF is a secondary and tertiary
biological physical-chemical treatment facility
that treats a mixture of domestic and
industrial wastewater. NSD’s wastewater
treatment facility has a number of treatment
options that include preliminary treatment
(screening), primary treatment (clarifiers),
biological secondary treatment (340 acres of
oxidation ponds and/or activated sludge
Soscal WWTP facilities), secondary clarification or
sedimentation, sand filtration, chlorination,
sludge digestion and solids de-watering facilities. Wastewater is treated and discharged in
various manners, depending on the time of year. Although highly dependent on climate,
in 2004-2005 approximately 15.5 MGD of treated wastewater was discharged to the Napa
River from November 1 through April 30. From May 1 through October 31, discharge to
the Napa River is prohibited by the SWRQB and wastewater is either stored in
stabilization ponds or treated and reused for landscape irrigation in industrial parks, golf
courses, pasture lands, feed and fodder crops, and drip irrigation of vineyards. The SWRF
produces recycled water meeting Title 22 standards for unrestricted uses.
Water Reclamation and Cogeneration
NSD’s Soscol wastewater treatment plant has been recognized for
its reclaimed water and cogeneration capabilities. Since the tertiary
system began in 1997, the District has produced over 700 million
gallons per year of Title 22 unrestricted use water. Reclaimed
water is used to irrigate the Chardonnay Golf Course and
vineyards, Napa Municipal Golf Course, Eagle Vines Golf Course,
Napa Valley College, industrial landscaping, pastures, and
eventually landscaping located at the Napa State Hospital and the
Napa Valley College. Jointly, the NSD and Carollo Engineers
received the California Association of Sanitation Agencies (CASA)
Associates Achievement Award in 2003 for the successful use of
technology in this area.
The SWFR also recycles and reuses liquids, solids, and gas. Solids are plowed into fields as
biosolids, enriching the soil with nutrients. During anaerobic digestion, digester gas
including methane is produced. This digester gas is used to co-generate electrical power
2-4 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
SANITATION AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT
Chapter 2
Napa Sanitation District
using a gas engine generator. Waste heat, a by-product of power generation, is recovered
from the engine and exhaust. The electricity and heat produced by the cogeneration
system are utilized in the plant to reduce purchased electricity and natural gas. Electricity
produced by the generator is fed into the plant electrical distribution system for use where
needed. Heat from the gas engine is recovered and used for heating the Digester and
nearby buildings. The average recoverable energy produced by the cogeneration unit is
3200 kWh/day. Assuming an average household uses 500 kilowatts each month, the
energy from the cogeneration unit is enough to supply the energy requirements of 192
homes for one month.
Wastewater Service Needs
NSD serves all residences, commercial and industrial facilities within its boundary. NSD
also provides service outside its boundary to Napa State Hospital, Winton School, and a
small number of residences. As of 2004 data, wastewater flows were primarily generated
from residential (79%) uses, followed by commercial (18%), and industrial (3.0%). The
largest users are Napa State Hospital, Napa Pipe, Napa Valley Unified School District,
QVH, Embassy Suites Hotel and the County of Napa. Currently, average annual flow
totals about 9.3 mgd. The SWRF operates with a dry weather design capacity of 15.4 mgd.
NSD’s 1988 Wastewater Master Plan (updated 1990) forecasts wastewater needs through
2012. Based on an estimated population of 82,000 in 2012, the District anticipates
wastewater flow of 8.4 mgd an annual average flow of 10 mgd, and a five year peak storm
Table 2-3
Napa Sanitation District
Wastewater Flow and System Capacity
Connections
Connections
as of 2004
• Domestic 29,973
• Commercial/Industrial 3,379
• Total 33,712
Flow as of Plant Design
Average Flow (mgd)
2004 Capacity
• Annual Municipal Flow 7.10 mgd 8.45 mgd
• Annual Industrial Flow N/A N/A
• Annual Infiltration 1.90 mgd 1.55 mgd
• Average Annual Flow 9.3 mgd 10.25 mgd
Peak Daily Wet Weather 29.5 mgd 40.0 mgd
Napa Source: Napa LAFCO Survey, 2005.
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW 2-5
SANITATION AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT
Chapter 2
Napa Sanitation District
event of 49.9 mgd. The District plans to serve anticipated development in the Big Ranch
Road Specific Plan Area, the Gasser Property in South Napa, Hussey Property, the
Montalcino Resort, and development projects approved by the City and County of Napa
(in NSD’s sphere of influence). Average annual flows are anticipated at 10.25 mgd by
buildout. Shown in Table 2-3, the District has capacity to accommodate current and
projected flows
Infrastructure Condition
The District’s infrastructure is in good working order and conforms to the District’s
Master Plan. Since 1996, the Board has overseen the completion of two major capital
improvement projects at its Soscol Wastewater Treatment Facility. A significant result of
these upgrades is that the District now provides tertiary wastewater treatment, enabling the
District to provide Title-22 unrestricted use recycled water to major customers including
Napa Valley College, Kennedy Park and the City’s municipal golf course. The reclamation
and recycling capacities of the District presently provide unique disposal and revenue-
generating opportunities. Since 2001, NSD has installed approximately 18,000 feet of pipe
for recycled water projects.
In fall 2005, the District will initiate a Master Plan update, which will include a thorough
evaluation of District infrastructure needs in both the immediate future and the long-term.
IV. FINANCIAL ISSUES
This section reviews the wastewater infrastructure needs and deficiencies of the Napa
Sanitation District based on a review of wastewater reports and wastewater treatment plant
design, capital improvement program, and interviews with District staff. (Note: Some of
the financial information has been taken
from the Draft FY 2004/05 Audit, which at
Table 2-4
the time of this writing had not yet been
Napa Sanitation District
adopted and is subject to revision.)
Income and Expense Statement
Revenues Amount
Income and Expenses
Charges for Services $13,625,124
Expenses
NSD had operating revenues of $13.6
Maintenance & Operations $5,953,352
million from service charges and operating
Depreciation $4,193,295
expenses of $13.2 million for total
General & Administration $767,264
operating income of $355,620 during FY
Other $2,355,593
2003-2004 (Table 2-4). The District had
Operating Inc./(Exp.) $355,620
non-operating revenues of $960,540 from
interest income and non-operating expenses Interest for Debt Service ($1,602,163)
of $1.6 million. Net income totaled Non-Operating Rev./(Exp) ($587,193)
($231,573). The District receives 100% of Net Income ($231,573)
its revenue from charges for services.
Source: NSD Audited Financial Statements 2004.
2-6 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
SANITATION AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT
Chapter 2
Napa Sanitation District
Maintenance and operations expenses comprises 45% of total expenses, followed by
depreciation (31%), contractual services and purchased utilities (18%), and general
administrative expenses (6%).
Balance Sheet
Table 2-5
Napa Sanitation District
NSD’s cash and investments totaled $10.7
Balance Sheet
million. Receivables consisted of $471,666
Financial Statistics FY 2003-04
and inventory was $122,750. Long-term
Assets Amount
assets include restricted cash of $18.8
Cash and Investments $10,670,607
million reserved for debt service and
Restricted Cash $18,809,609
construction projects. Capital assets totaled
Capital Assets (net) $136,063,397
$136 million and total assets $166 million.
Current liabilities totaled $3 million (of All Others $594,416
which one-third was service on long-term Total Assets $166,607,116
debt and $1.7 million was accounts Current Liabilities $3,110,946
payable). Long-term liabilities of $41.6 Long Term Liabilities $41,693,176
million were primarily long-term debt. Total Liabilities $45,446,940
Total equity of $166 million was invested as Invested in Capital Assets $93,418,643
follows: $93 million in capital assets, $18.8 Restricted Equity $18,809,609
million in restricted equity for debt service
Unrestricted Equity $8,931,924
and construction projects, and $8.9 million
Total Equity $166,607,116
was in unreserved projects
Source: NSD Audited Financial Statements 2004.
Reserve Policy
Water and sanitation services should adopt specific policies and amounts for reserve funds.
These include an operating reserve to provide working capital for operations and
maintenance costs, a rate stabilization reserve to guard against unanticipated economic
consequences (such as temporary reduction in district funding), and a capital project
reserve to set aside money to replace or other wise upgrade existing facilities. The optimal
amount of reserves depends on the needs of the agency. A common industry practice is to
place an amount equal to three months of operating expenses into an operating reserve
and an amount equal to at least the annual depreciation on assets into a capital reserve
account.
Restricted assets held by the District consist of $18,809,609. Restricted assets have been
restricted by either bonds, by law or contract obiligaitons to be used for specified purposes.
Of these restricted assets $15,542,532 is held for capital improvements2. Capital
improvements consist of $11,257,608 for plant expansion, $4,244,869 for capital
2 Capital Improvement reserves are designated for five years.
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW 2-7
SANITATION AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT
Chapter 2
Napa Sanitation District
replacement projects and $40,055 for toilet retrofits. The remaining $3,267,077 of
restricted assets is held with a fiscal agent for contractual debt service requirements.
Funding Asset Replacement
Table 2-6
Napa Sanitation District
Wastewater agencies have a significant
Capital Replacement Plans
investment in capital assets (e.g., sewer
FY 2003-
lines, treatment plant, facilities and Financial Statistics
2004
equipment). And protection of capital
Renewal/Replacement Cost N/A
assets requires periodic and planned
Depreciation on Assets $4,193,295
maintenance, capital improvements, and
Capital improvement budget $15,542,532
recapitalization. Inadequate funding of
maintenance, rehabilitation, and Replacement Fund for
$4,244,869
improving wastewater system
construction of infrastructure is one of
the greatest unfunded liabilities facing Capital Reserve Fund for
infrastructure expansion, $11,257,608
public agencies. The District has a
construction, & replacement.
capital improvement program totaling
$104 million covering 2004-2009. Source: Napa LAFCO Survey, 2005.
Shown in Table 2-6, approximately
$15.5 million in reserves is slated for
Table 2-7
improvements beginning in FY2003-
Napa Sanitation District
2004 through FY 2007-2008. Of the Wastewater Service Fees
total capital improvements slated for FY
Fee Type Amount
2003-2004, 100% of the projects are
Single-Family $274.00
funded. For 2004, the replacement
Multi-family Family $164.40
fund is $4.2 million and the capital
Commercial Service Charge Variable rate
reserve fund for expansion is $11.2
Connection Fee
million. Replacement funds appear
- Residential $5,660
adequate to match depreciation of $4.1
- Commercial $5,660 (min.)
million.
Source: SWRCB Survey, 2003.
Service Fees and Charges
NSD collects sewer and connection fees from its customers to pay for services. Setting the
appropriate sewer fees is a complex task and requires predicting the fixed and variable costs
of providing collection and treatment services and translating such costs into a rate
structure. In evaluating rates of different agencies, low rates do not necessarily indicate
efficiency. Topography, geology, infrastructure age, deferred maintenance, capacity of
treatment facilities, and the weather impact the cost of providing services. Shown in
Table 2-7, the District collects an annual fixed fee of $274 for single family residences,
and $164 for multi-family residences and mobile home residences annually. Commercial
rates are based on the quantity generated and strength of flow and range significantly.
2-8 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
SANITATION AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT
Chapter 2
Napa Sanitation District
Sewer connection feeds are a flat fee of $5,660, but can be higher for commercial uses
based on fixture units, strength of wastewater, and quantity of wastewater discharged.
Connection fees are deposited in an account reserved for construction, acquisition or
financing of capital assets needed to accommodate new growth.
Agency Debt
The District holds $42,926,692 of long-term debt as of June 30, 2004, of which $1,233,516
is due within one year. Table 2-8 summarizes the District’s current debt.
Table 2-8
Napa Sanitation District Long-Term Debt
Interest Issue Original Outstanding
Debt Type Maturity
Rate Date Amount as of 6/04
1998 Cert. of 4.5% 1/25/99 $34,520,000 $31,505,000
2003-28
Participation
Variable 9/1/93 $11,165,000 $10,340,000
Water Reuse Installment 2004-28
<12%
Note Payable – Somky 2004-07 7.4% 7/16/86 $925,865 $249,789
State Revolving Fund 2003-22 2.5% 12/13/03 $901,376 $901,376
Source: Napa Sanitation District Audited Financial Statements June 30, 2004.
V. ADMINISTRATION AND OPERATIONS
This section reviews the administration and operation of the Napa Sanitation District
based on a review of the Napa LAFCo water municipal review, completion of agency
surveys, review of permitting requirements, and interviews with City staff
Governance
Napa Sanitation District was established in 1945 under the
County Sanitation District Act of 1923. The original Board
composition was formed, as required by law, as a three member
board comprised of the Mayor of the City of Napa (or
alternate), a Napa City Council member, and the Chair of the
Board of Supervisors (or alternate). In 1975, in response to
increased state mandates, NSD formed a joint powers authority with the then-American
Canyon County Water District to jointly finance the SWTP. In prior years, in response to
the Napa County Grand Jury, NSD increased its board size from three to five with the
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW 2-9
SANITATION AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT
Chapter 2
Napa Sanitation District
intent of increasing public accountability. The Board of Supervisors of Napa County and
the City Council of the City of Napa each appoint one of the two additional members.
Today, NSD’s governing body consists of five members appointed for terms of 4 years
each. The Board is responsible for all aspects of the District, ranging from policy making
to implementation.
Operations
The District’s original Mission Statement was “to collect, treat, and dispose of wastewater.”
The Clean Water Act of 1972 (CWA) dramatically changed the wastewater industry,
enacting a variety of far-reaching requirements. The CWA mandated the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), which is implemented by the SWRCB.
Due to evolution of the regulatory framework of the wastewater industry, the District’s
original mission has been expanded to read
“to collect, treat, beneficially reuse, and dispose of wastewater in an effective and economical
manner that respects the environment, maintains the public’s health and meets or exceeds
all local, state, and federal regulations.”
To implement this mission, NSD has 48 employees including 8 manager/supervisory
positions in the four departments of administration, collections, treatment, and technical
services. The District employs two full-time executive managers, 13 professional and
support staff, and 33 operational/maintenance staff. Of these, 10 staff members have
wastewater treatment certifications, and 12 have wastewater collection certifications. Plant
Operators and Collection System Maintenance staff are available 24 hours a day, 7 days a
week, to respond to emergencies. All services are performed with NSD staff and
contractors are only used as needed for specialized skills or when existing staff cannot meat
peak workloads.
Programmatic and Operational Tools
Wastewater operations should have a number of management and operational tools in
place to effectively manage their wastewater collection and treatment system. Some of the
more important management tools include audited financial statements, workload
management programs, master facility plan, SCADA or other electronic monitoring
systems, preventive maintenance program, capital improvement program, and other
similar tools. Although detailed analysis of this topic is beyond the scope of this review, it
is possible to determine whether an agency has a formal program, informal or limited
program, or lacks a program.
Some of the formal programmatic and operational tools in place include:
2-10 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
SANITATION AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT
Chapter 2
Napa Sanitation District
(cid:137) Preventive Maintenance. The District has a
planned schedule for televising and cleaning
sewer lines and hotspots. All sewer lines are
cleaned every two years, although this is being re-
evaluated because some lines do not require
cleaning at that frequency. The District also
administers a Fats, Oil and Grease Program to
reduce the amount of grease entering the sewer
system from restaurants by installing grease
traps. The District also maintains a routine
program of scheduled maintenance at the wastewater treatment plant.
(cid:137) Audited Financial Statements. NSD’s audited financial statements are conducted
in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards contained in Government
Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States. Those
standards require that the Certified Public Accounting Firm plan and perform
their audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements
are free of material misstatements. An audit includes examining, on a test basis,
evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements and
also includes assessing the accounting principles used and the significant estimates
made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement
presentation.
(cid:137) Master Facility Plans. The District last prepared a Master Facility Plan in 1988
and the population projections were updated in 1990. A new Master Plan will be
started during FY 05/06. The Master Facility Plan projects population and service
demands through 2012 and is also used to prioritize capital improvement,
expansion, and renewal projects needed to meet future service demands. The
District also implements a formal five year capital improvement plan, funded
through its connection fees and service fees, and which is linked to the population
and service projections and needs identified in the Master Facility Plan. As a
result, infrastructure needs can be anticipated, planned for, and funded.
Shared Arrangements
The District participates in MOUs with the City of Napa for recycled water, and a Street
Tree Program with the City of Napa. Similarly, NSD shares operating costs with the City
and County for pooled supplies, such as chemicals, fuel, office supplies, and computers.
NSD shares equipment and vehicle maintenance with other agencies in emergency
situations. Additionally, the District uses the Special District Risk Management Authority
(SDRMA) and California Sanitation Risk Management Authority (CSRMA) for insurance
pooling purposes. NSD also shares facilities with the County of Napa on land
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW 2-11
SANITATION AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT
Chapter 2
Napa Sanitation District
surrounding the airport for water reclamation and biosolids disposal. District staff
indicated the potential for shared arrangements with other smaller wastewater districts in
the County. NSD staff indicated that they could offer potential efficiencies by operating
some of the smaller wastewater plants throughout the County that are experiencing
operational difficulties; staff believes the District would require reimbursement of costs in
order to provide such service.
Compliance with Applicable Laws
The District wastewater treatment plant operations are regulated by the California
Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region Order No. R2-2002-
0111 and NPDES Permit No. CA0037575 recently adopted in April 2005. The District
will not need to renew its permit until 2010. The Order regulates the location, quality,
timing, and amount of effluent treated and discharged by the wastewater treatment plant.
Currently, the District is in good standing with the SWRCB and does not have a current
or tentative order pending against the District.
VI. PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY
The District’s board meetings are held on the first and third Wednesday of each month at
4:30 p.m. at the NSD wastewater treatment Plant on Soscol Ferry Road. Meetings are open
to the public. Notices regarding meetings are posted at the NSD administrative office, the
Napa County Library, and the NSD website. Regularly scheduled meetings allow the
public to attend meetings and ask questions regarding wastewater services and operations.
The District publishes a newsletter and these are also available at their website at
www.NapaSanitiationDistrict.com. The NSD website also offers information on treatment
systems, laboratory methods, pollution prevention, education and outreach, recent
projects, collection systems, services and programs, information about the history of the
district, budgeting information, and water conservation. The District has an aggressive
and comprehensive public education and outreach program. The District participates with
the County of Napa Environmental Education Group in school outreach programs and
has developed a user-friendly guide that lists organizations that provide environmental
education and/or field trips for Napa County schools which is available on their website.
The District provides tours of the treatment facility as well as presenting videos of
reclamation, watershed preservation, and pollution prevention. NSD has developed a user-
friendly guide.
VII. CITATION LIST
1. Comprehensive Water Service Study Service Review Report, Local Agency
Formation Commission of Napa County, October 2004
2-12 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
SANITATION AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT
Chapter 2
Napa Sanitation District
2. Sanitation and Wastewater Municipal Service Review Questionnaire, Local Agency
Formation Commission of Napa County, 2005.
3. Audited Annual Financial Report, Napa Sanitation District, FY 2003-2004.
4. Napa Sanitation District Options and Opportunities for Governance, Tracy
Geraghty, December 2004.
5. Napa Sanitation District Collection System, Napa Sanitation District website,
http://www.NapaSanitationDistrict.com/ [4/18/05]
6. Wastewater User Charge Survey Report, Summary and Listing of Data from
September 2003–April 2004, State Water Resources Control Board, May 2004.
7. Wastewater Discharge Requirements for Napa Sanitation District, Order No. R2-
2002-0111, California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Dated September
2002
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW 2-13
SANITATION AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT
3
N B
APA ERRYESSA
R I D
ESORT MPROVEMENT ISTRICT
I. INTRODUCTION
The Napa-Berryessa Resort Improvement District
(NBRID) was established in 1965 to provide
potable water and sewer services to the Steele Park
Resort and a planned recreational and residential
development along the shoreline of Lake
Berryessa. The NBRID was formed under the
Resort Improvement NBRID Law, Public
Resources Code 13000, a law created to facilitate
the formation of public agencies for providing a
wide variety of municipal services in areas best
Overlooking Lake Berryessa
suited for recreational and seasonal uses.
Table 3-1
NBRID covers an area of approximately
Napa Berryessa RID
4.0 square miles or 1,899 acres, which
Agency Profile
includes an adopted sphere of influence
Date Formed 1965
of 0.88 square miles. The NBRID is
Public Resources
Enabling Legislation located in eastern Napa County, along
Code 13000
the southern edge of Lake Berryessa and
Agency Type Dependent NBRID
is accessible by Highway 128. LAFCO
Agency Size 4.0 square miles
of Napa County estimates that the
Services Provided Water and Sewer
NBRID has a population of about 1,500
Population in 2004 1,500
residents. Table 3-1 and Figure 3-1
Source: Napa LAFCO Survey, 2005; 2000 Census. provide a summary and map of the
NBRID.
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW 3-1
SANITATION AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT
Chapter 3
Napa Berryessa RID
Figure 3.1
Napa Berryessa
Resort Improvement District
3-2 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
SANITATION AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT
Chapter 3
Napa Berryessa RID
II. POPULATION GROWTH
This section reviews the NBRID’s history, land use patterns, infrastructure issues, and
other factors which affect population growth during the timeframe of this MSR.
Land within NBRID is regulated under the County of Napa General Plan and zoned
“Agricultural Watershed,” “Residential Country,” and “Planned Development.”
Agricultural Watershed and Residential Country zoning standards require minimum
parcel sizes of 160 and 10 acres, respectively. Land outside NBRID is designated as
“Agriculture, Watershed, Open Space.” This land use designation discourages LAFCO
from approving annexation proposals based on its policy to direct the extension of
municipal services away from land designated for agriculture unless it is in response to a
health or public safety concern.
The majority of development in NBRID has occurred in the Planned Development Zone.
Unlike other zones requiring very low density development, due to large minimum lot
sizes, parcels zoned for Planned Development are not required to have a minimum parcel
size. This provision allows for additional density, including residential and commercial
uses, to occur in the affected portions of Berryessa Highlands for existing or new lots upon
the approval of a modified or new use permit. NBRID’s anticipated buildout is
approximately 2,000 residential units, which is based on original development plans for
the area.
Managing future growth is of critical concern to voters in Napa County. Future growth
within NBRID as well as the surrounding unincorporated areas is limited by growth
control measures passed by the voters in Napa County. In the 1980s, the voters approved
Measure A, which limits growth in the unincorporated area to 1% annually. Growth is
limited to 1% of outstanding building permits in any given year. In the 1990s, voters
approved Measure J, requiring that any conversion of agricultural land must be approved
by two-thirds of voters. These two measures play an important role in determining future
growth in the County.
The Comprehensive Water Service Review prepared by LAFCO of Napa County estimated
that NBRID had a service population of 1,534 in 2004 based on a calculation
methodology authorized by Title 22 of the California Water Code. Although the NBRID
has a large buildout potential, growth will be limited over the life of this study due to
General Plan land uses, established growth controls in Napa County, and limited housing
demand. The Federal Bureau of Reclamation is also considering redevelopment scenarios
for Steele Park Resort which will convert the mobile home park from its present year-
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW 3-3
SANITATION AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT
Chapter 3
Napa Berryessa RID
round use to seasonal uses, potentially affecting future population residing within
NBRID’s boundaries.1
III. INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS AND DEFICIENCIES
This section reviews the wastewater infrastructure Table 3-2
needs and deficiencies of Napa Berryessa Resort Napa Berryessa RID
Improvement (NBRID) based on wastewater reports Wastewater System
and wastewater treatment plant design, capital Connections 331
improvement program, and interviews with NBRID
Residential 330
staff.
Non Residential 1
Sewer Lines (mi.) 6.4 miles
Wastewater System Overview
Gravity Lines 5.2 miles
Force Mains 1.2 miles
The NBRID comprises approximately 560 parcels,
Lift Stations 4 stations
of which the majority of parcels are for residential
Treatment Level: Secondary
uses. The NBRID provides sewer services to 331
Source: Napa LAFCO Survey, 2005.
connections, of which 330 are residential
connections and one is the Steele Park Resort. The NBRID has a total of 6.4 miles of
sewer lines: 5.2 miles are gravity fed lines and 1.2 miles are force mains. With respect to
infrastructure age, all of the sewer lines are between 25 to 50 years old. Table 3-2
summarizes the NBRID’s wastewater system.
NBRID’s wastewater treatment system consists of
an extended aeration wastewater treatment plant
with final disposal by spray irrigation.
Wastewater is initially treated by an extended
aeration wastewater treatment plant, followed by
three holding basins, from which secondarily
treated wastewater is routed to the spray irrigation
system. The system also utilizes four fields with a
runoff collection basin. The basin collects
irrigation field runoff which is pumped back to
NBRID Treatment Plant the top of the field. Surface water drainage is to
Lake Berryessa.
1 Steele Park Resort is one of seven concessionary resorts under contract with the Bureau of Reclamation to provide
commercial and recreational services to the public at Lake Berryessa. The resort rents 142 mobile home spaces, where
tenants can live in their mobile home for up to 175 days annually (no more than 90 consecutive days). Daytime
population peaks at 2,500 from May through September. The Bureau is developing a comprehensive plan for the
redevelopment and management of visitor services at Lake Berryessa to support traditional, short-term, and diverse
outdoor recreation opportunities for the public.
3-4 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
SANITATION AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT
Chapter 3
Napa Berryessa RID
NBRID generates 10 to 20 tons of sludge annually. Sludge is first wasted from the primary
aeration tank and temporarily stockpiled in the second, unused aeration tank for
dewatering and condensing. A drying bed is used to dry portions of sludge before the tank
is pumped out and the contents taken to the sludge pond for further drying and
decomposition. The sludge is taken to a disposal site on a knoll. During winter when
water accumulates in the ponds, the water is pumped to the treatment plant for treatment.
On average, the sludge remains in the pond for a year before it is moved. At the disposal
site, the sludge is treated like compost and is turned and weeded yearly. Due to RWQCB
directives, the sludge will begin to be landfilled this year.
Infrastructure Condition
The NBRID needs to make significant infrastructure improvements to ensure compliance
with the requirements of the State of California Health Department and SWRCB. The FY
2003-2004 budget proposes various improvements to upgrade the reliability and
effectiveness of the utility’s facilities, improve operator safety, and address long term
deferred maintenance. Specific projects include an update of plant controls through the
use of SCADA (Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition), inflow/infiltration correction
improvements, and the increase of storage and disposal capacity and reliability. The
NBRID anticipates the preparation of a Master Water/Sewer Facilities Plan that will
outline key needs and a Capital Improvement, Renewal and Replacement Program.
Wastewater Service Needs
NBRID serves all developed lots within its jurisdictional boundaries. NBRID does not
currently serve areas outside its jurisdictional boundary. Average annual municipal flow,
including infiltration, is 0.145 mgd. The treatment plant has a design capacity of 0.215
mgd. NBRID indicates that wastewater service needs could double from 271 to 566
connections by buildout. However, residential growth within the timeframe of the MSR
will be limited due to low housing demand and County measures limiting growth to one
percent annually. NBRID has adequate capacity to meet expected wastewater treatment
demands (Table 3-3).
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW 3-5
SANITATION AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT
Chapter 3
Napa Berryessa RID
Table 3-3
Napa Berryessa RID
Wastewater Flow and System Capacity
Type of Connection Number
• Domestic 330
• Commercial/Industrial 1
• Total 331
Type of Wastewater Flow Flow (mgd) Design Capacity
• Municipal Flow 0.105 0.175
• Industrial Flow 0.000 0.000
• Infiltration 0.040 0.040
• Annual Flow 0.145 0.215
Peak Daily Wet Weather 0.165 0.165
Source: Napa LAFCO Survey, 2005.
IV. FINANCIAL ISSUES
This section reviews the financial status of Napa Berryessa Resort Improvement NBRID’s
Wastewater Enterprise Fund based on audited financial statements, revenue and
expenditure reports, a review of rate structures
and reserve policies, and capital improvement
Table 3-4
programs.
Napa Berryessa RID
Income and Expense Statement
Income and Expenses
Revenues Amount
Property Taxes $35,402
In FY 2003-2004, NBRID had revenues of
Charges for Services $496,704
$540,576 and expenses of $490,310 for a total
Miscellaneous Revenue $8,470
operating income of $50,266. These totals
Expenses
include both water and wastewater operations.
Services and Supplies $388,532
The present year surplus contrasts with a
shortfall of $29,000 in FY 2002-2003. The Depreciation $40,375
NBRID receives 92% of its revenue from service Bldg and Improvements $60,503
charges. Maintenance and operations expenses Equipment/Other $900
comprise 79% of total expenses (See Table 3-4). Operating Income $50,266
However, a budget shortfall is projected for FY
Source: County Budget Unit Revenue and Expenditure
2004-2005 due to an estimated $230,000 Detail, FY 2003-2004 Actuals.
projected in building and structural repairs and
3-6 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
SANITATION AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT
Chapter 3
Napa Berryessa RID
improvements. As discussed later, reserves are being used to address the shortfall.
Balance Sheet
Table 3-5
In FY 2003-2004, NBRID had $969,655 in
Napa Berryessa RID
total assets and $55,548 in total liabilities. NBRID Balance Sheet
The NBRID had $527,145 in current assets
Assets Amount
including cash, accounts receivable and short
Current Assets $527,145
term investments. Long term assets of land,
Long Term Assets $442,510
buildings, and improvements are historically
Total Assets $969,655
valued at $1.5 million. Due to the age of the
Total Current Liabilities $55,548
assets, two-thirds of the asset value has been
Net Assets
depreciated over the past 40 years. The
Invested in Capital Assets $442,510
NBRID has sufficient current assets to meet
Unrestricted Equity $471,597
its liabilities The NBRID has no long term
Total Net Assets $914,107
debt. However, the age of the NBRID’s
infrastructure does present a long-term Source: County Budget Unit Revenue and Expenditure
Detail, FY 2003-2004 Actuals.
liability for the community.
Reserve Policy
Water and sanitation services should adopt specific policies and amounts for reserve funds.
These include an operating reserve to provide working capital for operations and
maintenance costs, a rate stabilization reserve to guard against unanticipated economic
consequences (such as temporary reduction in NBRID funding), and a capital project
reserve to set aside money to replace or other wise upgrade existing facilities. The optimal
amount of reserves depends on the needs of the agency. A common industry practice is to
place an amount equal to three months of operating expenses into an operating reserve
and an amount equal to at least the annual depreciation on assets into a capital reserve
account.
NBRID places annual surpluses into a reserve account, but does not explicitly segregate the
funds into operating, rate stabilization, or capital projects. Reserves can be used for capital
projects or revenue shortfalls. The NBRID had $184,850 in reserves as of July 2004.
However, the NBRID’s reserves will be completely exhausted to pay for building and
structural repairs to the water system. [For FY 2005-2006, the Board of Supervisors is
considering a policy to place at least 3% of the District’s services and supplies
appropriations into a contingency, to be used to address unanticipated expenditure
increases or revenue decreases. The Board is also considering adopting a goal of 5% of
appropriations in reserve in case of fiscal distress in future years.]
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW 3-7
SANITATION AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT
Chapter 3
Napa Berryessa RID
Funding Asset Replacement
Wastewater agencies have a significant
Table 3-6
investment in capital assets (e.g., sewer
Napa Berryessa RID
lines, wastewater treatment plant, facilities,
Capital Replacement Plans
equipment, etc.). Protection of capital
FY 2003-
assets requires periodic and planned Financial Statistics
2004
maintenance, capital improvements, and
Renewal/Replacement Cost N/A
recapitalization as needed. Inadequate
Annual Depreciation on
attention or funding of maintenance, $40,375
Historical Value of Assets
rehabilitation, and construction of
Capital Improvement Fund $61,000
infrastructure is one of the greatest
Infrastructure Replacement
unfunded liabilities facing public
and Improvement
agencies. $0
Capital Reserve Fund for
Infrastructure Expansion
Shown in Table 3-6, annual asset
Source: Napa LAFCO Survey, 2005.
depreciation totaled $40,000 in FY 2003-
2004, yet only $61,000 was budgeted for
capital improvements. The NBRID will be using its entire reserve of $184,850 to pay for
building and structural improvements to the water sysytem. The NBRID does not have
adequate funds available for the renewal, improvement, or expansion of sewer facilities.
The NBRID is considering increasing fees to fund capital improvements and a Master
Facilities Plan that will outline a Capital Improvement, Renewal and Replacement
Program.
Service Fees and Charges
NBRID charges standby charges, service charges, and connection fees to its customers.
Setting the appropriate sewer fees is a complex task and requires predicting the fixed and
variable costs of providing collection and treatment services, and translating such costs
into a rate structure. Topography, geology, age of infrastructure, deferred maintenance,
capacity of treatment facilities, and the weather impact the cost of providing services. Fees
may also cover debt to be repaid and the cost of infrastructure renewal and replacement.
Table 3-7 details the NBRID sewer fees and connection fees.
3-8 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
SANITATION AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT
Chapter 3
Napa Berryessa RID
FY2003-2004 fees are a combination flat
Table 3-7
fee and a variable usage fee. The
Napa Berryessa RID
wastewater connection fee is not
Wastewater Service Fees
segregated into a capital reserve fund.
Fee Type Current Amount
According to the NBRID, fees have not
been materially adjusted in over a $10 per parcel per
Availability or
month
decade. The Board is considering Standby Charge
(total of $120 /year)
increasing: 1) the sewer base fee by 15%,
$3.00 flat rate for 1st
2) the connection fee by 150%, and 3) Residential Sewer
1,000 gallons plus $1.14
the minimum fee 33% to keep up with Service Charge
per Add’l 1,000 gallons
inflation, increased labor costs, capital
Commercial Sewer Same amount as
improvements, and compliance with
Service Charge residential fees
regulatory requirements.2 However,
Connection Fee
County staff has indicated that the
Gravity Line $1,000 per 4” line
proposed fee increase may not cover the
Force Main $3,000 per 4” line
cost of infrastructure replacement or
Source: SWRCB Survey, 2003.
renewal needs that might be identified
in the upcoming Facility Master Plan.
Financial Constraints and Issues
In recent years, NBRID has relied on cash reserves to meet operating expenses and its
wastewater fees are among the lowest in the County. These policies restrict the ability of
the NBRID to generate cash reserves for needed capital improvements, particularly given
the age of the wastewater system. Moreover, one-third of NBIRD’s revenue is generated
from the Steele Park Resort. The federal government is evaluating redevelopment
opportunities at Lake Berryessa, which may result in significant operating changes for the
Steele Park Resort as well as future revenue losses to the NBRID during the timeframe of
this study. These facts underscore the importance of establishing appropriate reserves and
updated fee mechanisms to provide the NBRID with adequate revenue to maintain the
sewer system.
V. ADMINISTRATION AND OPERATIONS
This section reviews the administration and operation of the NBRID’s wastewater
operations based on a review of the Napa LAFCo water municipal review, completion of
agency surveys, review of permitting requirements, and interviews with NBRID staff.
2 Napa Berryessa Resort Improvement NBRID, Board Agenda Letter, March 1, 2005.
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW 3-9
SANITATION AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT
Chapter 3
Napa Berryessa RID
Governance
NBRID is a dependent special district. Its board is comprised of the Board of Supervisors.
Supervisors conduct the business of the NBRID in accordance with provisions of County
Service Area Law. NBRID elections are based on a resident-voter system. The Board of
Supervisors is authorized, but has not chosen, to delegate its governance powers to a five-
member board of directors. Four of the five directors must be elected by NBRID voters,
with the fifth director being the supervisor representing the affected area. However, upon
unanimous vote of the directors, the board may consist of five members who are all elected
resident voters of the NBRID.
Operations
The Resort Improvement District law originally authorized the NBRID to provide a broad
range of municipal services, including water and sanitation, police and fire protection,
public recreation, community planning, solid waste disposal, road construction, and
numerous other municipal services. The law was amended in 1971 to preclude a district
from providing services not already provided as of July 1, 1970. At that time, the NBRID
was providing water and sewer services only. The NBRID is now precluded from
providing other services. All other municipal services are provided by the County of
Napa. No other service agency provides water or wastewater service in NBRID’s
boundaries.
Under the overall leadership and direction of the Napa County Board of Supervisors, the
Napa County Public Works Department is responsible for operating NBRID’s water and
sewer systems. The County currently employs one full-time licensed operator to manage
NBRID’s sewer and wastewater treatment system. The operator is on call 24 hours a day, 7
days a week, to respond to emergencies. NBRID and Lake Berryessa RID share a full-time
licensed water and sewer treatment supervisor. The County Public Works Department
provides engineering, accounting, professional services, and other administrative support
activities. The County does not use contractors for the NBRID.
Compliance with Applicable Laws
The California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Valley Region, issued
Order
No. 95-173 (December 6, 1985) that regulates the amount, process, and quality of
wastewater treated and discharged by the NBRID. NBRID is authorized to produce up to
a monthly average discharge of 50,000 gallons per day. However, the NBRID appears to
be exceeding the monthly average discharge cap due, in part, to needed infiltration
improvements. In 2004, the SWRCB issued a final revised Monitoring and Reporting
Program (MRP) that requires NBRID to follow specified monitoring procedures, including
3-10 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
SANITATION AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT
Chapter 3
Napa Berryessa RID
the construction of groundwater monitoring wells. However, at present, the SWRCB does
not have any tentative or current enforcement orders pending against the NBRID.
Programmatic and Operational Tools
Wastewater operations should have a number of management and operational tools in
place to effectively manage their wastewater collection and treatment system. Some of the
more important management tools include audited financial statements, workload
management programs, master facility plan, SCADA or other electronic monitoring
systems, a sewer televising and sewer line cleaning program, capital improvement program,
preventive maintenance programs, and other similar tools. Although detailed analysis of
this topic is well beyond the scope of this review, it is possible to determine whether an
agency has a formal and well-organized program, informal or limited program, or lacks a
program.
As shown in Table 3-8, the NBRID
has audited financial statements. Table 3-8
Beyond that, management tools need Napa Berryessa RID
to be strengthened or developed. For Wastewater Management Tools
example, the sewer cleaning program
(a preventive measure) covers 0.25
Type of Program
miles of line annually, thus requiring
25 years to clean the entire system.
The use of a workload management
system does not appear to be in place.
The NBRID also needs a formal
Master Facility Plan to identify
infrastructure needs and deficiencies
and a capital improvement program
and sufficient reserves to implement
the required improvements on a
timely basis.
Shared Arrangements
Sharing facilities, equipment, and personnel with other governmental agencies can be an
effective way to achieve cost savings. NBRID is indirectly managed by the Napa County
Flood Control and Water Conservation NBRID, which in turn, has an informal
arrangement with County Public Works for administrative and operational support.
NBRID thus benefits from cost-savings associated with its relationship with the County of
Napa Public Works Department. Notable cost-savings associated with this relationship
include providing the NBRID with access to a wide range of administrative and
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW 3-11
SANITATION AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT
lamroF
margorP
ro
detimiL
lamrofnI
dedeeN
Audited Financial Statement (cid:59) (cid:137) (cid:137)
Enterprise Reserve Policy (cid:137) (cid:137) (cid:59)
Workload Management System (cid:137) (cid:59) (cid:137)
Sewer Line Cleaning Program (cid:137) (cid:59) (cid:137)
Master Facility Plan (cid:137) (cid:137) (cid:59)
Capital Improvement Plan (cid:137) (cid:59) (cid:137)
Chapter 3
Napa Berryessa RID
operational support, including billing and collections, engineering, and maintenance
personnel.
NBRID is located near Spanish Flat Water. Both agencies provide water and sewer services.
Their proximity to one another, similar services, and shared interests regarding the
Bureau’s resort plans offer the potential for shared arrangements. The primary difference
is that Spanish Flat is an independent special district while NBRID is a dependent district.
Currently, both districts have separate collection systems and wastewater treatment plants.
Neither agency shares its equipment, personnel, or facilities. Informal discussions with
County and NBRID staff indicate that sharing arrangements are complicated since many
of NBRID’s functions are provided via contract with Napa County.
NBRID maintains an informal relationship with LBRID to share staff, equipment, and
materials on a need basis, which provides a mechanism for both districts to pursue cost-
efficiencies with one another with respect to mutually beneficial improvements and
projects within their respective service areas. However, the NBRID does not participate in
any joint powers authority or memorandums of understanding with other agencies, nor
does it participate in insurance pools and purchasing agreements with the County of Napa
to reduce overall service costs. The NBRID did not identify potential opportunities to
share facilities or implement other programs to improve their collection and treatment
services.
VI. PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY
NBRID meetings are conducted on a need basis at the County of Napa’s Administration
Building and are open to the public. Regularly scheduled meetings provide an
opportunity for the NBRID’s constituents to ask questions of their governing board, while
helping to ensure that service information is being effectively communicated to the public.
In compliance with State law, the RID Board appoints one of its members as president and
appoints a secretary during the first meeting of the year.
NBRID provides an annual summary of past and projected revenues and expenditures
relating to its water and wastewater service operations as part of its annual budget. The
budget is adopted following a publicly noticed board meeting in which members of the
public may comment and offer suggestions with respect to expenditures. In addition to
enhancing the accountability of the governing board, the budget process provides a clear
directive to staff with respect to prioritizing NBRID resources.
The County of Napa maintains a website with information regarding NBRID. Agendas
and minutes for the past year can be found at http://www.co.napa.ca.us/agendanet/.
Budgetary information can also be accessed via the internet at
http://www.co.napa.ca.us/Gov/ by selecting the icon for budget and finances on the
3-12 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
SANITATION AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT
Chapter 3
Napa Berryessa RID
County website. These two sites provide the latest information on NBRID, including its
revenues, expenditures, and capital plans. The NBRID also mails fliers to customers with
respect to sewer and water charges.
VII. CITATION LIST
1. Comprehensive Water Service Study Service Review Report, Local Agency
Formation Commission of Napa County, October 2004
2. Sanitation and Wastewater Municipal Service Review Questionnaire, Local Agency
Formation Commission of Napa County, 2005.
3. U.S. Census, 2000. Demographic Profiles
4. Wastewater Discharge Requirements for Napa Berryessa Resort Improvement
NBRID, Order No. 95-173, California Regional Water Quality Control Board,
Central Valley Region, Dated June 28, 1995
5. Napa County Budget, FY 2003-2004 and FY 2004-2005.
6. “Proposed water and sewer rates and connection fee increases,” Napa Berryessa
Resort Improvement NBRID, Board Agenda Letter, March 1, 2005.
7. Correspondence with AnnaMaria Martinez, Assistant Engineer, County of Napa
8. Wastewater User Charge Survey Report, Summary and Listing of Data from
September 2003–April 2004 Survey of California Wastewater Agencies, FY 2003-04,
State Water Resources Control Board, May 2004.
9. Future Use and Operations of Lake Berryessa, Draft Environmental Impact
Statement, SCH Number: 2003124004.
10. County of Napa General Plan
11. Resort Improvement NBRID Law, Section 13000 of the Public Resources Code
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW 3-13
SANITATION AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT
4
L B
AKE ERRYESSA
R I D
ESORT MPROVEMENT ISTRICT
I. INTRODUCTION
The Lake-Berryessa Resort Improvement District
(LBRID) was established in 1965 to provide
potable water and sewer services to a planned and
recreational community (Berryessa Estates) along
the northwestern shoreline of Lake Berryessa.
The District was formed under the Resort
Improvement District Law, Public Resources
Code 13000, a law created to facilitate the
formation of public agencies for providing a wide
variety of municipal services in areas best suited
Putah Creek Intake
for recreational and seasonal uses.
Table 4-1 LBRID covers an area of approximately
Lake Berryessa RID 3.0 square miles or about 2,030 acres. The
Agency Profile adopted sphere of influence is 0.35 square
Date Formed 1965 miles (225 acres), which is less than 15
percent of the district’s size. The LBRID
Public Resources
Enabling Legislation
Code 13000 is located in eastern Napa County, along
the border of Putah Creek, a tributary to
Agency Type Dependent District
Lake Berryessa. The LBRID is accessible
Agency Size 3.2 square miles
by Knoxville Road off Highway 120.
Services Provided Water and Sewer
Based on County of Napa estimates,
Population in 2004 549
LBRID currently serves 549 residents.
Source: Napa LAFCO Survey, 2005.
Table 4-1 and Figure 4-1 describe and
illustrate LBRID’s physical boundaries.
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW 4-1
SANITATION AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT
Chapter 4
Lake Berryessa RID
Figure 4.1
Lake Berryessa
Resort Improvement District
4-2 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
SANITATION AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT
Chapter 4
Lake Berryessa RID
II. POPULATION GROWTH
This section reviews the LBRID’s history, land use patterns, infrastructure issues, and other
factors which affect population growth during the timeframe of this MSR.
Land within LBRID is regulated under the County of Napa General Plan and zoned
“Agricultural Watershed,” “Residential Country,” and “Planned Development.”
Agricultural Watershed and Residential Country zoning standards require minimum
parcel sizes of 160 and 10 acres, respectively. Land outside LBRID is designated as
“Agriculture, Watershed, Open Space”. This land use designation discourages LAFCO
from approving annexation proposals based on its policy to direct the extension of
municipal services away from land designated for agriculture unless it is in response to a
health or public safety concern.
The majority of development in LBRID has occurred in the Planned Development Zone.
Unlike other zones requiring very low density development, due to large minimum lot
sizes, parcels zoned for Planned Development are not required to have a minimum parcel
size. This provision allows for additional density, including residential and commercial
uses, to occur in the affected portions of Berryessa Estates for existing or new lots upon
the approval of a modified or new use permit. LBRID’s anticipated buildout is
approximately 2,000 residential units, which is based on original development plans for
the area.1
Managing future growth is of critical concern to voters in Napa County. Future growth
within LBRID as well as the surrounding unincorporated areas is limited by growth
control measures passed by the voters in Napa County. In the 1980s, the voters approved
Measure A, which limits growth in the unincorporated area to 1% annually. Growth is
limited to 1% of outstanding building permits in any given year. In the 1990s, voters
approved Measure J, requiring that any conversion of agricultural land must be approved
by two-thirds of voters. These two measures play an important role in determining future
growth in the County.
The Comprehensive Water Service Review prepared by LAFCO of Napa County estimated
that LBRID had a population estimated at 549 residents in 2004 based on a calculation
methodology authorized by Title 22 of the California Water Code. The District was
initially envisioned to accommodate second “vacation” homes, but instead is occupied
primarily by permanent residents. Although the LBRID has a large buildout potential,
growth will be limited over the life of this Municipal Service Review due to General Plan
land uses, established growth controls in Napa County, and limited housing demand.
1 In 1975, the County of Napa and Contra Costa County sued, alleging the developer, Labry Corporation, had misled
investors by promising the construction of certain amenities in Berryessa Estates, such as a marina and golf course. In
1976, the Contra Costa County Superior Court issued a judgment requiring the Labry Corporation to make certain
improvements, including a boat launch, a pier, campground site, and marina.
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW 4-3
SANITATION AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT
Chapter 4
Lake Berryessa RID
III. INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS AND DEFICIENCIES
This section reviews the wastewater infrastructure needs and deficiencies of Lake Berryessa
Resort Improvement District based on a review of wastewater reports and treatment plant
design, capital improvement program, and interviews
with LBRID staff.
Table 4-2
Lake Berryessa RID
Wastewater System Overview Wastewater System
Connections 163
The LBRID contains approximately 351 parcels, of Residential 163
which only 163 have been developed. The District
NonResidential 0
provides sewer services to these residential
Sewer Lines (mi.) 7.5 miles
connections. Shown in Table 4-2, LBRID has 7.5
Gravity Lines 6.5 miles
miles of sewer lines: 6.5 miles are gravity fed lines and
Force Mains 1.0 miles
1.0 miles are force mains. The District also has three
Lift Stations 3
lift stations. With respect to infrastructure age,
Treatment Level: Secondary
nearly all the sewer lines are 25 to 50 years old with
Source: Napa LAFCO Survey, 2005.
only 1 percent being less than 25 years old. The
District’s
WWTP provides secondary level treatment.
LBRID’s wastewater flows through
approximately 6.5 miles of the sewer collection
system, including 3 lift stations, from which it
is pumped to a 91,000 gallon above-ground
holding tank. From the tank, the wastewater is
pumped through a 1 mile long force main into
two percolation/evaporation ponds, followed by
gravity flow into five percolation/evaporation
ponds (two of which are not currently regulated
by the State’s wastewater discharge
requirements). The wastewater is not disinfected
prior to discharge to the ponds. The ponds are
best classified as “aerobic-anaerobic facultative
stabilization ponds.” The ponds are earthen
and not equipped with supplemental
mechanical or diffused-air aeration systems.
District Treatment Facilities
The wastewater system for LBRID was not
originally designed to accommodate the number
and year round uses. As discussed later, design flaws in the District’s system and lack of
4-4 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
SANITATION AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT
Chapter 4
Lake Berryessa RID
repairs is resulting in significant infiltration/inflow as well as wastewater spills. This topic
is discussed later.
Infrastructure Condition
LBRID has not recently done a formal assessment of its infrastructure condition and
needs. According to the FY 2003-2004 budget, the District budgeted a limited amount of
funds to upgrade the reliability and effectiveness of the utility’s facilities, improve operator
safety, and address a sizable inventory of deferred maintenance projects. FY 2003-2004
wastewater projects included inflow and infiltration correction improvements, a new spray
irrigation system in the pond area, and various pond improvements. FY 2004-2005
projects include the continuation of needed inflow/infiltration correction improvements.
However, in a memorandum issued by the California Regional Water Quality Control
Board, staff claimed that the LBRID required more than $1 million in funds to repair
manholes, make pipeline spot repairs, and replace 20% of all the sewer lines in the District.
Wastewater Service Needs
The LBRID provides services to all developed lots within its jurisdictional boundary.
LBRID does not currently serve areas outside its jurisdictional boundary. Summarized in
Table 4-3, the LBRID indicates that service needs could double from 163 to 343
connections by buildout, all residential ones. However, residential growth within the
timeframe of the MSR is anticipated to be limited due to limited demand for housing,
Table 4-3
Lake Berryessa RID
Wastewater Flow and System Capacity
Connections Current
• Domestic 163
• Commercial/Industrial 0
• Total 163
Current
Average Flow (mgd) Design Capacity
Flow in mgd
• Annual Municipal Flow 0.024 0.024
• Annual Industrial Flow 0.000 0.000
• Annual Infiltration 0.010 0.010
• Average Annual Flow 0.034 0.034
Peak Daily Wet Weather 0.084 0.084
Source: Napa LAFCO Survey, 2005.
county growth control measures, and land use restrictions. Even if housing demand was
present, the wastewater treatment plant has inadequate capacity to serve new demands.
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW 4-5
SANITATION AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT
Chapter 4
Lake Berryessa RID
IV. FINANCIAL ISSUES
This section reviews the financial status of Lake Berryessa Resort Improvement District’s
Wastewater Enterprise Fund based on audited financial statements, revenue and
expenditure reports, a review of rate structures
and reserve policies, and capital improvement
Table 4-4
programs. Lake Berryessa RID
Income and Expense Statement
Income and Expenses Revenues Amount
Property Taxes $24,308
In FY 2003-2004, LBRID had revenues of
Charges for Services $336,763
$385,296 and expenses of $476,323, resulting
Miscellaneous Revenue $24,225
in a negative operating income of $91,027.
Expenses
These totals include water and wastewater
Services and Supplies $298,510
operations. The present shortfall is being
Depreciation $75,048
funded by the District’s Fund Balance. Thus,
Debt and Assets $102,765
net income is $11,739. LBRID receives 87%
of its revenue from service charges. Operating Inc./(Exp.) ($91,027)
Maintenance and operations expenses Non-Operating Revenue $102,766
comprise 63% of total expenses, depreciation
Net Income $11,739
and debt service comprise 31%. Non-
Sources: County Budget Unit Revenue and
operating revenues from a special tax
Expenditure Detail, FY 2003-2004 Actuals.
comprise a large share of revenue dedicated
to specific projects will sunset in 2010. Table 4-4 provides a summary of income and
expenses.
Table 4-5
Balance Sheet
Lake Berryessa RID
Balance Sheet
In FY 2003-2004, LBRID had $1,635,198 in
Assets Amount
total assets and $24,395 in total liabilities. The
Current Assets $527,145
NBRID had $356,659 in current assets
Long Term Assets $442,510
including cash, accounts receivable and short
Total Assets $969,655
term investments. Long term assets of land,
Total Current Liabilities $55,548
buildings, and improvements are historically
Net Assets
valued at $2.0 million. Due to the age of the
Invested in Capital Assets $442,510
assets, much of the asset value has been
Unrestricted Equity $471,597
depreciated over the last forty years. The
District’s debt currently consists of a $300,000 Total Net Assets $914,107
loan taken out for various improvements. Sources: Napa LAFCO Survey, 2005; Napa County
Annual payments of $70,000 paid from the Combining Statement of Fund Net Assets for
Nonmajor Enterprise Funds, June 30, 2004
recently adopted tax will end in 2007.
Unrestricted equity totaled $471,597. However,
4-6 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
SANITATION AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT
Chapter 4
Lake Berryessa RID
as discussed later, the age of the District’s infrastructure does present a long-term liability
for the community.
Reserve Policy
Water and sanitation services should adopt specific policies and amounts for reserve funds.
These include an operating reserve to provide working capital for operations and
maintenance costs, a rate stabilization reserve to guard against unanticipated economic
consequences (such as temporary reduction in district funding), and a capital project
reserve to set aside money to replace or other wise upgrade existing facilities. The optimal
amount of reserves depends on the needs of the agency. A common industry practice is to
place an amount equal to three months of operating expenses into an operating reserve
and an amount equal to at least the annual depreciation on assets into a capital reserve
account.
LBRID places annual surpluses into a reserve fund, but does not segregate the funds into
operating, rate stabilization, or capital projects reserves. Reserves can be used for capital
projects or revenue shortfalls. District reserves totaled $253,000) as of July 1, 2004. In
recent years, the District has used its cash reserves to pay for operating expenses.
Therefore, there are limited funds to make necessary capital improvements. [For FY 2005-
2006, the Board of Supervisors is considering a policy to place at least 3% of the District’s
services and supplies appropriations into a contingency for future unanticipated
expenditure increases or revenue decreases. The Board is also considering adopting a
General Reserve goal of 5% of appropriations in reserve in case of fiscal distress in future
years.]
Funding Asset Replacement
Wastewater agencies have a significant Table 4-6
investment in capital assets (sewer lines, Lake Berryessa RID
wastewater treatment plant, facilities, etc.). Capital Replacement Plans
Protection of capital assets requires periodic
FY 2003-
Financial Statistics
and planned maintenance, capital 2004
improvements, and recapitalization. Renewal/Replacement Cost N/A
Inadequate attention or funding of
Depreciation on Assets $75,048
maintenance, rehabilitation, and construction
Capital Improvement Budget $65,000
of infrastructure is one of the greatest
Capital Reserve Fund for
unfunded liabilities facing public agencies.
Infrastructure Replacement
and Improvement $0
Shown in Table 4-6, annual asset Capital Reserve for
depreciation totaled $75,048 in FY2003-2004, Infrastructure Expansion
yet only $65,000 was budgeted for capital
Source: Napa LAFCO Survey, 2005.
improvements. The District does not have
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW 4-7
SANITATION AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT
Chapter 4
Lake Berryessa RID
funds available for facility renewal, improvement, or expansion. LBRID is thus
inadequately positioned to fully maintain its infrastructure, replace aging components, or
serve new development. The District is considering increasing its sewer fees to fund a
Wastewater Facility Master Plan, capital improvements, and recapitalization needs.
Service Fees and Charges
Fees, charges, and taxes are the elements most visible to the public. Setting fees is a
complex task and requires predicting the fixed and variable costs of providing services, and
translating costs into a rate structure.
In evaluating rates of different agencies,
Table 4-7
low rates do not necessarily indicate
Wastewater Service Fees
efficiency. Agencies in built-out areas
Fee Type Current Amount
may need only to maintain the integrity
T-1: $479/parcel for
of current infrastructure and service
developed real property
levels, while agencies in fast growing Availability or
T-2: $275 per parcels with
areas may need to plan for expansion as Standby Charge
structures; $137.50 per
well. Topography, geology, age of the parcel without structures
infrastructure and deferred
$5.00 for 1st 1,000 gallons
Residential Sewer
maintenance, and treatment capacity all +$0.96 per Add’l 1,000
Service Charge
impact the cost of providing services. gallons
Commercial Sewer Same amount as residential
Table 4-6 details the District sewer fees Service Charge fees
and charges. FY2003-2004 fees are a Connection Fee
combination of a flat availability fee Gravity Line $1,000 per 4” line
and variable usage fee. The connection Force Main $3,000 per 4” line
fees are not segregated into a capital
Source: SWRCB Survey, 2003.
reserve fund. Fees have not been
materially adjusted in over a decade.
The Board is considering increasing: 1) the sewer base fee by 35%, 2) the connection fee by
150%, and 3) the base fee 35% to keep up with inflation, increased labor costs, capital
improvements, and regulatory requirements. However, the County has noted that the
proposed fee increase may not cover the cost of infrastructure replacement or renewal
needs that might be identified during the development of LBRID’s Facility Master Plan.
Financial Constraints and Issues
The District, like most small utility districts, must fund significant State and federal
mandated improvements while generating limited revenues from a small customer base. A
1995 winter storm damaged the District’s water and wastewater facilities, consumed cash
reserves, and aggravated cash flow problem. In 1996, the Board set forth policies to make
District operations self-sufficient, provide capital improvements required by the State, and
develop a financial reserve. In FY 1996-1997, the District increased rates and District
4-8 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
SANITATION AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT
Chapter 4
Lake Berryessa RID
voters approved a special parcel tax in FY 1998-1999. In mid 2000, a special tax election
passed which generates $60,000 annually to fund specific capital improvement projects and
a designated reserve fund. The special tax will continue until 2010. However, after that
the District will need to find other sources of revenue to fund Capital Improvement
Project for the sewer facilities.
V. ADMINISTRATION AND OPERATIONS
This section reviews the administration and operation of the District’s wastewater
operations based on a review of the Napa LAFCo water municipal review, completion of
agency surveys, review of permitting requirements, and interviews with District staff.
Governance
Lake Berryessa Resort Improvement District is a dependent district, authorized under the
Resort Improvement District Law, Section 3000 of the California Public Resources Code.
The governing body consists of the Napa County Board of Supervisors, who are elected to
staggered four-year terms by county district voting. Supervisors are required to conduct
the business of the District in accordance with the provisions of County Service Area Law.
District elections are based on a resident-voter system. The Board of Supervisors is
authorized, but has not chosen to; delegate its governance powers to a five-member board
of directors. Four of the five directors must be elected by LBRID voters, with the fifth
director being the supervisor representing the affected area. However, upon unanimous
vote of the directors, the board may consist of five members, all elected resident voters of
the District.
Operations
The Resort Improvement law originally authorized the LBRID to provide a broad range of
municipal services, including water and sanitation, police and fire protection, public
recreation, community planning, solid waste disposal, road construction, and numerous
other municipal services. The law was amended in 1971 to preclude a district from
providing services not already provided as of July 1, 1970. At that time, the LBRID was
providing water and sewer services only. The LBRID is now precluded from providing
other services. All other municipal services are provided by the County of Napa. No
other service agency provides water or wastewater service in LBRID’s boundaries.
The County employs one full-time licensed operator to manage the District’s day-to-day
operations. The operator is on call 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to respond to
emergencies. All services are performed with County staff and no contractors are used. In
addition to the full-time operator, NBRID and Lake Berryessa RID share a full-time
licensed water and sewer treatment supervisor. Customer inquiries, including billing and
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW 4-9
SANITATION AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT
Chapter 4
Lake Berryessa RID
service questions, are directed to the Public Works Department. Extra help is available to
the District on a need basis. Currently, two extra help personnel assist with operations at
NBRID and LBRID.
Shared Arrangements
Sharing facilities, equipment, and personnel with other governmental agencies can be an
effective way to achieve cost savings. LBRID is indirectly managed by the Napa County
Flood Control and Water Conservation District, which in turn, has an informal
arrangement with County Public Works for administrative and operational support.
LBRID thus benefits from cost-savings associated with its relationship with the County of
Napa Public Works Department. Notable cost-savings associated with this relationship
include providing the District with access to a wide range of administrative and
operational support, including billing and collections, engineering, and maintenance
personnel.
LBRID is located in a remote area of the County and opportunities for shared
arrangements are limited. LBRID maintains an informal relationship with NBRID to
share staff, equipment, and materials on a need basis, which provides a mechanism for
both districts to pursue cost-efficiencies with one another with respect to mutually
beneficial improvements and projects within their respective service areas. However, the
District does not participate in any joint powers authority or memorandums of
understanding with other agencies, nor does it participate in insurance pools and
purchasing agreements with the County of Napa to reduce overall service costs. The
District did not identify potential opportunities to share facilities nor implement other
programs to improve their collection and treatment services.
Programmatic and Operational Tools
Wastewater operations should have various programs, management, and operational tools
in place to manage their wastewater collection and treatment system. Important
management tools include audited financial statements, workload management programs,
electronic monitoring systems, a sewer televising program and regular sewer line cleaning
program, capital improvement program, preventive maintenance programs, and other
similar tools. Although detailed analysis is beyond the scope of this MSR, it is possible to
determine a formal and well-organized program, informal or limited program, or lacks a
program.
4-10 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
SANITATION AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT
Chapter 4
Lake Berryessa RID
Table 4-8
Lake Berryessa RID
Wastewater Management Tools
Type of Program
Few programs are in place. The sewer cleaning program covers only 0.25 miles of line
annually, which means that a particular line would be cleaned only once every 25 years
(rather than once a year). The District needs a formal Master Facility Plan to identify
infrastructure needs and deficiencies and a capital improvement program and sufficient
reserves to implement the required improvements on a timely basis. LBRID’s capital
improvement program is underfunded and costs for infrastructure needs are not explicitly
linked to the present rate structure. Infrastructure appears to be repaired only in an
emergency situation.
Compliance with Applicable Laws
The SWRCB, Central Valley Region, issued Order No 95-171 (December 6, 1985)
regulating the amount, process, and quality of wastewater treated and discharged by the
District. According to Order No 95-171, the District is limited to a monthly average
discharge of 35,000 gallons per day. On April 29, 2005, the Regional Board issued an
Administrative Civil Liability Order in the amount of $400,000 due to ten spills of
domestic wastewater that have occurred since 1998. The most significant of these spills
discharged at least 4.1 million gallons to Stone Corral Creek. The spill was due to
inflow/infiltration problems in the collection system and lack of capacity in the ponds
that were previously identified in engineering studies conducted by the District in 1996.
The District had not fully complied with a 1996 Cease and Desist Order requiring facility
improvements to address infrastructure deficiencies as well as the inflow and infiltration
problems that are causing the spills.
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW 4-11
SANITATION AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT
lamroF
margorP
ro
detimiL
lamrofnI
dedeeN
Audited Financial Statement (cid:59) (cid:137) (cid:137)
Enterprise Reserve Policy (cid:137) (cid:137) (cid:59)
Workload Management System (cid:137) (cid:59) (cid:137)
Sewer Line Cleaning Program (cid:137) (cid:59) (cid:137)
Master Facility Plan (cid:137) (cid:137) (cid:59)
Capital Improvement Plan (cid:137) (cid:59) (cid:137)
Chapter 4
Lake Berryessa RID
VI. PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY
LBRID meetings are conducted on an as-needed basis at the County of Napa’s
Administration Building and are open to the public. Regularly scheduled meetings
provide an opportunity for the District’s constituents to ask questions of their governing
board, while helping to ensure that service information is being effectively communicated
to the public. In compliance with State law, the RID Board appoints one of its members
as president and appoints a secretary during the first meeting of the year.
LBRID provides an annual summary of past and projected revenues and expenditures
relating to its water and wastewater service operations as part of its annual budget. The
budget is adopted following a publicly noticed board meeting in which members of the
public may comment and offer suggestions with respect to expenditures. In addition to
enhancing the accountability of the governing board, the budget process provides a clear
directive to staff with respect to prioritizing district resources.
The County of Napa maintains a website with information regarding LBRID. Agendas
and minutes for the past year can be found at http://www.co.napa.ca.us/agendanet/.
Budgetary information can also be accessed via the internet at
http://www.co.napa.ca.us/Gov/ by selecting the icon for budget and finances on the
County website. These two sites provide the latest information on the District, including
its revenues, expenditures, and capital plans. The District mails fliers to residents of the
district in anticipation of rate or service changes.
VII. CITATION LIST
1. Comprehensive Water Service Study Service Review Report, Local Agency
Formation Commission of Napa County, October 2004
2. Sanitation and Wastewater Municipal Service Review Questionnaire, Local Agency
Formation Commission of Napa County, 2005.
3. U.S. Census, 2000. Demographic Profiles
4. Wastewater Discharge Requirements for Lake Berryessa Resort Improvement
District, Order No. 95-171, California Regional Water Quality Control Board,
Central Valley Region, Dated June 23, 1995
5. Napa County Budget, FY 2003-2004.
6. “Proposed water and sewer rates and connection fee increases,” Napa Berryessa
Resort Improvement District, Board Agenda Letter, 3/1/2005.
4-12 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
SANITATION AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT
Chapter 4
Lake Berryessa RID
7. Administrative Civil Liability (ACL Complaint No. R5-2004-0539), California
Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Valley Region, April 2005.
8. Correspondence with AnnaMaria Martinez, Assistant Engineer
9. Wastewater User Charge Survey Report, Summary and Listing of Data from
September 2003–April 2004 Survey of California Wastewater Agencies, FY 2003-04,
State Water Resources Control Board, May 2004.
10. Resort Improvement District Law, Section 13000 of the Public Resources Code
11. Napa County General Plan
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW 4-13
SANITATION AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT
5
N R
APA IVER
R D
ECLAMATION ISTRICT
I. INTRODUCTION
The Napa River Reclamation District (NRRD) was
originally established in 1974 to maintain and
improve an existing levee serving an
unincorporated community in southern Napa
County called Edgerly Island. The District was
originally formed under the Reclamation District
Act, Division 15 of the California Water Code
§50000, a law created to facilitate the formation of
public agencies for flood control services.
Following an amendment to state law, NRRD
services were expanded in 1984 to include sewer
service. This amendment coincided with the
District annexing the Ingersoll Subdivision.
Table 5-1 NRRD encompasses an area of 0.12
Napa River Reclamation square miles or 74 acres, which includes
Agency Profile
an adopted sphere of influence of 53
Date Formed 1974 acres. The District is located eight miles
California Water southwest of the City of Napa, along the
Enabling Legislation
Code 50000 western edge of the Napa River near
Agency Type Independent District Edgerly Island. According to the
Agency Size 0.12 square miles District, NRRD serves a maximum
Flood Control and population of approximately 400
Services Provided
Sewer Service residents. Table 5-1 provides basic
Population in 2000 ~400 statistics of the District and Figure 5-1
illustrates the general location.
Source: Napa LAFCO Survey, 2005.
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW 5-1
SANITATION AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT
Chapter 5
Napa River Reclamation District
Figure 5.1
Napa Reclamation
District
5-2 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
SANITATION AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT
Chapter 5
Napa River Reclamation District
II. POPULATION GROWTH
This section reviews the District’s land use patterns, infrastructure issues, and other factors
which affect population growth during the timeframe of this MSR.
Development densities for the County of Napa are identified under its zoning standards.
The principal zoning standard for parcels within the Edgerly Island and Ingersoll
Subdivisions is “Residential Single: Airport Compatibility.”1 This zoning standard requires
a minimum parcel size of 8,000 square feet, which is equivalent to 0.18 acres. A zoning
standard of “Agricultural Watershed: Airport Compatibility” is assigned to the majority of
land adjacent to both subdivisions, which requires a minimum parcel size of 160 acres.
Land outside NRRD is similarly constrained and is not anticipated to accommodate future
residential or commercial growth. The land is designated as “Agriculture, Watershed,
Open Space” which, under County zoning regulations, requires a minimum parcel size of
160 acres. This land use designation discourages LAFCO from approving annexation
proposals based on its policy to direct the extension of municipal services away from land
designated for agriculture unless it is in response to a health or public safety concern.
Managing future growth is of critical concern to voters in Napa County. Future growth
within NRRD as well as the surrounding unincorporated areas is limited by growth
control measures passed by the voters in Napa County. In the 1980s, the voters approved
Measure A, which limits growth in the unincorporated area to 1% annually. Growth is
limited to 1% of outstanding building permits in any given year. In the 1990s, voters
approved Measure J, requiring that any conversion of agricultural land must be approved
by two-thirds of voters. These two measures play an important role in determining future
growth in the County.
The Comprehensive Water Service Review prepared by LAFCO of Napa County estimated
that NRRD had a population estimated at 455 residents in 2004 based on a calculation
methodology authorized by Title 22 of the California Water Code. The District only has a
few remaining vacant lots which could be developed. Growth will be limited over the life
of this Municipal Service Review due to General Plan land uses, established growth
controls in Napa County, limited remaining residential lots, and limited housing demand.
1 The Airport Compatibility overlay standard signifies that the area is located in close proximity to the Napa County
Airport and that development standards must be compatible with airport operations. In addition, there are two
parcels located within the District that are zoned “Marine Commercial: Airport Compatibility”. There are no
minimum parcels for this zoning standard.
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW 5-3
SANITATION AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT
Chapter 5
Napa River Reclamation District
III. INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS AND DEFICIENCIES
This section reviews the wastewater infrastructure needs and deficiencies of Napa River
Reclamation District based on a review of wastewater reports and wastewater treatment
plant design, capital improvement program, and interviews with District staff.
Wastewater System Overview
Table 5-2
Napa River Reclamation
The District provides wastewater collection and
Wastewater System
treatment services to 138 developed parcels. All the
connections are for residential uses. Only 16 Connections 138
parcels remain within the District as undeveloped. Residential 138
The NRRD is mostly surrounded by State Fish and Non Residential 0
Game property, called the Napa-Sonoma Marsh. Sewer Lines (mi.) 3.0 miles
No residential developments in this area are Gravity Lines 1.5 miles
planned. The District has 3.0 miles of sewer lines: Force Mains 1.5 miles
1.5 miles are gravity fed and 1.5 miles are force
Lift Stations 15 stations
mains. All of the sewer lines are less than 25 years
Treatment Level: Secondary
old. Table 5-2 summarizes some of the more
Source: Napa LAFCO Survey, 2005.
pertinent infrastructure of the District’s wastewater
system.
NRRD’s wastewater treatment process consists of 15
septic tanks, 15 step stations and pumps, one sewer
treatment facility, 10 underground mounds for
filtration and 3 storage ponds. The plant was built
in 1984. Wastewater is gravity fed from residences
to one of 15 community septic tanks where solids
settle. Once effluent levels in the community septic
tank exceed a designated level, effluent is pumped
to the central sewer treatment facility and into a
system of ten underground mounds for percolation
and chlorination. After disinfection, treated
effluent is stored and recirculated in three storage
ponds covering an area of 9.5 acres. “Pond 3” has a
manmade island area for enhancing wildlife.
NRRD’s wastewater discharge permit authorizes
discharge of up to 82,000 gpd of secondary treated
effluent into Mud Slough. However, discharge has
not commenced nor is likely to occur, due to
adequate storage and evaporation capacity within
Wastewater Treatment Facilities
the ponds.
5-4 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
SANITATION AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT
Chapter 5
Napa River Reclamation District
Infrastructure Condition
The District has made strides in recent years to improve the condition of its sewer
collection system and wastewater treatment plant. Following an earthquake in 2000, the
District received a $100,000 grant from the Office of Emergency Services to inspect and
improve the sewer collection system. Improvements effectively addressed any existing
inflow and infiltration issues present in the collection system. However, the wastewater
treatment plant needs various improvements to extend its useful life. The District is in the
process of replacing faulty valves that feed the treatment beds to ensure reliable loading of
the beds. The District is also working on the distribution lines in the mound to ensure
proper distribution and working on the mound cover to increase evaporation. Present
repairs and improvements will allow the mound to effectively treat 20 to 24 mgd for the
next ten years. However, the mound system will eventually need to be replaced at a cost of
approximately $200,000 unless lower cost options (such as a trickling filters) are employed.
Wastewater Service Needs
NRRD provides services to all developed lots within its boundary. NRRD does not
currently serve areas outside its jurisdictional boundary. Average annual municipal flow
totals 0.017 mgd and peak day wet weather flow is 0.020 mgd. The wastewater treatment
plant has a design capacity of 0.040; however, the best performance to date has been 0.024.
Given that NRRD does not indicate that wastewater service needs will increase over time,
the plant is adequately sized for the period of time covered by this MSR (Table 5-3).
Table 5-3
Napa River Reclamation District
Wastewater Flow and System Capacity
Type of Connection Number
• Domestic 138
• Other 0
• Total 138
Wastewater Design Capacity
Type of Wastewater Flow Flow in mgd in mgd
• Annual Municipal Flow 0.017 0.040
• Annual Industrial Flow 0.000 0.000
• Total Average Annual Flow 0.017 0.040
• Peak Day Wet Weather Flow 0.020 0.040*
Source: Napa LAFCO Survey, 2005.
*Operating Capacity is 0.024 mgd
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW 5-5
SANITATION AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT
Chapter 5
Napa River Reclamation District
IV. FINANCIAL ISSUES
This section reviews the financial status of Napa River Reclamation District wastewater
enterprise fund based on a review of audited financial statements, revenue and expenditure
reports, a review of rate structures and reserve policies, and capital improvement programs.
Income and Expenses
Table 5-4
During FY 2002-2003, NRRD had revenues
Napa River Reclmation
of $78,088 and expenses of $295,407 for a
Income and Expense Statement
total operating income of $(217,319). The
Revenues Amount
district also had $127,179 in Non-Operating
Property Taxes $12,517
income for a total Net Income of ($90,140).
Charges for Services $78,088
These totals include water and wastewater
operations. The District receives all of its Miscellaneous Revenue $114,662
operating revenue from service charges, and Expenses
more than half of its Non-Operating Salaries and Benefits $56,514
revenue from OES reimbursements. Services and Supplies $64,660
Maintenance and operations expenses Maint. and Operations $116,765
comprise 39% of total expenses, charges for Depreciation $57,468
services comprise 38% of total revenue, and
Net Income $(90,140)
OES reimbursements comprise 42% of
Source: NRRD FY 2002-2003 Financial Audit
revenue. In FY 2004-2005, the District will
not receive revenue from OES
reimbursements.
Balance Sheet
Table 5-5
Since FY2003-2004 audited financial
Napa River Reclamation
statements are not available, balance sheet
Balance Sheet
information from FY2002-2003 is used.
Assets Amount
NRRD’s audited financial statements show
Current Assets $182,301
$1,316,139 in total assets and $3,924 in total
Long Term Assets $1,133,838
liabilities in FY 2002-2003. The District had
Total Assets $1,316,139
$182,301 in current assets including cash,
Total Current Liabilities $3,924
accounts receivable, and short term
investments. Long term assets totaled Net Assets
approximately $2 million, of which Invested in Capital Assets $1,043,505
approximately half has been depreciated. Unrestricted Equity $268,710
The District has sufficient current assets to Total Net Assets $1,316,139
meet current liabilities and has no long
Source: NRRD FY 2002-2003 Financial Audit
term debt. The District is currently
5-6 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
SANITATION AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT
Chapter 5
Napa River Reclamation District
preparing a FY 2003-2004 audited financial statement.
Reserve Policy
Water and sanitation services should adopt specific policies and amounts for reserve funds.
These include an operating reserve to provide working capital for operations and
maintenance costs, a rate stabilization reserve to guard against unanticipated economic
consequences (such as temporary reduction in district funding), and a capital project
reserve to set aside money to replace or other wise upgrade existing facilities. The optimal
amount of reserves depends on the needs of the agency. A common industry practice is to
place an amount equal to three months of operating expenses into an operating reserve
and an amount equal to at least the annual depreciation on assets into a capital reserve
account.
NRRD does not have a formal reserve policy – revenues received each year in excess of
expenditures are placed in a reserve account for unanticipated expenditures. For FY 2002-
2003, the District had unreserved retained earnings of $268,710 and $32,000 in reserves.
The District Manager indicates that the reserve currently has a total of approximately
$50,000, which can be used to augment operating expenses or pay for capital
improvements. Taken together, NRRD has insufficient reserves in place to cover operating
expenses, rate stabilization in case of unanticipated changes, and needed capital projects.
Funding Asset Replacement
Wastewater agencies have a significant Table 5-6
investment in capital assets (e.g., sewer Napa River Reclamation
lines, wastewater treatment plant, facilities, Capital Replacement Plans
equipment, etc.). Protection of capital FY 2002-
Financial Statistics
assets requires periodic and planned 2003
maintenance, capital improvements, and Renewal/Replacement Cost $1.9 million
recapitalization as needed. Inadequate Depreciation on Assets $57,468
attention to or funding of maintenance,
Capital Improvement Budget $0
rehabilitation, and construction of
Capital Reserve Fund for
infrastructure is one of the greatest
infrastructure expansion, $32,008
unfunded liabilities facing public
construction, & replacement.
agencies. NRRD’s renewal and
Source: NRRD FY 2002-2003 Financial Audit
replacement cost for the sewer system is
about $1.9 million.
Summarized in Table 5-6, annual asset depreciation totaled $57,468 in FY 2002-2003. As
of FY 2003-2004, the District’s financial statement prepared by the County showed capital
reserves of $32,000. This amount does not cover the annual amount of depreciation on
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW 5-7
SANITATION AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT
Chapter 5
Napa River Reclamation District
the assets nor ongoing capital improvements needs. The District does not have funds
available for facility renewal, improvement, or expansion. NRRD is thus inadequately
positioned to fully maintain its infrastructure, replace aging components, or serve new
development. The District is considering increasing fees to fund capital improvements
and recapitalization.
Service Fees and Charges
NRRD’s sole revenue source is customer
Table 5-7
service fees. The District does not charge
Napa River Reclamation
standby charges or connection fees to its
Wastewater Service Fees
customers. Setting the appropriate sewer fees
Fee Type Current Amount
is a complex task and requires predicting the
Availability or
fixed and variable costs of providing $684/year
Standby Charge
collection and treatment services, and
Residential Sewer
translating such costs into a rate structure. None
Service Charge
Topography, geology, age of infrastructure,
Commercial Sewer
deferred maintenance, capacity of treatment None
Service Charge
facilities, and the weather impact the cost of
Connection Fee None
providing services. Fees may also cover debt
Source: SWRCB Survey, 2003.
to be repaid and the cost of infrastructure
renewal and replacement.
Table 5-7 details the District sewer fees and charges. The District is authorized to collect
service charges, assessments, and connection fees. The District assesses a parcel tax of $684
per year on the property tax rolls. Due to the District’s negative net income, the present
sewer fees do not cover total operation and maintenance costs, nor improvements and
recapitalization needs. Should significant infrastructure improvements be needed to the
sewer system, the District would be unable to fund such improvements.
Financial Issues
The District Manager indicates that the mound system will be able to treat 20 to 24 mgd
for an additional 10 years of service after ongoing improvements are made. If the beds
that comprise the mound are renovated, they will be repaired one at a time as they come
due. The estimated cost is approximately $20,000 per bed or $200,000 total. However, the
District is exploring other, lower cost options, such as the purchase of trickling filters. The
District plans to place surplus revenue each year in reserves to fund future improvements
and can also raise rates if needed to fund the improvements.
The District has used reserves in past years to fund operating revenue shortfalls, litigation
expenses, and collection lines. However, funding is very limited and rate increases may be
5-8 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
SANITATION AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT
Chapter 5
Napa River Reclamation District
necessary to make improvements to the treatment system. NRRD is exploring options for
disposing wastewater. American Canyon has a new treatment plant and is extending its
collection lines down Green Island Road towards the District. A potential option to
renovating the mound is to connect NRRD’s system to American Canyon’s wastewater
collection system and convey the District’s effluent to the City’s wastewater treatment
plant.
V. ADMINISTRATION AND OPERATIONS
This section reviews the administration and operation of the District’s wastewater
operations based on a review of the Napa LAFCo water municipal review, completion of
agency surveys, review of permitting requirements, and interviews with District staff.
History of Organization
NRRD was originally formed in 1974 to maintain and improve an existing levee serving a
subdivision on Edgerly Island. The District was initially formed as the Edgerly Island
Reclamation District and was sought by property owners to provide enhanced flood
protection as a result of damage from winter storms. NRRD began providing levee
control for Edgerly Island through an advisory role – actual levee maintenance remained
the responsibility of individual property owners. The District began providing sewer
service in 1984 following passage of a special amendment to the California Water Code
which allowed the District to address a public health notice issued by the Napa County
Health Department. The health notice, which resulted in a building moratorium between
1976 and 1984, was issued after the Health Department determined that a number of
private septic systems were failing and posed a contamination threat to local groundwater
supplies on Edgerly Island. NRRD’s responsibilities were therefore expanded to include
sewer collection and treatment.
Governance
NRRD is an independent special district organized under the Reclamation District Act,
Division 15 of the California Water Code. NRRD is authorized to provide flood control
and sewer services. NRRD governing body consists of an elected five-member board of
trustees serving staggered four-year terms. A trustee must be a landowner, legal
representative, or a designated representative of land in the District. The board exercises
complete control over construction, maintenance, and operation of the reclamation works
and District affairs. Elections are based on the landowner-voter system, which allows each
landowner one vote for each dollar that his/her property was assessed on the last
assessment roll. The board is required to elect a president and appoint a secretary to keep
account of expenditures.
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW 5-9
SANITATION AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT
Chapter 5
Napa River Reclamation District
Operations
NRRD provides sewer and flood control services only. Services are managed and operated
by a manager who is appointed by the board of trustees. The current manager is a half-
time employee and is a licensed sewer plant operator. The manager is a resident of the
district and is on call 24 hours a day, seven days a week to respond to emergencies. The
service manager employs three standby operators. Water service is provided by private
wells. The 38 homes located on the island side (south of the railroad tracks) receive water
via ground wells. The homes on the northern side are provided water by Meyers Water
Company via groundwater wells. All other municipal services are provided by the County
of Napa.
Historically, NRRD provided levee control for Edgerly Island through an advisory role –
actual levee maintenance remained the responsibility of individual property owners.
NRRD would make regular inspections for consistency with recommended structural
standards and then issue a notice to the affected property owner to make the necessary
improvement. Until recently, if a notice went unaddressed, the District would file a
nuisance complaint to force the property owner to make the requested improvement.
However, the Napa County Superior Court recently determined that the District did not
have the authority to issue a nuisance complaint in this manner. Unable to enforce
uniform standards, NRRD suspended its advisory services, leaving all oversight of levee
control and repairs to property owners.
Programmatic and Operational Tools
Wastewater operations should have a number of programs, management, and operational
tools in place to adequately manage their wastewater collection and treatment system.
Among others, important management tools include audited financial statements,
workload management programs, SCADA or other electronic monitoring systems, a sewer
televising program and regular sewer line cleaning program, capital improvement program,
preventive maintenance programs, and other similar tools. Although detailed analysis of
this topic is well beyond the scope of this review, it is possible to determine whether an
agency has a formal and well-organized program, informal or limited program, or lacks a
program.
5-10 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
SANITATION AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT
Chapter 5
Napa River Reclamation District
Review of District operations reveals
Table 5-8
that some programs are in place. The
Napa River Reclamation District
District has audited financial
Wastewater Management Tools
statements, but is behind in preparing
its FY 2003-2004 audit. The District
has a regular sewer line cleaning
Type of Program
program, covering all lines every five
years. The District does not have a
Master Facility Plan, a formal capital
improvement program and adequate
funding to pay for current and future
improvements. Thus, repairs to the
wastewater system are generally made
only in response to breakdowns. The
fee structure does not appear to be
linked to a capital improvement plan.
Shared Arrangements
Historically, NRRD had a working relationship with the Napa County Flood Control and
Water Conservation District (NCFCWCD) to utilize their pump station as a supplemental
form of flood control. Following the District’s formation, the pump station was turned
over to the District. Currently, NRRD does not share staff, equipment, and materials with
other governmental agencies and is not strategically located adjacent to another service
provider. The District also does not participate in any joint powers authority or
memorandums of understanding with other wastewater agencies nor does it participate in
insurance pools and purchasing agreements with the County of Napa to reduce overall
service costs.
Historically, limited opportunities for shared arrangements have been available. The
District’s small size, arrangement with the County of Napa for administrative support, and
location relative to Napa Sanitation District limits opportunities for shared arrangements.
However, the treatment system will eventually need repairs and/or replacement and funds
are limited. American Canyon completed a new wastewater treatment plant and is
extending collection lines down Green Island Road. Given its proximity, it may be
possible in the near future to link the District’s sewer collection lines to flow to American
Canyon’s plant, and thus eliminate the need for making improvements to the District’s
treatment system.
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW 5-11
SANITATION AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT
lamroF
margorP
ro
detimiL
lamrofnI
dedeeN
Audited Financial Statement (cid:59) (cid:137) (cid:137)
Enterprise Reserve Policy (cid:137) (cid:137) (cid:59)
Workload Management System (cid:137) (cid:59) (cid:137)
Sewer Line Cleaning Program (cid:59) (cid:137) (cid:137)
Master Facility Plan (cid:137) (cid:137) (cid:59)
Capital Improvement Plan (cid:137) (cid:59) (cid:137)
Chapter 5
Napa River Reclamation District
Compliance with Applicable Laws
The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), San Francisco Region, issued Order
No 93-119 (October 21, 1993) regulating the amount, process, and quality of wastewater
treated and discharged by the District. According to Order No 93-119, the District is
limited to a monthly average discharge of 40,000 gallons per day and may discharge up to
82,000 gpd of secondary treated effluent into Mud Slough. The District has not had to
discharge treated effluent due to its large holding ponds and therefore has not had
compliance issues. The Board does not have any current or tentative enforcement orders
against the District.
VI. PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY
NRRD board meetings are conducted on the first Tuesday of every month at the Edgerly
Island Volunteer Fire Station. Board meetings are open to the public. In addition to
electing a president, the board is required to appoint a secretary to keep account of all
District expenditures. The secretary may be a member of the board or the public.
Currently, the District does not have a website. Budgetary information and other
important news regarding district affairs can be accessed by the public by contacting the
District Manager.
VII. CITATION LIST
1. Comprehensive Study of Napa River Reclamation District No. 2109, Draft Service
Review Report, Local Agency Formation Commission of Napa County, April 2005
2. Sanitation and Wastewater Municipal Service Review Questionnaire, Local Agency
Formation Commission of Napa County, 2005.
3. U.S. Census, 2000. Demographic Profiles
4. Wastewater Discharge Requirements for Napa River Reclamation District, Order
No. 93-119, California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay
Region, Dated October 21, 1993
5. Independent Auditor’s Report, Napa River Reclamation District No 2109, FY 2002-
2003, Moss, Levy, and Hartzheim, April 15, 2004
6. Correspondence with Larry Hoffman, District Manager for NRRD
5-12 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
SANITATION AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT
Chapter 5
Napa River Reclamation District
7. Wastewater User Charge Survey Report, Summary and Listing of Data from
September 2003–April 2004 Survey of California Wastewater Agencies, FY 2003-04,
State Water Resources Control Board, May 2004.
8. California Water Code, Section 50000
9. Napa County General Plan
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW 5-13
SANITATION AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT
6
S F
PANISH LAT
W D
ATER ISTRICT
I. INTRODUCTION
The Spanish Flat Water District (SFWD)
was established in 1963 to provide potable
water and sewer services to the “Spanish
Flat” area along the western shoreline of
Lake Berryessa. The District was formed
under the California Water District Law,
Division 13 of the California Water Code
34000, a law created to facilitate the
formation of public agencies to provide
water and sewer services.
Spanish Flat Resort
The SFWD covers 1.84 square miles or
1,178 acres. The adopted sphere of
Table 6-1
influence is 2.07 square miles or 1,325
Spanish Flat Water District
acres. The District is located in eastern
Agency Profile
Napa County, along the western border of
Date Formed 1963
Lake Berryessa, and is accessible by
California Water
Enabling Legislation Knoxville Road off Highway 128. The
Code 34000
District is adjacent to the Napa-Berryessa
Agency Type Independent District
Resort Improvement District. SFWD
Agency Size 1.84 square miles
serves an estimated 423 residents based on
Services Provided Water and Sewer the population methodology used in the
Population in 2000s 1,042 Water Service Review done by LAFCO of
Resort daytime peak N/A Napa County. Table 6-1 summarizes
Source: Napa LAFCO Survey, 2005. District statistics and Figure 6-1
illustrates its physical boundaries.
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW 6-1
SANITATION AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT
Chapter 6
Spanish Flat Water District
Figure 6.1
Spanish Flat
Water District
6-2 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
SANITATION AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT
Chapter 6
Spanish Flat Water District
II. POPULATION GROWTH
This section reviews the District’s history, land use patterns, infrastructure issues, and other
factors which affect population growth during the timeframe of this MSR.
SFWD was originally formed to provide water and sewer service for an anticipated 673-acre
comprehensive residential and recreational community. Notable plans for the community
included the development of a 53-lot residential subdivision to be known as the “Spanish
Flat Woodlands.” Also included were residences, a commercial center, mobile home court,
and cemetery. In 1964, SFWD issued general obligation bonds to finance the purchase of
a water system owned by the Berryessa Pines Water Company. Between 1965 and 1977, the
District annexed three areas which more than doubled the size of its original service area.
Currently, SFWD serves 46 residential connections and 15 commercial connections in the
Spanish Flat service area. One commercial connection serves the 52-space Spanish Flat
Mobile Villa.1 In the Berryessa Pines subdivision, the District serves 75 residential
connections only. The Water Municipal Service Review estimated a total service
population of 423 in the Spanish Flat area and Berryessa Pines subdivision. The
additional 616 residents estimated in the Water Service Review are for the Spanish Flat
Resort, which is not provided sewer services by the District. 2000 Census figures show a
total population of 670 residents.
The County General Plan designates the District’s sphere of influence as “Agricultural,”
“Watershed,” “Rural Residential,” and “Open Space.” Zoning for this area is comprised of
“Agricultural Watershed,” “Commercial Limited,” “Commercial Neighborhood,” “Marine
Commercial,” and “Residential Single: B-1.” Minimum parcel sizes range from 8,000
square feet for Residential Single to 160 acres for “Agricultural Watershed.” Land outside
the District is designated “Agriculture, Watershed, and Open Space,” which discourages
LAFCO from approving annexations based on its policy to direct the extension of
municipal services away from agricultural land unless it in response to a health or public
safety concern.
In 2004, Napa County issued a draft update to its General Plan 2002-2007 Housing
Element. The draft identifies potential development sites for 110 new housing units in the
Spanish Flats area, including housing for low and moderate income households. To
facilitate the production of affordable housing, the draft Housing Element proposes the
Board of Supervisors adopt an Affordable Housing Overlay for the affected parcels. This
overlay zone provides planning mechanisms to facilitate and encourage housing
1 Spanish Flat Resort is one of seven concessionary resorts under contract with the Bureau of Reclamation to provide
commercial and recreational services to the public at Lake Berryessa. The resort rents 180 recreational home spaces to
seasonal residents. The resort is open year round and the daytime population averages 2,000. The Bureau is
developing a comprehensive plan for the redevelopment and management of visitor services at Lake Berryessa to
support traditional, short-term, and diverse outdoor recreation opportunities for the public.
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW 6-3
SANITATION AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT
Chapter 6
Spanish Flat Water District
production. Should such housing on it be built, SFWD could accommodate another 300
residents, which increases its total population from 1,000 to 1,350, but major
infrastructure investments would required.
III. INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS AND DEFICIENCIES
This section reviews the wastewater infrastructure
needs and deficiencies of Spanish Flat Water Table 6-2
District based on a review of wastewater reports and Spanish Flat Water District
wastewater treatment plant design, capital Wastewater System
improvement program, and interviews with District Connections
staff. Residential 78
NonResidential 3
Wastewater System Overview
Sewer Lines (mi.) 25
Gravity Lines 2
SFWD has been in full operation since 1963. The
Force Mains 1
District provides water and sewer services to two
Lift Stations 2
distinct areas. The District provides services to 75
Treatment Level: Secondary
residences in Berryessa Pines. In the Spanish Flats
area, the District serves a few residences, the 52-unit Source: Napa LAFCO Survey, 2005
Spanish Flat Mobile Villa, and smaller commercial
uses. The District has about 2miles of gravity mains and 1 mile of force mains. With
respect to infrastructure, 95% of the sewer lines are just over 40 years of age. The District
operates two wastewater treatment plants providing secondary level treatment. Table 6-2
summarizes SFWD’s wastewater system.
6-4 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
SANITATION AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT
Chapter 6
Spanish Flat Water District
One treatment plant serves the Mobile Villa,
Woodlands, and Spanish Flat Center. The
plant utilizes an aeration tank, clarifier, and
chlorine contact chamber to disinfect effluent.
Wastewater is discharged to a 13-acre foot
unlined holding pond prior to land
application. The District uses a 2.5 acre field
owned by SFWD and the 3.7-acre Monticello
Cemetery for spray irrigation. The secondary
treatment process meets effluent standards
required by Title 22 for reclamation purposes.
The second plant serves a limited number of
residences in the Berryessa Pines subdivision.
Sewage flows to a pump station at the east end
of the subdivision and to an extended aeration
plant. Effluent from the extended aeration
plant is discharged to one of two evaporation-
percolation ponds for treatment.
Wastewater Treatment Plant
Wastewater Treatment Capacity
The wastewater treatment plant serving the Spanish Flat area receives effluent from 46
residential and 15 commercial connections. This facility receives a dry weather flow
ranging from 5,000 to 12,000 gpd and a wet weather flows ranging from 20,000 to 50,000
gpd. The treatment plant is designed to accept 25,000 gpd, and a maximum flow rate of
53,000 gpd. The second wastewater treatment plant receives effluent from 75 homes in
Berryessa Pines. District staff indicates that dry weather flow ranges from 4,000 to 5,000
gpd and wet weather flow ranges as high as 11,000 gpd. The design capacity of the plant is
unknown.
The District only serves homes located within its jurisdictional boundary and does not
have future plans to expand services. Both wastewater treatment plants can adequately
accept dry weather wastewater flows as summarized below in Table 6-4. District staff
indicates that the plants can accommodate peak wet weather flows as well. In 2004, Napa
County adopted its 2002-2007 Housing Element, which identified sites for 110 new homes
in the Spanish Flat area. A subsequent Environmental Assessment indicates that the
proposed 110 units would generate an additional 29,150 gpd of wastewater. Given present
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW 6-5
SANITATION AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT
Chapter 6
Spanish Flat Water District
limitations in wastewater treatment capacity, the 110 units would constitute a significant
impact requiring mitigation.2
IV. FINANCIAL ISSUES
This section reviews the financial status of the Spanish Flat Water District’s Wastewater
Enterprise Fund based on a review of audited financial statements, revenue and
expenditure reports, a review of rate
Table 6-3
structures and reserve policies, and capital
Spanish Flat Water District
improvement programs.
Income and Expense Statement
Revenues Amount
Income and Expenses
Service Charges $63,981
Connection Fees $22,000
Information on revenues and expenses are
Misc. Fees $156,311
for the entire District. The Spanish Flat
Expenses
Water District Financial Report for FY
2003-2004 indicates that revenues were Operating Expenses $188,915
$242,292 and consisted of service charges, Depreciation $70,560
connection fees, and other miscellaneous Admin and General $36,036
revenue. Total operating expenses were Operating Inc./(Exp.) ($53,219)
$292,511 and included operating expenses, Non-Operating Rev. ($2,269)
depreciation, and administrative and
Net Income ($55,488)
general expenses. The District received
Source: Spanish Flat Financial Audit, 2004.
72% of its revenue from service charges.
Maintenance and operations expenses
comprised 64% of total expenses. The
District showed a positive net income,
only if annual depreciation on assets was
not included in the income and expense
statement.
2 Napa County Housing Element 2002-2007 Update and Zoning Amendments: Draft Environmental Assessment, DCE
September 2004.
6-6 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
SANITATION AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT
Chapter 6
Spanish Flat Water District
Table 6-4
Spanish Flat Water District
Wastewater Flow and System Capacity
Berryessa Pines Spanish Flats
Connections Current Current
Domestic 75 46
Commercial 0 15
Total 75 61
Current Flow in Design Current Design
Average Flow
mgd Capacity Flow in mgd Capacity
Domestic N/A N/A N/A N/A
Infiltration N/A N/A N/A N/A
Average Annual Flow .006 N/A .015 .025
Peak Daily Wet Weather N/A N/A N/A N/A
Source: Spanish Flat Water District, 2005.
Balance Sheet
Information on assets and liabilities were
Table 6-5
not available for the Wastewater Enterprise
Spanish Flat Water District
Fund, but were combined with the Water
Balance Sheet
Enterprise Fund. In FY 2003-2004, the
Assets Amount
District had $2,251,667 in total assets and
Current Assets $54,252
$195,178 in total liabilities (being
Long Term Assets $2,197,145
reimbursed by the State of California grants
Total Assets $2,251,667
or loans). The District had $54,252 in
Total Current Liabilities $195,178
current assets including cash, accounts
receivable and short term investments. Long Net Assets $2,251,667
term assets total $2.8 million, of which $2.1 Invested in Capital Assets $1,926,972
million is net of depreciation. The District Restricted Equity $78,758
has sufficient current assets to meet current Unrestricted Equity $50,759
liabilities. The District will incur limited Total Net Assets $2,056,489
short term debt for its water treatment
Source: Spanish Flat Financial Audit, 2004.
facility upgrade. The debt will be repaid
from funds from the planned formation of
an Improvement District.
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW 6-7
SANITATION AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT
Chapter 6
Spanish Flat Water District
Reserve Policy
Water and sanitation services should adopt specific policies and amounts for reserve funds.
These include an operating reserve to provide working capital for operations and
maintenance costs, a rate stabilization reserve to guard against unanticipated economic
consequences (such as temporary reduction in district funding), and a capital project
reserve to set aside money to replace or other wise upgrade existing facilities. The optimal
amount of reserves depends on the needs of the agency. A common industry practice is to
place an amount equal to three months of operating expenses into an operating reserve
and an amount equal to at least the annual depreciation on assets into a capital reserve
account.
In FY2003-2004, the SFWD has $78,758 in restricted cash for the Capital Improvement
Fund. The District also retains $50,759 in unrestricted cash for the Capital Reserve Fund.
The District does not have a rate stabilization or operating reserve fund as is recommended
for sanitation and water agencies.
Funding Asset Replacement
Wastewater agencies have a significant investment in capital assets (sewer lines, wastewater
treatment plant, facilities, etc.). Protection of capital assets requires periodic and planned
maintenance, capital improvements, and recapitalization. Inadequate attention or funding
of maintenance, rehabilitation, and construction of infrastructure is one of the greatest
unfunded liabilities facing public agencies.
Two major capital projects will begin in 2005
(subject to voter approvals) with an estimated
Table 6-6
12-month construction period. Both of these
Spanish Flat Water District
capital projects will be water treatement plants Capital Replacement Plan
to replace aging and noncompliant water
FY 2003-
Financial Statistics
treatment plants. These facilities will cost 2004
$1.5 million. Funding will be provided for Renewal/Replacement Cost N/A
these projects primarily from California State
Depreciation on Assets $70,560
Funds of $1.4 million and the remainder will
Capital Improvement Budget $78,758
be paid from the District. Districtwide the
Capital Reserve Fund for
Capital Improvement Budget is $78,758 and
Infrastructure improvement
the Capital Reserve is $50,759. In 2004, the $50,759
Capital Reserve Fund for
Board adopted two resolutions establishing
Infrastructure Expansion
Improvement Districts #1 and #2 to fund
Source: Spanish Flat Financial Audit, 2003-2004.
upgrades to the water treatment facilities at
Berryessa Pines and Spanish Flats.
6-8 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
SANITATION AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT
Chapter 6
Spanish Flat Water District
Service Fees and Charges
SFWD levies standby fee, service charges, and connection fees to its sewer customers.
Setting the appropriate sewer fees is a complex task and requires predicting the fixed and
variable costs of providing collection and treatment services, and translating such costs
into a rate structure. Topography, geology, age of infrastructure, deferred maintenance,
capacity of treatment facilities, and the weather all are important factors which affect the
cost of providing services. Fees may also cover debt to be repaid and the cost of
infrastructure renewal and replacement. Table 6-7 details the District sewer and
connection fees.
Table 6-7
Fiscal Year 2003-2004 fees are calculated as
Wastewater Service Fees
a flat rate, with no variation for the
Fee Type Current Amount
amount of wastewater flow. Commercial
Availability or
sewer fees consider the strength of the None
Standby Charge
effluent and amount of treatment
Residential Sewer
required. Shown in Table 6-7, the $36.85 per month
Service Charge
District charges a fee of $37 per residence
Commercial Sewer $25.75 to $78.50
each month. Connection fees range from
Service Charge per month
$7,000 to $10,500 and are currently not
Connection Fee
placed in a dedicated fund for capital
Residential Line $7,000
expansion or replacement. The wastewater
Commercial Line $10,500
connection fee is not currently segregated
Source: SWRCB Survey, 2003.
into a capital reserve fund to fund future
expansions to the sewer collection and
treatment system.
Financial Constraints
The District is working with the State Water Resources Control Board, Central Valley
Region, regarding the need for three required groundwater monitoring wells. These wells
are anticipated to cost at least $30,000 to purchase and install, with additional costs for
annual monitoring. Currently, the District does not have sufficient funds presently to
finance these wells. Moreover, the District is incurring increasing expenditures for its
aging infrastructure. Finally, SFWD is expending significant funds to improve its water
treatment capacity. The District could face significant revenue challenges in the upcoming
ten years. Approximately one-quarter of the District’s annual revenue is generated from
service charges to the Resort, which is under contract with the federal government to
provide visitor-related services at Lake Berryessa. However, the federal government is
presently evaluating redevelopment opportunities at Lake Berryessa. The Bureau’s
redevelopment plans may result in significant operating changes for Spanish Flat Resort at
the conclusion of its concessionary contract in 2008. Pending final determination, the
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW 6-9
SANITATION AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT
Chapter 6
Spanish Flat Water District
District could be subject to a significant loss in revenues within the timeframe covered by
this Municipal Service Review.
V. ADMINISTRATION AND OPERATIONS
This section reviews the administration and operation of the District’s wastewater
operations based on a review of the Napa LAFCo water municipal review, completion of
agency surveys, review of permitting requirements, and interviews with District staff.
Governance
SFWD was organized under the California Water District Law, Division 13, of the
California Water Code 34000. Pursuant to that law, the District is empowered to provide
water, sewer, waste, storm drainage and hydroelectric services. The District has elected to
only provide water and sewer services at this time. The District is the only public agency
providing water and sewer service within its jurisdictional boundary. The District’s
governing body is comprised of an elected five-member board who serve staggered four-
year terms. A board member must be a landowner, legal representative, or designated
representative of land within the District. Elections are based on the landowner-voter
system, which allows each landowner one vote for each dollar that his or her property is
assessed (based on last assessment roll). In addition to electing a president, the board is
required to appoint a secretary whose responsibilities include keeping records of all board
proceedings.
Operations
The District employs a total of four employees, of which three are part-time employees.
The District has one full-time operator to manage day-to-day operations. The operator-in-
training is under direction of a licensed operator. The operator is on call 24 hours a day, 7
days a week, to respond to emergencies. Services are performed with SFWD staff as well as
contractors as well. In addition, SFWD hires a maintenance employee and water operator.
All three District plant operators have appropriate water and wastewater certifications. The
Board members are responsible for oversight and day-to-day administration of the Water
District staff. They also provide interaction between local, state, and federal agencies. All
other municipal services are provided by the County of Napa. Secretarial duties are
performed by the accountant and the Board members.
Shared Arrangements
Sharing facilities, equipment, and personnel with other governmental agencies can be an
effective way to achieve cost savings. Currently, SFWD does not does not participate in a
joint powers authority or MOU, insurance pools, nor purchasing agreements with other
6-10 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
SANITATION AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT
Chapter 6
Spanish Flat Water District
agencies. However, SFWD is located near NBRID. Currently, both districts have separate
collection systems and wastewater treatment plants. Their close proximity, similar services,
and shared interests regarding the Bureau’s resort plans offer the potential for shared
arrangements. Currently, neither agency shares its equipment, personnel, or facilities.
However, there is an informal agreement to respond to emergencies if required.
Obstacles to implementing shared arrangements are considerable. Both districts have
different authorizing legislation; SFWD is an independent district while NBRID is a
dependent district. Informal discussions with SFWD and NBRID staff indicate that
sharing arrangements are complicated since many of NBRID’s functions are provided via
contract with Napa County. Topography also presents significant challenges to sharing
facilities, such as treatment plants. According to the District Manager, miles of new mains
would need to be constructed; at considerable cost to connect the two districts and a new
treatment plant would be needed. The potential costs savings in operations would be
difficult to recover.
Programmatic and Operational Tools
Wastewater operations should have a number of programs, management, and operational
tools in place to adequately manage their wastewater collection and treatment system.
Important management tools include audited financial statements, workload management
programs, SCADA or other electronic monitoring systems, a sewer televising program,
regular sewer line cleaning program, capital improvement program, preventive
maintenance programs, and other similar tools. Although detailed analysis is well beyond
the scope of this review, it is possible to determine whether an agency has a formal and
well-organized program, informal or limited program, or lacks a program.
The District submitted audited Table 6-8
financial statements that combined Spanish Flat Water District
water and wastewater services. Wastewater Management Tools
Information was not provided on a
capital improvement program or
Type of Program
reserve policy. The District currently
has a preventive maintenance program
consisting of regular sewer cleaning
and facility maintenance. However,
the District does not have a master
plan for its sewer operations. The
District mentioned that some
formalized programs (e.g., workload
management system) may not be as
necessary due to the District’s small
size.
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW 6-11
SANITATION AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT
lamroF
margorP
ro
detimiL
lamrofnI
dedeeN
Audited Financial Statement (cid:59) (cid:137) (cid:137)
Enterprise Reserve Policy (cid:137) (cid:137) (cid:59)
Workload Management System (cid:137) (cid:59) (cid:137)
Sewer Line Cleaning Program (cid:59) (cid:137) (cid:137)
Master Facility Plan (cid:137) (cid:137) (cid:59)
Capital Improvement Plan (cid:137) (cid:137) (cid:59)
Chapter 6
Spanish Flat Water District
Compliance with Applicable Laws
The District’s wastewater treatment plants are regulated by the California Regional Water
Quality Control Board, Central Valley Region Order No. 5-00-200 and Order No. 93-236
issued in September 15, 2000 and December 3, 1993, respectively. The SWRCB has
assigned a cap for the monthly average dry weather discharge flow of 0.14 mgd for the
Berryessa Pines WWTP and a maximum daily discharge of 0.53 mgd and average monthly
dry weather discharge flow of 0.025 mgd for the Spanish Flat WWTP. The District was
operating within the specified caps, although daily flow information is not available.
Conversations with staff from the State Water Resources Control Board, Central Valley
Region, indicate that there are no current or pending enforcement orders against the
District. The State has ordered the District implement a groundwater monitoring program
which the District is complying with. However, SFWD is in process of appealing the
State’s order for ground water penetration.
VI. PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY
SFWD board meetings are conducted on the 2nd Thursday every month at its
administration office and are open to the public. Regularly scheduled meetings provide an
opportunity for the District’s constituents to ask questions of their governing board, while
helping to ensure that service information is being effectively communicated to the public.
In compliance with State law, the SFWD appoints one of its members as president and
appoints a secretary during the 1st meeting of the year. The SFWD does not have a
website.
VII. CITATION LIST
1. Comprehensive Water Service Study Service Review Report, Local Agency
Formation Commission of Napa County, October 2004
2. Sanitation and Wastewater Municipal Service Review Questionnaire, Local Agency
Formation Commission of Napa County, 2005.
3. Wastewater Discharge Requirements for Spanish Flat Water District, Order Nos. 5-
00-200 (September 15, 2000) and Order No. 93-236 (December 3, 1993), California
Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Valley Region, Dated June 23,
1995
4. FY 2003-2004 Audit, Spanish Flat Water District.
5. Correspondence with Steve Silva, Spanish Flat Water District, District Manager
6-12 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
SANITATION AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT
Chapter 6
Spanish Flat Water District
6. Wastewater User Charge Survey Report, Summary and Listing of Data from
September 2003–April 2004 Survey of California Wastewater Agencies, FY 2003-04,
State Water Resources Control Board, May 2004.
7. Future Use and Operations of Lake Berryessa, Draft Environmental Impact
Statement, SCH Number: 2003124004.
8. Napa County Housing Element 2002-2007 Update and Zoning Amendments:
Draft Environmental Assessment, DCE, September 2004.
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW 6-13
SANITATION AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT
7
C O
IRCLE AKS
C W D
OUNTY ATER ISTRICT
I. INTRODUCTION
Circle Oaks County Water District
(COCWD) was formed in 1962 to provide
potable water and sewer services to a
2,200-unit planned residential
community, called Circle Oaks, in
northeast Napa County. COCWD was
organized under the County Water
District Law, Division 12, Section 30000
of the California Water Code, a law
passed to facilitate the formation of
special districts providing water, sewer, Circle Oaks Subdivision
flood control, recreation, sanitation, fire,
and electric services.
The Circle Oaks County Water District
Table 7-1
covers an area of 252 acres with an adopted
Circle Oaks County Water District
Agency Profile sphere of influence slightly less in size than
the District’s current boundaries. Located
Date Formed 1962
in northeastern Napa County, the District
Enabling California Water
is accessible by Knoxville Road off Highway
Legislation Code 30000
121. The District currently serves 625
Agency Type Independent District
residents according to Napa LAFCo’s Water
Agency Size 252 acres
Municipal Service Review. Table 7-1
Services Provided Water and Sewer
summarizes District statistics and Figure 7-
Population in 2000 625
1 illustrates its physical boundaries.
Source: Napa LAFCO Water Service Review, 2005.
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW 7-1
SANITATION AND WASTE WATER TREATMENT
Chapter 7
Circle Oaks County Water District
Figure 7.1
Circle Oaks
County Water District
7-2 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
SANITATION AND WASTE WATER TREATMENT
Chapter 7
Circle Oaks County Water District
II. POPULATION GROWTH
The Circle Oaks County Water District (COCWD) was established in 1962 to provide
potable water and sewer services to a 2,200-unit planned resort/residential community in
Cappell Valley known as “Circle Oaks” in northeast Napa County. In 1964, the Napa
County Board of Supervisors approved a subdivision map submitted by the Circle Oaks
Sales Company, Inc. resulting in the creation of 331 quarter-acre circular lots. Over the
next 20 years, however, development was tempered due to a change in market demand and
unstable soil conditions, which resulted in the elimination of several lots and roadways
within the subdivision. In 1984, the District’s jurisdiction boundary was significantly
reduced following the detachment of 21 vacant parcels totaling 3,017 acres.
Land within the District is regulated under the County General Plan and zoned
“Agricultural Watershed,” “Residential Country,” and “Planned Development.”
“Agricultural Watershed” and “Residential County” zoning standards require minimum
parcel sizes of 160 and 10 acres respectively. Land outside the District is designated as
“Agriculture, Watershed, Open Space.” This land use designation discourages LAFCO
from approving annexation proposals based on its policy to direct the extension of
municipal services away from land designated for agriculture unless it is in response to a
health or public safety concern.
Future growth within Circle Oaks County Water District is limited to those residential lots
on which construction has not yet taken place. In addition, concerns about the adequacy
of infrastructure have hindered development. In 2000, the District adopted Ordinance 00-
1 declaring a water shortage emergency and imposed a moratorium on new water service
connections until infrastructure improvements are made.1 However, a 1985 LAFCO study
determined that significant improvements in sewer infrastructure would be necessary to
accommodate the projected buildout population of the District.
The Comprehensive Water Service Review prepared by LAFCO of Napa County estimated
that COCWD currently serves 75 connections and serves 244 residents based on a
calculation methodology authorized by Title 22 of the California Water Code. The
District has a “buildout” of approximately 330 connections translating into a population
of just under 1,000 residents. However for the reasons mentioned above, as well as
continued low demand for additional housing in that area, population growth within the
COCWD service area is expected to very limited during the timeframe of this MSR.
1 Letter from Bruce H. Burton, District Engineer from the Mendocino Office of the California Department of Health
Services to Ms. Stacey Harrington, Senior Environmental Health Specialist for Napa County dated May 3, 2004 and a
feasibility study entitled “Preliminary Engineering Report for Circle Oaks County Water District,” prepared by
Triad/Holmes Associates dated September 2001.
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW 7-3
SANITATION AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT
Chapter 7
Circle Oaks County Water District
III. INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS AND DEFICIENCIES
This section reviews the wastewater infrastructure needs and deficiencies of the COCWD
based on a review of wastewater reports and wastewater treatment plant design, capital
improvement program, and interviews with District
staff.
Table 7-2
Circle Oaks CWD
With respect to wastewater treatment, the system
Wastewater System
remains fundamentally the secondary treatment
Connections 189
system that was put in place when the Circle Oaks
Residential 189
subdivision was first built in 1960’s and 1970’s.
NonResidential 0
The collection system consists of 10 miles of pipe.
Sewer Lines (mi.) 10 miles
A 1985 LAFCO study reported that the COCWD
Gravity Lines 10 miles
treatment system could be augmented to serve as
Force Mains 0 miles
many as 250 units; today the system serves 189
Lift Stations 0
units. The collection system uses gravity flow to
move wastewater to three percolation/evaporation Treatment Level: Secondary
ponds located on the eastern side of State Route Source: Napa LAFCO Survey, 2005.
121.
The State Water Resources Control Board regulates COCWD’s wastewater system in
accordance with Waste Discharge Requirements Order No. 94-097, dated April 29, 1994.
The design flow of the system is capped at 72,000 gallons per day. The facility is permitted
to have a monthly average dry weather discharge flow not to exceed 72,000 gallons per day.
The treatment facility must be designed, constructed, operated, and maintained to prevent
inundation or washout due to floods with a 100-year frequency.
Capacity in the collection system far exceeds buildout projections, but the current
treatment system limits service capacity. The Board has established the development of an
achievable capital improvement plan as a priority for its staff. A full assessment of the
system is required to craft this plan. Past assessments have determined that the wastewater
collection and treatment systems will require significant modifications to serve the
buildout projection of 330 units. In addition, LAFCO’s 1985 study noted that many of
the unbuilt residential lots presented topographical challenges that would require the use
of pumps to provide service. Pumps for individual lots were deemed an inefficient and
uneconomical solution.
IV. FINANCIAL ISSUES
This section reviews the wastewater infrastructure needs and deficiencies of the Circle Oaks
County Water District based on a review of limited wastewater reports and wastewater
treatment plant design, capital improvement program, and interviews with District staff.
7-4 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
SANITATION AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT
Chapter 7
Circle Oaks County Water District
Wastewater Financials
Total waswater net assets of the District,
Table 7-3
which include all water and sewer assets,
Circle Oaks CWD
totals approximately $732,500. The vast Balance Sheet
majority of the District’s wastewater
Assets Amount
assets are invested in capital assets.
Current Assets $758,904
According to the State Controller’s
Total Current Liabilities $26,422
Special Districts Annual Report for
Total Assets $732,482
FY2002-2003, COCWD recorded annual
Net Assets
operating revenues of $66,121 for its
Invested in Capital Assets $703,649
wastewater operations. An additional
Unrestricted Equity $28,833
$17,559 was received in property taxes
Revenue and Expenses
and $1,524 in other revenue. Total
Total Revenues $85,204
expenses of $100,122 icluded sewage
Total Expenses $100,122
collection (66%), administration (25%)
and depreciation ($9%. Taken together, Net Operating Income ($14,918)
the District recorded a net operating Sources: Napa LAFCO Survey, 2005 (FY2002-03 data)
loss of $14,918 during FY2002-2003.
During the 1990s, COCWD Boards kept water and wastewater rates stable by approving
budgets that used reserves to subsidize the cost of operation. The result of this course of
action is that the current Board lacks a reserve fund to apply toward capital improvements.
Service Fees and Charges
Setting the appropriate sewer fees is a complex task and requires predicting the fixed and
variable costs of providing collection and treatment services and translating such costs into
a rate structure. In evaluating rates of different agencies, low rates do not necessarily
indicate efficiency. Topography, geology, infrastructure age, deferred maintenance,
capacity of treatment facilities, and the weather impact the cost of providing services. The
District’s sewer rates for FY2005-06 are $29.15 per month. This rate generates $66,112 per
yeat. This amount does not provide sufficient monies to bolster reserve or capital
improvement funds. As a result, the District does not have the financial means to address
any significant fault in its wastewater system. The Board is reviewing its financial
practices and working to develop a plan to raise revenues to fund a capital improvement
plan.
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW 7-5
SANITATION AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT
Chapter 7
Circle Oaks County Water District
V. ADMINISTRATION AND OPERATIONS
This section reviews the administration and operation of the District’s wastewater
operations based on a review of the Napa LAFCo water municipal review, completion of
District survey, review of permitting requirements, and interviews with District staff.
Governance
COCWD was organized under the California Water District Law, Division 13, of the
California Water Code 30000 et. seq. Pursuant to that law, the District is empowered to
provide seven municipal services -- water, sewer, land reclamation, fire protection,
recreation, waste disposal, and hydroelectric power. The District has elected to only
provide water and sewer services at this time. The District is the only public agency
providing water and sewer service within its jurisdictional boundary. The Napa County
Flood Control and Water Conservation District and the Napa County Resource
Conservation District are also authorized to provide water service, although both agencies
have not expressed an interest.
The District’s governing body is comprised of an elected five-member board of directors
who serve staggered four-year terms. In order to serve, a board member must be a
landowner, legal representative, or designated representative of land within the District.
Elections are based on registered voters, which allows each landowner one vote for each
dollar that his or her property is assessed (based on last assessment roll). In addition to
electing a president, the board is required to appoint a secretary and general manager to
assist in the duties of the district. The Board is also required to appoint an auditor,
treasurer or retain an independent auditor to monitor the financial condition of the
district.
Operations
COCWD contracts with an independent company, Phillips and Associates, for day-to-day
operation of both the potable water and the wastewater treatment systems. Under this
arrangement, the contractor acts as general manager on behalf of the District. The firm is
licensed by the State Water Resources Control Board to provide operation services to any
size or any advanced complexity facility in California, although they specialize in smaller
water systems. The company provides on-site supervision of the District’s water and sewer
systems seven days a week and is on call 24 hours a day to respond to emergencies. The
District employs one full-time administrator whose responsibilities include acting as
district secretary and overseeing the day-to-day business on behalf of the board.
7-6 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
SANITATION AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT
Chapter 7
Circle Oaks County Water District
Shared Arrangements
The District does not have any shared arrangements at this time. Geography and
topography limit the ability of the District to form partnerships with other agencies.
Programmatic and Operational Tools
The COCWD Board of Directors has identified the lack of clear operational and
procedural policies and goals as a fundamental issue for the District. Past practice has
been to operate on a purely reactive basis, maintaining the system at a minimal level of
operation. The Board has established committees that are working with the community to
develop appropriate guidelines for COCWD staff. Substantial work is needed in this area.
VI. PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY
COCWD board meetings are conducted on the 3rd Thursday every month at Capell Valley
Fire Station. In recent years, the Board has been unable to conduct regular meetings due
to the lack of a quorum and periodic resignations of board members. Regularly scheduled
meetings provide an opportunity for the District’s constituents to ask questions of their
governing board, while helping to ensure that service information is being effectively
communicated to the public. The District has a website at http://www.cocwd.com/ which
contains Board agendas and minutes as well as other information useful to residents.
VII. CITATION LIST
1. Comprehensive Water Service Study Service Review Report, Local Agency
Formation Commission of Napa County, October 2004
2. Wastewater Discharge Requirements for Circle Oaks County Water District, Order
Nos. 94-07, California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Valley
Region, April 1994
3. Napa County General Plan
4. Wastewater User Charge Survey Report, Summary and Listing of Data from
September 2003–April 2004 Survey of California Wastewater Agencies, FY 2003-04,
State Water Resources Control Board, May 2004.
5.. Letter from Bruce H. Burton, District Engineer from the Mendocino Office of the
California Department of Health Services to Ms. Stacey Harrington, Senior
Environmental Health Specialist for Napa County dated May 3, 2004.
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW 7-7
SANITATION AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT
Chapter 7
Circle Oaks County Water District
6. “Preliminary Engineering Report for Circle Oaks County Water District,”
Triad/Holmes Associates, September 2001.
7. California Water Code, Section 30000
7-8 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
SANITATION AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT
8
T Y
OWN OF OUNTVILLE
I. INTRODUCTION
The Town of Yountville was established in 1875
after George C. Yount a frontiersman from
North Carolina, arrived in the Napa Valley and
established a small farming and ranching
community. By the 1940’s, the community
expressed increasing demands for a water
system. In 1965, the community incorporated
as the Town of Yountville, which included a
merger of the Yountville County Water District
and Yountville Sanitation District
Table 8-1
The Town of Yountville today covers an area
Town of Yountville
of 1.5 square miles. The adopted sphere of
Agency Profile
influence is 1.5 square miles and is
Date Incorporated 1965
coterminous with the Town’s jurisdictional
Enabling Legislation N/A
boundary. The Town of Yountville is located
Agency Type General Law City
in western Napa County, south of Rector
Town Size 1.5 square miles
Creek Reservoir and is accessible by Highway
Services Provided Water and Sewer 29. Yountville serves approximately 3,297
Population in 2004 residents according to the Department of
3,297
Permanent Residents Finance. Table 8-1 describes and Figure 8-1
Source: Napa LAFCO Survey, 2005. shows the Town boundaries and landmarks.
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW 8-1
SANITATION AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT
Chapter 8
Town of Yountville
8-2 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
SANITATION AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT
Chapter 8
Town of Yountville
II. POPULATION GROWTH
This section reviews the Town’s history, land use patterns, infrastructure issues, and other
factors which affect population growth during the timeframe of this MSR.
Although the community’s history dates to the middle 1800s, the Town of Yountville was
formally incorporated as a general law city in 1965. The following year, in 1966, the Town
adopted its first general plan. The 1966 General Plan originally included land use policies
to transition the Town from an agricultural community to a small town consisting of
neighborhoods and assorted commercial developments. The 1966 General Plan
anticipated a buildout population of approximately 30,000 by 1985. In 1975, alarmed by a
sudden increase in development due to a rejuvenated wine industry, the Town adopted a
new general plan, limiting residential development and population to only 3,420 by 2000.
Present and planned land uses for Yountville are codified in its General Plan and Zoning
Ordinance. The Zoning Ordinance includes the following zones: “Agricultural,” “Primary
Commercial,” “Master Planned Development,” “Single Family Residential”, “Old Town
Historic,” Mobile Home Park,” “Old Town Commercial”, Mixed Residential”, “Parks and
Playfields”, “Planned Development” and “Public Facilities”. Land outside the Town is
designated by the Napa County General Plan as “Agriculture, Watershed, and Open
Space.” This land use designation discourages LAFCO from approving annexation
proposals based on its policy to direct the extension of municipal services away from land
designated for agriculture unless it is in response to a health or public safety concern.
It is important to note that since the middle 1960s, the Town’s growth has been
constrained by uncertainty over its water supply. In 1998, the Town Council declared a
water shortage emergency and prohibited new water connections or the expansion of
existing water connections (Ord. No. 280). In 2000, the Town adopted a moratorium
restricting new water connections to single family and duplex residences on existing lots of
record and requiring conditional approvals for other expansion or new projects (Ord. No.
300). As of September 2005 the moratorium was lifted, allowing many planned projects to
begin breaking ground such as the Yountville Square subdivision consisting of
approximately 33 units. The Town reached a long-term agreement to purchase water from
the State through the California Veterans Home water source of Rector Reservoir.
The Town of Yountville currently serves a permanent population of 3,257 residents
according the California Department of Finance. The Town has limited development
capacity. The Town anticipates additional buildout of residential development to occur in
the Mixed Residential, Planned Development & Residential Scaled Commercial Zones, and
commercial buildout will be accommodated in the Primary Commercial Zone. Yountville
has a buildout of approximately 1325residential units 200 of which should occur over the
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW 8-3
SANITATION AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT
Chapter 8
Town of Yountville
next several years. ABAG projects a total population for the Town of approximately 3,600
residents by 2030, which is consistent with the Town’s General Plan.
III. INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS Table 8-2
Town of Yountville
Wastewater System
This section reviews the wastewater infrastructure
Connections 664
needs and deficiencies of the Town of Yountville
Residential 590
based on a review of wastewater reports and
NonResidential 74
wastewater treatment plant design, capital
Sewer Lines (mi.) 8.5 miles
improvement program, and interviews with Town
Gravity Lines 8.0 miles
staff.
Force Mains 0.5 miles
Lift Stations 1
Treatment Level: Secondary
Source: Napa LAFCO Survey, 2005.
Wastewater System Overview
The Town encompasses about 1,000 parcels, of which nearly all are developed. The Town
provides service to 664 connections, of which 590 are residential, 73 are commercial
connections and one connection is for the California Veterans Home (which serves about
1,200 residents). Shown in Table 8-2, the Town has approximately 8.5 miles of sewer lines
which are primarily gravity fed lines. Approximately 80% of all of the sewer lines are
between 25 to 50 years old, and the remaining 20% of the sewer lines are less than 25 years
old. The Town’s 5-year Capital Improvements Program (CIP) discussed later, address sewer
repair needs.
8-4 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
SANITATION AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT
Chapter 8
Town of Yountville
The Town’s wastewater treatment plant is operated
by the Town and jointly owned by the Town and
the California Veterans Home, which has a
population of 1,200 people. Yountville
contributes 70% of flows and the Veterans Home
contributes 30%. The plant provides advanced
secondary treatment of domestic wastewater. The
treatment process consists of an aerated grit
chamber, comminutors, primary settling basin,
primary trickling filter, intermediate settling
basin, secondary trickling filter, aerated trickling
filter solids contact reactor, final clarifier, a
tertiary effluent filter, disinfection with sodium
hypochlorite, and dechlorination. The WWTP
has a treated effluent holding pond for storage
and subsequent discharge or land application.
Treated effluent is discharged to Napa River or
reclaimed via a spray irrigation system. During
the dry weather season, treated effluent is stored
in wastewater ponds or disposed to land. Sludge
Wastewater Treatment Plant is processed through primary and secondary
Digestion. Approximately 80 to 100 tons of
sludge is generated annually and landfilled.
Infrastructure Condition
The Town’s wastewater treatment and collection system is generally in good condition and
has adequate capacity. As for preventive maintenance, the Town has a sewer cleaning
program, which cleans the entire system each year and cleans hotspots on a quarterly basis.
Every five to ten years, the entire sewer system is inspected using televised cameras. Each
year, the Town budgets $70,000 to address inflow and infiltration issues. The Town’s 5
Year CIP addresses sewer line repair needs and, in the last 3 years, has replaced many older
sewer mains that contributed infiltration to the wastewater collection system. In addition,
a recent project at the wastewater lift station eliminated a source of infiltration estimated at
200-250 GPM when the ground is completely saturated in winter. Over the next five years,
the Town’s CIP proposes $2.5 million in expenditures, including an upgrade to Title 22-
unrestricted recycled water effluent, expansion of the recycled water distribution system to
add irrigation customers and the potential of a zero discharge status, replacement of
treatment plant equipment, sewer mains, lateral replacement, and infiltration
improvements.
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW 8-5
SANITATION AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT
Chapter 8
Town of Yountville
Wastewater Service Needs
The Town provides services to all residential and commercial facilities within its
boundaries and serves one industrial connection, the State Veterans Home. The Town
does not have plans to serve residences located outside the agency’s boundaries. Average
annual municipal flow, including infiltration, is 0.420 mgd. The treatment plant has a
design capacity of 0.55 mgd. Wastewater service needs could increase from 664 to 801
connections by buildout; however, residential growth will be limited over the next five
years due to land availabilities and General Plan policies. Therefore, the Town has
sufficient ability to serve new residential and commercial connections for the period
covered under this MSR.
Table 8-3
Town of Yountville
Wastewater Flow and System Capacity
Type of Connection Connections
• Domestic 590
• Commercial and Industrial 74
• Total 664
Wastewater Design Capacity
Type of Wastewater Flow
Flow (mgd) in mgd
• Municipal Flow 0.305 0.55*
• Industrial Flow (State Hospital) 0.115 N/A
• Average Annual Flow 0.420 0.55*
Peak Daily Wet Weather 2.000 2.850
Source: Napa LAFCO Survey, 2005
* Consultant determined that a maximum daily capacity could be expanded to
0.63 mgd with appropriate changes to the filter system.
8-6 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
SANITATION AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT
Chapter 8
Town of Yountville
IV. FINANCIAL ISSUES
This section reviews the financial status of the Town of Yountville’s Wastewater Enterprise
Fund based on a review of audited financial statements, revenue and expenditure reports, a
review of rate structures and reserve policies, and capital improvement programs.
Revenues and Expenses
Yountville’s Wastewater Enterprise had revenues of $611,881 and expenses of $744,900 for
a total operating income of ($133,019) during FY2003-2004 (Table 8-4). The present
shortfall is being funded by non-operating revenues of $27,903, and capital contributions
from the general fund of $42,812; thus, net change in assets is ($62,304). The Town
receives 100% of its revenue from service charges and fees. Maintenance and operations
expenses comprise 59% of total expenses, purchased power comprises 12%, while
depreciation comprises 21%, and equipment is 8%.
Table 8-4
Town of Yountville
Income and Expense Statement
Revenues Amount
Charges for Services $611,881
Expenses
Services and Supplies $439,515
Depreciation $158,727
Purchased Power $87,857
Other Expenses $58,801
Operating Income ($133,019)
Non-Operating Rev. $27,903
Net Income ($105,116)
Source: Town of Yountville, CAFR 2003-2004.
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW 8-7
SANITATION AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT
Chapter 8
Town of Yountville
Balance Sheet
Table 8-5
Town of Yountville
In FY 2003-2004, the Town’s Wastewater
Balance Sheet
Enterprise fund had $6.1 million in total
Financial Statistics FY 2003-04
assets and $46,759 in total liabilities (Table
Assets Amount
8-5). The Town had $340,769 in current
Current Assets $340,769
assets including cash, accounts receivable
Long Term Assets $5,718,618
and short term investments. Long Term
Total Assets $6,059,387
assets consisted of $5,718,618, as invested in
Total Current Liabilities $46,759
capital assets such as sewer structures and
Long Term Liabilities $0
waste treatment facilities, or in reserves for
Net Assets $6,012,268
capital improvements. The Town has
Invested in Capital Assets $3,960,837
sufficient current assets to meet its current
liabilities. Unrestricted equity consisted of Restricted Equity $300,526
$1,751,265. The Town has no long term Unrestricted Equity $!,751,265
debt for its Wastewater operations. Total Equity $6,059,387
Source: Town of Yountville, CAFR 2003-2004.
Reserve Policy
Sanitation services may adopt specific policies and amounts for its reserve funds. Such
reserve policies often include an operating reserve to provide working capital for
operations and maintenance costs, a rate stabilization reserve to guard against
unanticipated economic consequences (such as temporary reduction in department
funding), and a capital project reserve to set aside money to replace or other wise upgrade
existing facilities. The optimal amount of reserves depends on the needs of the agency. A
common industry practice is to place an amount equal to three months of operating
expenses into an operating reserve and an amount equal to at least the annual depreciation
on assets into a capital reserve account.
According to Town staff, Yountville has approximately $2.05 million in fund reserves
designated for sewer operations and capital improvements. The Town does not have an
adopted reserve policy, however it follows a policy of retaining at least 25% of operating
expenses as a reserve. The Town’s reserves are not explicitly segreated into operating
reserves, rate stabilization reserves, and capital improvements. Staff is developing reserve
policies for the Sewer Enterprise. Staff endeavors to maintain prudent operating and
capital reserves – at this time the operating reserve exceeds 50% of such expenses, and the
capital reserve is sufficient to fund the Town’s current long-term wastewater project needs..
8-8 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
SANITATION AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT
Chapter 8
Town of Yountville
Funding Asset Replacement
Wastewater agencies have a significant
Table 8-6
investment in capital assets (e.g., sewer
Town of Yountville
lines, wastewater treatment plant, facilities, Capital Replacement Plans
equipment, etc.). Protection of capital
FY 2003-
Financial Statistics
assets requires periodic and planned 2004
maintenance, capital improvements, and
Renewal/Replacement Cost N/A
recapitalization as needed. Inadequate
Depreciation on Assets $158,727
attention to or funding of maintenance,
Capital Improvement Budget $300,526
rehabilitation, and construction of
Capital Reserve Fund for
infrastructure is one of the greatest
infrastructure expansion or $1,751,265
unfunded liabilities facing public improvements
agencies. Table 8-6 presents various
Source: Napa LAFCO Survey, 2005.
aspects of the Town’s sewer capital
replacent plans.
Presently, Yountville’s system renewal and replacement cost is unknown. However, a
portion of the $1.75 million of reserves is for the replacement fund and a portion is for
infrastructure expansion. Shown in Table 8-6, annual asset depreciation totaled $158,727
in FY 2003-2004 and $300,526 was budgeted for capital improvements. The Town prepares
an annual 5-year CIP, based on the results of the sewer televising program and projected
infrastructure repair needs. The Town appears to currently have adequate funds available
for facility renewal, improvement, or expansion.
Service Fees and Charges
Yountville charges various sewer fees. Setting the appropriate sewer fees is a complex task
and requires predicting the fixed and variable costs of providing collection and treatment
services, and translating such costs into a rate structure. In evaluating rates of agencies,
low rates do not necessarily indicate efficiency of an agency. Agencies in built-out areas
may need only to maintain the integrity of current infrastructure and service levels, while
fast growing areas may need to also plan for expansion. Topography, geology, age of
infrastructure, deferred maintenance, and even the weather impact the cost of providing
services.
Shown in Table 8-7, the Town’s sewer fees range from $22 to $40 per month and consider
BOD, COD, and TSS load factors (e.g., the strength of the effluent). Connection fees are
charged for new development projects and are placed into a fund dedicated for capital
expansion and replacement. The Town Finance Director indicated that the Town Council
desired a comprehensive sewer rate review to ensure that costs are fully recovered on the
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW 8-9
SANITATION AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT
Chapter 8
Town of Yountville
wastewater system and ensure that adequate reserves are built for infrastructure
improvements.
Table 8-7
Financial Issues Town of Yountville
Wastewater Service Fees
The Town has periodically faced water Fee Type Amount
shortages and has thus developed an Availability or
None
extensive water recycling program: Standby Charge
approximately 40% of the plant’s effluent is $38.19 for SFR
Residential Sewer
recycled for irrigation of local vineyards. $26.74 for MFR. or
Charge
The Town is preparing a feasibility study for Mobile Home
the upgrade of the treatment plant effluent Commercial Sewer Variable based on
to the “unrestricted” level and the feasibility Charge water consumption
of a zero discharge status.1 In addition, the Connection Fee
Town is in the process of building a higher Gravity Line $4,154
level of reserves for its wastewater collection Force Main None
and treatment system. Both projects Source: Town Survey, 2003.
underscore the need for additional revenue
over the next five years. The Council is currently considering a 5% increase to sewer rates.
V. ADMINISTRATION AND OPERATIONS
This section reviews the administration and operation of the Town’s wastewater operations
based on a review of the Napa LAFCo water municipal review, completion of Town survey,
review of permitting requirements, and interviews with Town staff.
Governance
The Town of Yountville was incorporated as a general law city in 1965. The Town operates
under a council-manager form of government. Policymaking and legislative authority are
vested in the five-member Town Council, consisting of four members and a mayor.
Elections are conducted by general vote; and the four town council members serve
staggered four-year terms. A Town Manager is hired to oversee and implement policies on
behalf of Yountville’s governing body and to administer the Town’s five departments. .
Operations
The Administrative division manages all functions of the Public Works and Town
Engineer duties for the Town. The Town recently appointed a full time Public Works
Director/Town Engineer. The Director now manages the water and wastewater operations
1 Letter from Donald E. Moore, Wastewater System Supervisor to Gina Kathuria, California Regional Water Quality
Control Board, December 6, 2004.
8-10 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
SANITATION AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT
Chapter 8
Town of Yountville
for the Town. Yountville’s water operations are supervised by a public works supervisor
and sewage and reclamation services are managed by the wastewater treatment supervisor.
Including the supervisor, the Town employs three full-time licensed operators to manage
day-to-day operations. The operator is on call 24-hours to respond to emergencies. Town
staff generally provides the majority of sewer services. However, major sewer line repairs
and televising are performed with specialized contract services. Customer inquiries,
including billing and service questions, are directed to the Public Works Department.
Shared Arrangements
The Town participates in jointly-governed organizations owned, operated, or governed by
two or more participants in whom the participants retain an ongoing financial interest or
responsibility. For instance, with respect to risk management, the Town is a member of
the Public Agency Risk Sharing Authorities of California, a JPA which provides joint
protection programs for public entities covering automobile, general liability, errors and
omission losses, workers compensation, and property claims. The Town is a member of
the Upper Valley Waste Management Agency, along with Calistoga, St. Helena and Napa
County.
The Town is also a member of the Flood Protection Sales Tax JPA for the purpose of
implementing plans for the use of the one-half percent sales tax passed in March 1998.
The Town participates in shared arrangements with respect to providing water supply. The
Town maintains a formal agreement with the City of Napa to treat and deliver its
allotment of water entitlements drawn from the State Water Project. The Town is a
member of the countywide Water Technical Advisory Committee made up of the public
works directors of the five cities and the County of Napa. Its primary purpose is to focus
on water issues in Napa County, but it also provides a regular forum for the public works
directors to meet and discuss common issues, such as those relating to wastewater
treatment and recycled water.
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW 8-11
SANITATION AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT
Chapter 8
Town of Yountville
Arrangements with the State of California
The Town maintains a unique and strong
relationship with its largest water supplier
and wastewater customer, the Veterans
Home operated by the State of California
Department of Veterans Affairs. This
facility is currently home to 1,200
residents and approximately 900
employees. Yountville shares operating
costs with the State of California’s
Department of Veterans Affairs for water
entitlements drawn from Rector Reservoir
which are treated at Rector Water Yountville Veterans Home
Treatment Plant.
The Town and State of California also cooperate in a joint wastewater treatment facility.
The Town purchased the State’s then existing treatment plant and the land for a reduced
price. Under the agreement, the Town’s plant is to provide capacity in the treatment
facility for a maximum daily flow not to exceed 1 mgd originating from the Veterans
Home. Under this agreement, the State of California pays an annual service charge to the
Town for a prorata share of the cost of operating and maintaining the Town’s treatment
facility and capital replacement charges (matched by the Town’s contribution). The Town
and Veterans Home also have a water purchase agreement whereby the Town purchases
water from the Veterans Home for use in the Town’s municipal water enterprise. The
water obligation is allowed to offset the obligations of the State to pay for sewage
treatment services purchased.
Programmatic and Operational Tools
Wastewater operations should implement a number of programs, management, and
operational tools to adequately manage their wastewater collection and treatment system.
Among others, important management tools include the use of audited financial
statements, workload management programs, SCADA or other electronic monitoring
systems, a sewer televising program and regular sewer line cleaning program, capital
improvement program, preventive maintenance program, and other similar operational
tools.
Review of Town operations reveals that several programmatic tools are in place. Sewer
televising is conducted once every five to ten years and the results are incorporated into the
capital improvement program. The Town’s sewer cleaning program covers the entire
system every year and covers hotspots on a quarterly basis. A workload management
8-12 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
SANITATION AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT
Chapter 8
Town of Yountville
program is generally not utilized, since the high costs of maintaining the system outweigh
its benefits. SCADA is not currently used, but staff is evaluating its future use. The Town
also conducts regular financial audits and Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports.
Compliance with Applicable Laws
The California Regional Water Quality Control Board issued Order No. R2-2004-0017
(March 17, 2004), which regulates the amount, process, and quality of wastewater treated
and discharged by the Town. Yountville is authorized up to a monthly average discharge
of 0.55 mgd and is currently operating within that discharge cap. The State Regional
Water Quality Control Board does not have any tentative or enforcement orders pending
against the Town. The Town has also complied with requirements for installing
groundwater monitoring wells.
VI. PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY
The Town of Yountville’s Town Council meetings
are conducted on the first and third Tuesdays of
each month at 6:00 p.m. in the Town Hall Council
Chambers. Meetings are open to the public and are
televised locally on Channel 28. Members of the
public are encouraged to offer comments on any
items. Regularly scheduled meetings allow an
opportunity for the public to ask questions of their
elected representatives. The public can also ask questions on water and wastewater
operations. The Town appears in complete compliance with the Brown Act.
The Town of Yountville has just posted a new website to provide a wide variety of
information about the community and local government operations, which can be
accessed at http://www.yville.com/. The website will include information on City
operations, agendas and minutes for the past year, budget information, and other
information for the Town residents. This will enhance public accountability.
VII. REFERENCE LIST
1. Comprehensive Water Service Study Service Review Report, Local Agency
Formation Commission of Napa County, October 2004
2. Sanitation and Wastewater Municipal Service Review Questionnaire, Local Agency
Formation Commission of Napa County, 2005.
3. U.S. Census, 2000. Demographic Profiles
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW 8-13
SANITATION AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT
Chapter 8
Town of Yountville
4. Wastewater Discharge Requirements for Yountville Wastewater Treatment Plant,
Order No. R2-2004-0017, California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San
Francisco Region, Dated March 17, 2004
5. Town of Yountville, Ordinance No. 280-1998 and No. 300-2000.
6. 2003 Projections, Association of Bay Area Governments.
7. Town of Yountville, Five Year Capital Improvement Program for
Wastewater/Water Reclamation, Fiscal Years 2005-2009
8. Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, Town of Yountville, FY 2003-2004.
9. Correspondence with Don Moore, Wastewater Supervisor for Yountville
10. Wastewater User Charge Survey Report, Summary and Listing of Data from
September 2003–April 2004 Survey of California Wastewater Agencies, FY 2003-04,
State Water Resources Control Board, May 2004.
11. Yountville General Plan, 2002.
8-14 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
SANITATION AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT
9
C C
ITY OF ALISTOGA
I. INTRODUCTION
Calistoga was incorporated in 1886 following
the founding of the Calistoga Hot Springs
Resort. Calistoga today is best known for its
geothermal hot springs, mineral water, and is
home to California's Old Faithful Geyser and
the Napa County Fairgrounds. In 2001,
Calistoga was selected by the National Trust for
Historic Preservation as one of twelve
Distinctive Destinations. Calistoga continues
to maintain its small town atmosphere while
still being able to accommodate many tourists
each year.
Table 9-1
The City of Calistoga today covers an area of
City of Calistoga
1,670 acres. The adopted sphere of influence
Agency Profile
is conterminous with the City’s incorporated
Date Incorporated 1886
boundary. The City of Calistoga is located
Enabling Legislation
in northern Napa County, west of Lake
Agency Type General Law City
Berryessa and is accessible by Highway 29
City Size 1,670 acres
and Highway 128. Calistoga currently serves
Services Provided Water and Sewer approximately 5,190 residents as described in
Population in 2000 Table 9-1. Figure 9-1 shows the District
5,190
Permanent Residents boundaries and landmarks.
Source: Napa LAFCO Survey, 2005.
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW 9-1
SANITATION AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT
Chapter 9
City of Calistoga
Figure 9.1
City of Calistoga
9-2 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
SANITATION AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT
Chapter 9
City of Calistoga
II. POPULATION GROWTH
This section reviews the City’s history, land use patterns, infrastructure issues, and other
factors which affect population growth during the timeframe of this MSR
The City of Calistoga’s modern history dates back to the mid 1800s. Between 1859 and
1863, Samuel Brannan acquired more than 2,000 acres at the north end of Napa Valley,
comprising much of present-day Calistoga, including the area's famous hot springs, which
Brannan developed as a spa in 1862. Calistoga formally incorporated as a city in 1886.
Sustained by the area’s tourism and agriculture, Calistoga enjoyed modest prosperity.
However, City population did not exceed 2,000 until the 1970’s. During that decade, the
city's population doubled and, by the turn of the century, grew to over 5,000. In the late
1970s, limited water supplies forced the City to implement a development moratorium
until the 1980s, when the City entered into several agreements to gain access to State Water
Project (SWP) water.
Present and planned land uses in Calistoga are codified in its 1990 General Plan. The 1990
General Plan allowed for the potential development of 1,678 new housing units. However,
ongoing limitations in water supply and wastewater treatment capacity caused the City to
adopt a Resource Management System that restricted growth to no more than 1% annually
– slower than the 3% limit envisioned by the 1990 General Plan. Meanwhile, land in the
City’s Planning Area also remained largely undeveloped as Napa County's Agricultural
Resource Land Use designation and Measure J protects agricultural land from
development. Therefore, Calistoga’s population grew by a total of 10.9 percent between
1990 and 2000, while Napa County’s total population grew by 15.2 percent during the
same period.
Following the upgrade of the City’s wastewater treatment plant in Fall 2003, the City
experienced a renewed interest in development. Recognizing the need to protect the
community’s character, the City Council adopted a Growth Management System in
January 2005 limiting residential growth to no more than 1.35% annually and non-
residential growth to 8 acre-feet of water.. All new development, expansion, and
intensification of existing uses and structures require a Growth Management Allocation
granted by the Council. The only exemptions include second units, development on
existing parcels only when there is no net increase in water and wastewater resources
demand, replacement of dwellings, projects subject to a development agreement,
nonresidential expansions not more than 10% of the gross floor area, and public facilities
sponsored by the City or the School District.
In 2003, the City of Calistoga updated their General Plan. The City of Calistoga currently
serves a permanent population of 5,192 residents as of 2004. Calistoga has a buildout of
1,404 new homes in addition to the City’s existing 2,042 housing units. However,
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW 9-3
SANITATION AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT
Chapter 9
City of Calistoga
continued implementation of the Growth Management System and the present annual
allocation of only 28 new permits for housing, population growth is expected to continue
to be minimal. ABAG projections for the City project a total population of 5,570 by 2030,
consistent with the City’s General Plan and Growth Management System Ordinance.
III. INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS AND DEFICIENCIES
This section reviews the wastewater infrastructure
Table 9-2
needs and deficiencies of the City of Calistoga
City of Calistoga
based on a review of wastewater reports and
Wastewater System
wastewater treatment plant design, capital
Connections 1,245
improvement program, and interviews with City
Residential 1,046
staff.
NonResidential 199
Wastewater System Overview Sewer Lines N/A
Gravity Lines N/A
The City serves 1,245 connections, of which 1,046 Force Mains N/A
are residential, 181 are commercial, 2 are industrial, Lift Stations 3
and 16 are institutional connections. The City Treatment Advanced II
owns and maintains its own collection system. Level: (BOD, 10 mg/l)
Shown in Table 9-2, the City has sewer lines which
Source: Napa LAFCO Survey, 2005.
are primarily gravity fed lines. Information on the
age of the sewer lines is not available. The City
owns and operates a municipal wastewater
treatment plant (WWTP) that provides advanced
treatment of domestic wastewater. The City also
has a water reclamation system, which consists of a
reclaimed water storage reservoir, irrigation
pumping station, transmission mains, and reuse
area irrigation system.
Wastewater Treatment Overview
Wastewater Treatment Plant
In 2003 the City completed a major upgrade of its
WWTP, replacing existing older equipment and
process units and constructing new facilities and a new 20 mg pond. The new plant uses an
extended aeration activated sludge treatment process for primary and secondary treatment,
replacing the existing primary clarification tank and facultative lagoon. The WWTP
treatment capacities have been expanded to provide advanced treatment. The wastewater
treatment plant has a reclamation system, which consists of a reclaimed water storage
reservoir, an irrigation pumping station, transmission mains, and reuse area irrigation system.
9-4 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
SANITATION AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT
Chapter 9
City of Calistoga
Infrastructure Condition
Calistoga’s wastewater collection system consists of pipes made up of concrete, clay,
polyvinyl chloride (PVC), asbestos cement, and other materials. Pipes range in diameter
from 4 to 18 inches. Many of these components require improvement. Installed in the
mid-1960s, the 18-inch clay trunk line that runs along Washington Street to the wastewater
treatment plant is severely undersized. A significant portion of its alignment is partially
above ground, is subject to damage from surface activities and the weather, and has minor
cracks along its length. Improvements are also needed in other parts of the wastewater
network. The City has budgeted to complete a wastewater collection system study for
inflow and infiltration in 2005/06. Funds to address the recommended improvements are
budgeted for 2006/07.
Wastewater Service Needs
According to the Calistoga General Plan, the City’s wastewater collection system serves half
of the area within the city limits; the other parts of Calistoga and the rest of the planning
area use private septic systems to dispose of wastewater.1 Average annual municipal flow
including infiltration is 0.36 mgd, annual industrial flow is 0.38 and the treatment plant
has a design capacity of 0.84 mgd. The City indicates that wastewater service needs could
Table 9-3
City of Calistoga
Wastewater Flow and System Capacity
Connections
Type of Connection
as of 2004
• Domestic 1,046
• Commercial/Industrial 199
• Total 1,245
Wastewater Design Capacity
Type of Wastewater Flow
Flow (mgd) in mgd
• Municipal Flow 0.36 0.41
• Industrial Flow 0.38 0.43
• Infiltration 0.16 N/A
• Average Dry Weather Annual Flow 0.74 0.84
Peak Daily Wet Weather 2.0 4.0
Source: City of Calistoga 2003 GP Infrastructure Element and City of Calistoga 2004
Wastewater Revenue Program.
1 City of Calistoga, 2003 General Plan, adopted October 21, 2003.
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW 9-5
SANITATION AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT
Chapter 9
City of Calistoga
increase from to 1,335 under its Growth Management Ordinance during the timeframe of
this MSR.
IV. FINANCIAL ISSUES
This section reviews the financial status of the City of Calistoga’s Wastewater Enterprise
Fund based on a review of audited financial statements, revenue and expenditure reports, a
review of rate structures and reserve policies, and capital improvement programs.
Income and Expenses
Table 9-4
In FY 2003-2004, the City of Calistoga sewer City of Calistoga
enterprise fund had revenues of $1,638,391 and Income and Expense Statement
expenses of $1,791,852 for a total operating Revenues Amount
income of ($153,461). The present shortfall is Charges for Services $1,638,391
being funded by non-operating Capital Expenses
contribution revenues of $711,077; thus, net Maintenance & Operations $883,411
income of the sewer enterprise fund is Employee Services $716,441
$275,931. The City receives 100% of its
Depreciation $100,400
revenue from service charges (e.g., availability
Interfund charges $91,600
charge, sewer fees, and hookup charges).
Operating Inc./(Exp.) ($153,461)
Maintenance and operation expenses comprise
Non-Operating Revenue $711,077
the majority of total expenses (49%), employee
Net Income $275,931
services total 40%, while depreciation comprises
6% and interfund charges total 5% of total Source: City of Calistoga 2004 CAFR.
expenses.
9-6 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
SANITATION AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT
Chapter 9
City of Calistoga
Balance Sheet
Table 9-5
In FY 2003-2004, the City had $19,289,374 in
City of Calistoga
total assets and $11,610,038 in total liabilities.
Balance Sheet
The City had $281,948 in current assets
Financial Statistics FY 2003-04
including cash, accounts receivable and short
Assets Amount
term investments. Long term assets consisted
Current Assets $281,948
of $18,614,968 invested in capital assets (e.g.,
sewer structures and waste treatment facilities) Long Term Assets $19,007,428
and $392,465 of invested in restricted cash and Total Assets $19,289,374
debt issuance costs. The City has a high level Total Current Liabilities $2,277,064
of current liabilities; however, most is due in Long Term Liabilities $9,332,974
the form of notes immediately payable as part Total Liabilities $11,610,038
of interim financing. The City will be issuing Invested in Capital Assets $9,152,577
another long-term note to finance this interim Restricted Equity $199,678
payment. Unrestricted equity totaled $199,678.
Unrestricted Equity ($1,672,919)
The City will be issuing a long-term note to
Total Equity $7,679,336
cover financing of $1.6 million in debt.
Source: City of Calistoga 2004 CAFR
Reserve Policy
Water and sanitation services should adopt specific policies and amounts for reserve funds.
These include an operating reserve to provide working capital for operations and
maintenance costs, a rate stabilization reserve to guard against unanticipated economic
consequences (such as temporary reduction in district funding), and a capital project
reserve to set aside money to replace or other wise upgrade existing facilities. The optimal
amount of reserves depends on the needs of the agency. A common industry practice is to
place an amount equal to three months of operating expenses into an operating reserve
and an amount equal to at least the annual depreciation on assets into a capital reserve
account.
The City of Calistoga has a reserve policy that sets aside 20% of operating expenses for
operating reserves, while the wastewater enterprise fund sets aside the same percentage of
operating expenses for its reserve, it is also required as part of its USDA loan to set aside
10% of the debt service amount as reserves. The City has reserves of $199,687 for sewer
improvements. No reserve is set aside for operating expenses. With the 2004 Revenue
Program in place to increase connection fees and other service fees, operating revenues are
expected to be adequate for debt service and renewal and replacement.
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW 9-7
SANITATION AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT
Chapter 9
City of Calistoga
Funding Asset Replacement
Table 9-6
Wastewater agencies have a significant
City of Calistoga
investment in capital assets (e.g., sewer lines,
Capital Replacement Plans
wastewater treatment plant, facilities,
FY 2003-
equipment, etc.). Protection of capital assets Financial Statistics
2004
requires periodic and planned maintenance,
Renewal/Replacement Cost N/A
capital improvements, and recapitalization
Depreciation on Assets $100,400
as needed. Inadequate attention or funding
Capital Improvement Budget
of maintenance, rehabilitation, and
construction of infrastructure is one of the Capital Replacement Fund
greatest unfunded liabilities facing public $199,687
Capital Reserve Fund for
agencies. Table 9-6 provides various infrastructure expansion and
indicators of the City’s capital replacement improvement
plans.
Source: Napa LAFCO Survey, 2005.
Presently, Calistoga’s system renewal and
Table 9-7
replacement cost is unknown. Approximately City of Calistoga
$200,000 is set aside for reserves for Wastewater Service Fees
infrastructure replacment and expansion.
Fee Type Amount
Shown above, annual asset depreciation
Availability or
N/A (Call them)
totaled $100,400 in FY 2003-2004. Due to the Standby Charge
fact that depreciation alone will negate over
Residential Sewer $38.22 for SFR & MFR;
half of the reserves for this year, the city Charge $27.14 Mobile Home
appears to lack the funds necessary for facility Commercial Sewer $ per 1000 gal.(See 2004
renewal and improvement. The City has Charge WW Revenue Program)
budgeted to complete a wastewater collection Connection Fee $14,623 in 2003; $15,889
system study for inflow and infiltration in Gravity Line in 2004
2005-2006 and funds are budgeted in 2006-
Source: Calistoga 2004 Wastewater Revenue Program.
2007 to make any recommended
improvements.
Service Fees and Charges
Calistoga collects sewer fees for providing wastewater collection and treatment service.
Setting the appropriate sewer fees is a complex task and requires predicting the fixed and
variable costs of providing collection and treatment services and translating such costs into
a rate structure. In evaluating rates of agencies, low rates do not necessarily indicate
efficiency of an agency. Agencies in built-out areas may need only to maintain the
integrity of current infrastructure and service levels, while agencies in fast growing areas
9-8 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
SANITATION AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT
Chapter 9
City of Calistoga
may need to plan for expansion as well. Topography, geology, age of infrastructure,
deferred maintenance, capacity of treatment facilities, and the weather impact the cost of
providing services. The City charges a monthly sewer fee of $38.22 for single-family homes
and $38.22 per unit for multi-family and $27.14 for mobile homes (Table 9-7).
Commercial rates are $2.50 per 1,000 gallons of wastewater. Service fees for
commercial/industrial uses consider BOD, SOS and TOD loading factors (the strength of
the effluent and need for different levels of treatment). Sewer charges are indexed to
inflation and increase 3% annually. Wastewater connection fees have increased in recent
years from $14,623 in 2003 to $15,889 in 2004 for a single family
residence. Connection fees are placed in a designated CIP account
to pay for the expansion and repair of infrastructure to
accommodate new the needs arising from new development.
Financial Constraints and Issues
The City of Calistoga’s main financial constraint affecting
wastewater operation is financing future system improvements, particularly to the
collection system. In the past three years, the City entered into agreement with the
California Statewide Communities Development Authority whereby the Authority sold
revenue bonds in 2001 and proceeds totaling $3.5 million will be used by the City to
partially finance a wastewater treatment plant upgrade. The City also secured a low
interest loan (2.6%) valued at $4.9 million from the State Water Resources Control Board
as additional financing for the wastewater treatment plant upgrade. This debt load may
constrain the ability of the City to seek additional funding to improve the noted
significant deficiencies in the wastewater collection lines throughout the community.
V. ADMINISTRATION, OPERATIONS, AND ACCOUNTABILITY
This section reviews the administration and operation of the City’s wastewater operations
based on a review of the Napa LAFCo wastewater municipal review, completion of agency
surveys, review of permitting requirements, and interviews with City staff.
Governance
Calistoga was incorporated in 1886 as a general law city. The City operates a council-
manager form of government. The governing body consists of a four-member city council
and a directly elected mayor. Elections are conducted by general vote; the mayor serves a
two-year term, while the four city council members serve staggered four-year terms. A city
manager is appointed to oversee and implement policies on behalf of Calistoga’s governing
body and to provide oversight of the City’s five departments: fire services, police services,
public works, planning and building services, and administrative services. In 1990, the
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW 9-9
SANITATION AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT
Chapter 9
City of Calistoga
City Council adopted a general plan that outlines land use and development policies for
the City through 2010. The City updated its general plan in 2003.
Operations
The City’s Public Works Department is responsible
for maintaining the City’s water and wastewater
system, providing general maintenance for various
City services, and capital improvement projects.
The City Manager appoints a Public Works
Director to oversee and manage the City’s water
and wastewater systems, reclaimed water, and other
related operations. Designated staff is on call 24
hours, 7 days a week to respond to any reported
emergencies. As of January 2003, approximately
7.5 of the 13 employees in the Department were assigned to operate the wastewater
collection and treatment system. Several water and wastewater staff currently holds various
wastewater certifications. The City contracts out services for computer programming and
maintenance and sewer line televising.
Shared Arrangements
The City participates in several jointly-governed organizations that result from a
contractual arrangement, and that are owned, operated, or governed by several participants
in which the participants retain an ongoing financial interest or responsibility. The City is
a member of the Public Agency Risk Sharing Authorities of California, a JPA, which
provides joint protection programs for public entities covering automobile, general
liability, errors and omission losses, workers compensation, and property claims. The City
is a member of the Upper Valley Waste Management Agency along with the Yountville, St.
Helena, and County of Napa. The City is also a member of the Flood Protection Sales Tax
JPA for the purpose of establishing a plan for using the one half percent sales tax passed
by voters in 1998. The City is a member of the countywide Water Technical Advisory
Committee made up of the public works directors of the five cities and the County of
Napa. Its primary purpose is to focus on water issues in Napa County, but it also provides
a regular forum for the public works directors to meet and discuss common issues, such as
those relating to wastewater treatment and recycled water.
Programmatic and Operational Tools
Wastewater operations should implement a number of programs, management, and
operational tools to adequately manage their wastewater collection and treatment system.
Among others, important management tools include the use of audited financial
9-10 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
SANITATION AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT
Chapter 9
City of Calistoga
statements, workload management programs, SCADA or other electronic monitoring
systems, a sewer televising program and regular sewer line cleaning program, capital
improvement program, preventive maintenance program, and other similar operational
tools. Although detailed analysis is well beyond the scope of this review, it is possible to
determine whether an agency has a formal and well-organized program, informal or
limited program, or lacks a program.
A review of City operations reveals that many management tools are in place. The City
implements a periodic sewer televising and cleaning program. The City has budgeted to
complete a wastewater collection system study for inflow and infiltration in 2005-2006
with funds budgeted the following year to implement recommendations. A workload
management system is used to schedule preventive maintenance tasks. SCADA is used to
run the water and wastewater treatment and disposal systems. It also monitors all alarms
and calls out standby personnel or the Police Department. The City also prepares a
Comprehensive Annual Financial Report detailing revenues and expenditures.
Compliance with Applicable Laws
The City’s wastewater treatment plant operations are regulated by the California Regional
Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region Order No. 00-131 and the
NPDES permit No. CA0037966 reissued in 2000. The City will be submitting an
application for renewing the discharge permit in June 2005. The Order regulates the
location, quality, timing, and amount of effluent treated and discharged by the wastewater
treatment plant. Over the past five years, the City has received several dozen violations
from SWCRB. These violations prompted the City to upgrade its old WWTP. Currently,
the City of Calistoga is in good standing with the SWRCB and has not been issued
violation or enforcement orders.
VI. PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY
The City of Calistoga’s City Council meetings are held on the first and third Tuesday of
each month at 7:00 PM in the Calistoga Community Center. Meetings are open to the
public. Members of the public are encouraged to offer comments on any items. Regularly
scheduled meetings allow an opportunity for the public to ask questions of their elected
representatives. The public can also ask questions on water and wastewater operations.
The City provides an annual summary of past and projected revenues and expenditures
relating to its water and wastewater service operations as part of its annual budget. The
budget is adopted following a publicly noticed board meeting in which members of the
public may comment and offer suggestions with respect to expenditures. In addition to
enhancing the accountability of the governing board, the budget process provides a clear
directive towards staff with respect to prioritizing district resources.
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW 9-11
SANITATION AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT
Chapter 9
City of Calistoga
The City currently maintains a website where information can be found. The City’s
website at http://www.ci.calistoga.ca.us/ has information available for each of the City
departments. The website also includes the latest financial statements which document the
City’s overall financial condition and condition of each of its enterprise operations. The
website also includes information on the City Council, agendas and meeting minutes, and
municipal code.
VII. CITATION LIST
1. Comprehensive Water Service Study Service Review Report, Local Agency
Formation Commission of Napa County, October 2004
2. Sanitation and Wastewater Municipal Service Review Questionnaire, Local Agency
Formation Commission of Napa County, 2005.
3. U.S. Census, 2000. Demographic Profiles.
4. Wastewater Discharge Requirements for Calistoga Wastewater Treatment Plant,
Order No. 00-131, California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San
Francisco Region, Dated November 29, 2000.
5. City of Calistoga, Growth Management System, Ordinance No. 616 and Chapter
13.16 of the Calistoga Municipal Code.
6. 2003 Projections, Association of Bay Area Governments.
7. Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, City of Calistoga, Draft FY 2003-2004.
8. Two Year Budget, Water and Wastewater Enterprise Funds, Operating and Capital
Improvement Budgets, City of Calistoga, FY 2004-2005 Revised and FY 2005-2006
9. 2004 Wastewater Revenue Program, City of Calistoga, May 2004
10. 2003 Calistoga General Plan, Infrastructure Element
11. Wastewater User Charge Survey Report, Summary and Listing of Data from
September 2003–April 2004 Survey of California Wastewater Agencies, FY 2003-04,
State Water Resources Control Board, May 2004.
12. Correspondence with Louise Harrison, Public Works Administrative Analyst
9-12 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
SANITATION AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT
10
C A C
ITY OF MERICAN ANYON
I. INTRODUCTION
American Canyon was established in the early
1900s after the discovery of clay and limestone
in the area stimulated a mining-based economy.
In 1961, the American Canyon County Water
District formed to provide wastewater and
potable water services to approximately 1,000
residents. Incorporation in 1992 resulted in the
transfer of all improvements, powers, rights,
contracts, and duties of the district to the City.1
In 2002, the City completed construction of its
wastewater treatment plant and ceased sending
wastewater to Napa Sanitation District.
1 As successor agency to the ACCWD, the City became the sanitation provider for much of south Napa County. At the
time of incorporation, ACCWD operated a sewer system that moved wastewater from throughout the south county to
the Napa Sanitation District (NSD) treatment facility north of the Napa County Airport. The City Council
determined that it wanted to separate its system from that of the NSD, so in 1994 it obtained a dissolution agreement
to a JPA it had inherited from ACCWD. Dissolution offered American Canyon the ability to set its own priorities for
wastewater treatment in the south county and to establish its own capital improvement plan and budget. Dissolution
provided that American Canyon could continue to send wastewater to NSD for three years while a wastewater
treatment plant was built. This portion of the dissolution agreement was extended from time to time until American
Canyon was able to bring its new wastewater treatment facility online in 2002. The NSD benefited from the
dissolution as it provided relief to the strain placed on its system from treating American Canyon wastewater during
the extended period of the agreement. An important aspect of the dissolution agreement is a delimitation of a
boundary between the service territories of the agencies. This boundary is Fagan Creek. North of Fagan Creek is
served by NSD, and south of the Creek is served by American Canyon. The one significant customer whose property
is bisected by Fagan Creek, the Chardonnay Golf Club, is a customer of the NSD.
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW 10-1
SANITATION AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT
Chapter 10
City of American Canyon
10-2 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
SANITATION AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT
Chapter 10
City of American Canyon
American Canyon covers an area of 3.6
Table 10-1
square miles with an adopted sphere of
City of American Canyon
influence of 1.5 square miles. American
Agency Profile
Canyon’s water service area extends to
Date Incorporated 1992
Soscol Creek to the north, Solano County
Enabling Legislation N/A
to the east and south, and the Napa River
Agency Type General Law City
to the west. American Canyon’s sewer
City Size 3.6 square miles
service area extends to Fagan Creek to the
Services Provided Water and Sewer
north, Solano County to the east and
Population in 2004
south, and the Napa River to the west. The
13,156
Permanent Residents
City is located west of the Napa River and
Source: Napa LAFCO Survey, 2005. is accessible by Highway 29. As of January
2004, the City serves 13,156 residents.
II. POPULATION GROWTH
American Canyon’s roots date to its agriculture
and cattle-grazing past. Napa Junction was the
name of the community for many years,
stemming from the role of commercial railroad
in the area. By the 1950s, American Canyon still
had a population of only 1,000 residents. In
1961, American Canyon County Water District
was formed to provide wastewater and potable
water services for the community. In 1975,
American Canyon began sending its wastewater
to Soscol Advanced Waste Treatment Facility
operated by NSD. To alleviate demands on
water supply, the City implemented a water
reclamation plan and built a new wastewater
treatment plant in 2002.
Planned land uses for American Canyon are
codified in its general plan, last updated in 1994.
The City has several proposed projects that will significantly increase population,
including the 765-home Vintage Ranch and 10-acre affordable housing site, the 216-unit
apartment complex under the Napa Junction, Mixed Use Project, Phase I. As of March
2005, at least 250 residential units have been approved and 1,200 units are under
construction. Future development potential is limited. A "green belt" surrounds the City.
This greenbelt consists of Napa River and 500-acre wetlands preserve to the west, the 640-
acre Newell Wilderness Preserve to the east, and vineyard-covered foothills of Sulphur
Springs Mountains northeast.
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW 10-3
SANITATION AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT
Chapter 10
City of American Canyon
ABAG projects a total population of 18,300 by 2015, consistent with City projections.
III. INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS AND DEFICIENCIES
This section reviews the wastewater infrastructure needs and deficiencies of American
Canyon based on a review of wastewater reports and wastewater treatment plant design,
capital improvement program, and interviews with City staff.
Table 10-2
Wastewater System Overview
City of American Canyon
Wastewater System
The City’s wastewater collection system consists
Connections 3,226
of three gravity sewer subsystems, four pump
stations, a facultative pond wastewater treatment Residential 3,119
facility, and 18-inch raw wastewater force main. Commercial 100
The Main Basin, located from the Napa County Industrial/Other 7
line on the south to Hess Road on the north, Sewer Lines (mi.) 22.5 miles
serves primarily residential areas while the Green Gravity Lines 19.5
Island and Tower Road basins serve industrial Force Mains 3
areas. Wastewater from all three basins flow to
Pump Stations 4
pump stations that discharge into two force
Treatment Level: Advanced II
mains (one for domestic and one for
Sources: Napa LAFCO Survey, 2005.
domestic/industrial) leading to the WWTP. The
WWTP provides advanced treatment of
wastewater. The collection system has 36 miles of
sewer lines (Table 10-2).
The City’s WWTP treats domestic wastewater to
Title 22 standards for irrigation. The system has
an emergency overflow basin, headworks facilities,
anoxic basins, aeration tanks with membrane
facilities, chemical storage and metering facilities,
chemical and ultraviolet disinfection facilities, a
pump station, blower building, and operations American Canyon WWTP
building. Waste is transported into the headworks
facilities for removal and dewatering of inorganics and grit. Four membrane bioreactors
process trains separate treated water from solids. Each process train consists of an anoxic
basin for denitrification, aeration basins for biological treatment and nitrification, and
immersed ultrafiltration membranes to separate treated water from solids. The WWTP
also has two disinfection process trains, an ultraviolet (UV) disinfection tank and chlorine
contact tank (CCT). The UV disinfection facility can receive treated effluent from any of
the MBRs while the CCT facility is sized to treat all the Main Basin flow for reclamation.
The plant also has one concrete-lined basin and one earthen basins to store wastewater flow
10-4 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
SANITATION AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT
Chapter 10
City of American Canyon
during peak wet weather flows and two earthen clay-lined sludge storage basins (3 mg each)
capable of handling 10 years of sludge.
Wetlands Restoration
American Canyon’s wastewater treatment plant project is
unique because it includes a component for wetlands
restoration. The project site defines the historic edge of
the San Francisco Bay. The City is facilitating
restoration of 511 acres of historical tidal wetlands that
will provide habitat for endangered species, sensitive
plant species, aquatic life, and migratory shorebirds.
Phase I involved the acquisition of 453 acres of wetlands
adjacent to the North Slough and Napa River. This
smaller project is part of a larger restoration project Napa-Sonoma
comprising 10,000 acres of wetlands known as the Napa- Marsh Restoration Project
Sonoma Restoration Project.2
Phase II is the design, construction, and monitoring of the wetlands area. Restoration of
tidal wetlands will be achieved by breaching existing levees around 30 acres of City-owned
sewage ponds, breaching existing levees along the Napa River, restricting cattle grazing, and
creating wetlands in the upland areas. The City will also donate 58 acres of adjacent
wetlands and upland areas and create a visitor viewing area and interpretive program on
the east side of Napa River. This project is consistent with the San Francisco Bay Area
Wetlands Ecosystem Goals Project and Comprehensive Conservation and Management
Plan by supporting the maintenance of freshwater flows to the Bay and restoration and
preservation of marshes on the Bay’s perimeter. As of June 2005, Phase II was under
construction.
Infrastructure Condition
Information was not provided on the condition of the wastewater infrastructure, since the
prior Wastewater Service Master Plan was completed in 1996 and forecasted improvements
were to be completed by year 2006. However, infrastructure condition information can be
gleaned from recent studies on the City wastewater system. As a condition for obtaining a
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Permit for the City’s new wastewater
reclamation plant, the City analyzed its collection system to determine whether there
would be adequate capacity to accommodate collection system flows, without overflow,
during a 20-year recurrence interval storm event. Among other findings, the study found
that the Main Basin had a significant amount of inflow/infiltration entering the system,
causing overflows at potentially 35 to 40 locations. The City has included
2 http://www.napa-sonoma-marsh.org/
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW 10-5
SANITATION AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT
Chapter 10
City of American Canyon
inflow/infiltration reduction in its wastewater connection fees and has included
approximately $1.6 million of related work in its CIP for Fiscal Years 2004/05 through
2007-08 sewer line rehabilitation and replacement for those areas known to have problems
over the next five years.3
Wastewater Service Needs
The City provides wastewater collection and treatment services to all residences,
commercial and industrial facilities within its service area. The City serves the Airport but
did not indicate plans to serve connections outside its service area. Shown in Table 10-3,
average annual municipal flow including infiltration is 1.34 mgd and the treatment plant
Table 10-3
City of American Canyon
Wastewater Flow and System Capacity
Connections
Type of Connection
as of 2004
• Domestic 3,119
• Commercial/Industrial 107
• Total 3,226
Wastewater Design Capacity
Type of Wastewater Flow
Flow (mgd) in mgd
• Municipal Flow 1.03 2.13
• Industrial Flow 0.18 0.38
• Infiltration 0.13 0.13
• Average Annual Flow 1.34 2.50
Peak Daily Wet Weather 3.10 5.00
Source: Napa LAFCO Survey, 2005.
has a design capacity of 2.5 mgd. The plant is designed to accommodate at least a 100-year
storm event. In the future, the City plans to expand the wastewater treatment plant to
accept 2.64 mgd. The wastewater treatment plant receives a peak daily wet weather flow of
5.0 mgd; additional flows are stored in 5.0 mg earthen basins until processed at the
WWTP. Taken together, the City can adequately accommodate present and future
wastewater flows.
3 City of American Canyon, Sanitary Sewer Analysis, HydroScience Engineers, Inc. (December 2001)
10-6 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
SANITATION AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT
Chapter 10
City of American Canyon
Compliance with Applicable Laws
The City’s wastewater treatment plant operations are regulated by the California Regional
Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region Order No. 00-003 and the
NPDES Permit No. CA0038768. The Order regulates the location, quality, timing, and
amount of effluent treated and discharged by the wastewater treatment plant. The City of
American Canyon is currently in excellent standing with the Regional Water Quality
Control Board and no enforcement orders are currently on file or pending against the
City.
IV. FINANCIAL ISSUES
This section reviews the financial status of American Canyon’s Wastewater Enterprise Fund
based on a review of audited financial statements, revenue and expenditure reports, a
review of rate structures and reserve policies, and capital improvement programs.
Income and Expenses
Table 10-4
The City’s wastewater enterprise had revenues
City of American Canyon
of $2,025,932 and expenses of $2,733,449 for
Income and Expense Statement
a total operating income of ($707,517) during
Revenues Amount
FY 2003-2004. Non-operating expenses
Charges for Services $1,951,339
($216,161) from interest expense bring Net
Miscellaneous Revenue $74,593
Income before contributions to ($923,678).
Expenses
The shortfall is funded by capital
contributions of $4.2 million, bringing net Employee Services $636,779
assets to $3.1 million. The City receives 96% Depreciation/Amortization $807,560
of its revenue from service fees. Major Maintenance/Operations $947,610
expenses include maintenance and operations Interfund Service Charges $341,500
(35% of total), depreciation (30%), employee Operating Inc./(Exp.) ($707,517)
services (23%), and interfund charges for
Non-Operating Rev/(Exp.) ($216,161)
services (12%). The WWTP was designed to
Net Income ($923,678)
accommodate flow at build-out. Until
Source: American Canyon CAFR, FY 2003-2004.
development approaches build-out, revenues
will fall short of costs. Such a shortfull
occurred in FY2004-05.
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW 10-7
SANITATION AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT
Chapter 10
City of American Canyon
Balance Sheet
Table 10-5
City of American Canyon
The wastewater enterprise had $30.5 million
Balance Sheet
in total assets and $11.5 million in total
Financial Statistics FY 2003-04
liabilities (Table 10-5). The City had
Assets Amount
$1,966,196 in current assets including cash,
accounts receivable and interest payments. Current Assets $1,966,196
Long term assets totaled $28.5 million, 20% Long Term Assets $28,522,312
of which is restricted cash, cash equivalents Total Assets $30,488,508
and bond issuance costs and 80% is Total Current Liabilities $1,640,025
invested in capital assets such as land, Long Term Liabilities $9,812,624
equipment, and distribution and collection Net Assets $19,035,859
systems. The City has sufficient current Invested in Capital Assets $12,585,741
assets to meet current liabilities. The City Restricted Equity $5,550,848
has $9.8 million in capital leases,
Unrestricted Equity $899,270
agreements and loans taken out for its
Total Equity $19,035,859
wastewater assets. Unrestricted equity
Source: American Canyon CAFR, FY 2003-2004.
consisted of $899,270.
Reserve Policy
Water and sanitation services should adopt specific policies and amounts for reserve funds.
These include an operating reserve to provide working capital for operations and
maintenance costs, a rate stabilization reserve to guard against unanticipated economic
consequences (such as temporary reduction in district funding), and a capital project
reserve to set aside money to replace or other wise upgrade existing facilities. The optimal
amount of reserves depends on the needs of the agency. A common industry practice is to
place an amount equal to three months of operating expenses into an operating reserve
and an amount equal to at least the annual depreciation on assets into a capital reserve
account.
The City wastewater enterprise fund has reserves of $5,550,848 for sewer improvements and
replacement according to the City’s fiscal year 2003-2004 Comprehensive Annual Financial
Report (CAFR). An unknown portion of this fund is for sewer system replacements and
another portion is for capital reserves. The City has some funds in reserve from the
construction of its wastewater treatment plant (completed in 2002). These funds are being
held in reserve while the City resolves issues with the contractor for the plant construction.
Significant capital asset activity during fiscal year FY 2004-2005 was resulted from the
ongoing construction of the City’s recycled water system.
10-8 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
SANITATION AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT
Chapter 10
City of American Canyon
Funding Asset Replacement
Wastewater agencies have a significant investment in capital assets (e.g., sewer lines,
wastewater treatment plant, facilities, equipment, etc.). Protection of capital assets requires
periodic and planned maintenance, capital improvements, and recapitalization as needed.
Inadequate attention to or funding of maintenance, rehabilitation, and construction of
infrastructure is one of the greatest unfunded liabilities facing public agencies.
The City has $5.5 million set aside for
Table 10-6
capital improvements and replacement for
City of American Canyon
its wastewater enterprise. In 2004-2005,
Capital Replacement Plans
construction is underway for the
completion of the WWTP and FY 2003-
Financial Statistics
2004
construction in progress consists of
Renewal/Replacement Cost N/A
$2,600,000. The remainder of $2,950,848
is set aside for wastewater system Depreciation on Assets $807,560
replacement. Shown in Table 10-6, the Capital Improvement Budget $149,429
annual amount of depreciation on the Replacement Fund for
wastewater collection and treatment improving wastewater system
$5,550,848
system totaled $807,560 in FY 2003-2004, Capital Reserve Fund for
while only $149,429 was budgeted for infrastructure expansion
capital improvements. Source: City of American Canyon, CAFR, 2003-2004.
Service Fees and Charges Table 10-7
City of American Canyon
American Canyon charges various fees to Wastewater Service Fees
fund its wastewater operations. Setting Fee Type Amount
sewer fees is a complex task and requires Availability or
None
predicting the fixed and variable costs of Standby Charge
providing collection and treatment $33.60 for SFR
Residential Sewer
services, and translating such costs into a $31.55-34.80 for MFR
Charge
rate structure. In evaluating rates, low $33.60 for Mobile Home
rates do not necessarily indicate efficiency Commercial Sewer
$3.00 Per 1,000 gallons
of an agency. Topography, geology, age Charge
of infrastructure, deferred maintenance,
Connection Fee
and capacity of treatment facilities impact $7,900 per connection
Residential
the cost of providing wastewater services. Based on no. of
Commercial and
fixtures and loading
Industrial
factors
Table 10-7 details the District’s current
sewer fees and charges as of FY2003-2004. Source: SWRCB Survey, 2003. American Canyon
W b it i i
Current wastewater fees are a combination
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW 10-9
SANITATION AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT
Chapter 10
City of American Canyon
flat rate and variable usage rate fees based on potable water use. Fees are also indexed, at
the City’s discretion, to inflation. The present fee system is a fixed fee of $33.60 every
month for single family residences, and a fee of $31.55-34.80 based on the number of units
for multi-family residences and $33.60 for mobile home residences. Commercial and
industrial rates are based on usage and are $3.00 per thousand gallons of water used. The
connection fee is $7,900 and is placed in a dedicated fund for capital expansion or
replacement. Commercial and industrial connection fees are variable, based upon the
number of fixtures, and loading factors.
Financial Constraints and Issues
The City’s Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for FY 2003-2004 has identified more
than $40 million in capital projects to be completed by the year 2010. These include
approximately $17 million for the wastewater treatment plant upgrade (recently complete),
$8 million to upgrade the water treatment system (in progress) and $15 million in other
improvements. Discussions with City staff indicate that the current amount of
outstanding debt is backed by wastewater revenues and does not present a significant
financial constraint for the community. In FY05-06, the City will begin using Measure A
funds to offset debt service on capital costs associated with operation of the wastewater
treatment plant. Measure A was a sales tax initiative approved by a countywide vote in
1998. Measure A funds are used by local agencies for flood control protection and
watershed management. The City’s plant and its expanding recycled water program assist
in these pursuits.
V. ADMINISTRATION AND OPERATIONS
This section reviews the administration and operation of the City’s wastewater operations
based on a review of the Napa LAFCo water municipal review, completion of agency
surveys, review of permitting requirements, and interviews with City staff.
Governance
The City of American was incorporated in 1992 as a general law city.
The City of American Canyon operates under a Council-Manager
form of government. The governing body consists of the five member
city council consisting of three council members, the mayor, and the
vice-mayor. The major and vice-mayor are appointed annually from
among the five council members. Elections are conducted by general vote; council
members serve staggered four-year terms. A city manager is appointed to oversee and
implement policies on behalf of the City and to administer the City’s five departments:
administration, community services, finance, planning, and public works. In 1994,
10-10 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
SANITATION AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT
Chapter 10
City of American Canyon
American Canyon’s City Council adopted a general plan that outlines land use and
development policies.
Operations
American Canyon’s wastewater system is maintained and operated by its Public Works
Department. The Department has four divisions – Engineering, Public Works
Maintenance, Water Treatment, and Wastewater. The Wastewater Operations Division and
employs a Wastewater System Manager, three utility operators and two laboratory staff.
Additionally, 1.5 FTE are allocated to Wastewater Collection System maintenance and 1.4
FTE to engineering and administration. Altogether, 8.9 FTE’s operate the wastewater
collection and treatment operation including the Director of Public Works and
administrative and maintenance staff. The Department has a highly trained staff: four
employees hold a certification in wastewater treatment and one employee holds
certification in wastewater collection. The City uses contractors to perform major
preventive maintenance, make pump repairs, and recalibrate sensors for the wastewater
collection and treatment system.
Shared Arrangements
The City participates in several jointly-governed organizations that are owned, operated, or
governed by several participants in which each retain an ongoing financial interest or
responsibility. The City is a member of the Public Agency Risk Sharing Authorities of
California, a JPA which provides joint protection programs for public entities covering
automobile, general liability, errors and omission losses, workers compensation, and
property claims. The Public Works Department has shared relationships with other public
agencies. For example, in 2004, the City entered into an agreement with Vallejo Flood
Control and Sanitation District to mutually accept emergency overflows where our sewer
mains are parallel to each other. Also, the City has an agreement with the Napa-Vallejo
Waste Management Authority to construct and operate micro turbines at the WWTP using
methane gas generated by the now-closed American Canyon Sanitary landfill. The City
participates in insurance pools and purchasing agreements with the County of Napa and
maintains a MOU for equipment with the County of Napa. The City also has purchasing
agreements with North Bay Chemical Purchasing Agency. The City’s wastewater operation
shares equipment and vehicle maintenance with the Fire Protection District. The City is a
member of the countywide Water Technical Advisory Committee made up of the public
works directors of the five cities and Napa County. Its primary purpose is to focus on
water issues in Napa County, but it also provides a regular forum for the public works
directors to meet and discuss common issues relating to wastewater treatment and recycled
water.
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW 10-11
SANITATION AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT
Chapter 10
City of American Canyon
Programmatic and Operational Tools
Wastewater operations should have a number of programs, management, and operational
tools in place to adequately manage their wastewater collection and treatment system.
Among others, important management tools include audited financial statements,
workload management programs, preventive maintenance program, SCADA or other
electronic monitoring systems, a sewer televising program and regular sewer line cleaning
program, capital improvement program, preventive maintenance programs, and other
similar tools. Although detailed analysis is beyond the scope of this review, it is possible
to determine if an agency’s programs are formal and well-organized, informal/limited, or
not in place.
A review of City operations reveals that many management programs are in place. The
NPDES permit indicates that the City has a preventive maintenance program and capital
improvement program in place. The City has regular audited financial statements
prepared each year. The City last updated its Wastewater Master Service Plan in 1996,
covering the following ten years up to 2006. And the capital improvement program is well
funded and explicitly linked to the wastewater service fees and connection fees.
Information was not provided with respect to the frequency of sewer televising and
cleaning. Workload needs are also coordinated through scheduling of staff of the Public
Works Department.
VI. PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY
The City of American Canyon’s City Council meetings are conducted on the first and
third Thursday of every month in the Recreation Center located at 2185 Elliott Drive.
Meetings are open to the public and the public is invited to address the Council.
Regularly scheduled meetings provide an opportunity for City residents to ask questions of
their City Council, while helping to ensure service information is being effectively
communicated to the public. All notices are posted to the website and in the newspaper.
Public Works staff is available 7:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. every weekday at the Corporation
Yard, 205 Wetlands Edge Road.
The City of American Canyon provides an annual summary of past and projected revenues
and expenditures relating to its water and wastewater service operations as part of its
annual budget. The budget is adopted following a publicly noticed board meeting in
which members of the public may comment and offer suggestions with respect to
expenditures. In addition to enhancing the accountability of the City Council, the budget
process provides a clear directive towards staff with respect to prioritizing district
resources.
10-12 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
SANITATION AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT
Chapter 10
City of American Canyon
The City maintains a website at http://www.ci.american-canyon.ca.us/ where information
on City program and services can be found. The website contains agendas and minutes for
each City Council and Planning Commission meeting. The website also includes
information on planning issues affecting the development of American Canyon. The
website also provides information about water and wastewater services. The City routinely
conducts tours of the wastewater treatment plant to residents, schools, and others. Finally,
the City includes information about wastewater services in water bill inserts and the
community newspaper.
VII. CITATION LIST
1. Comprehensive Water Service Study Service Review Report, Local Agency
Formation Commission of Napa County, October 2004
2. Sanitation and Wastewater Municipal Service Review Questionnaire, Local Agency
Formation Commission of Napa County, 2005.
3. Comprehensive Study of American Canyon Service Review Report, Local Agency
Formation Commission of Napa County, 2005.
4. Wastewater Discharge Requirements for American Canyon Wastewater Treatment
Plant, Order No. 00-003 and R2-2002-0096 California Regional Water Quality
Control Board, San Francisco Region, Dated December 1, 2000
5. 2005 Projections, Association of Bay Area Governments.
6. Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, City of American Canyon, FY 2003-2004.
7. City of American Canyon, Sanitary Sewer Analysis, HydroScience Engineers, Inc.
(December 2001)
8. Wastewater User Charge Survey Report, Summary and Listing of Data from
September 2003–April 2004 Survey of California Wastewater Agencies, FY 2003-04,
State Water Resources Control Board, May 2004.
9. Wastewater Rate Study: American Canyon, The HYA Group, November 1999.
10. Wastewater Connection Fee Study, City of American Canyon, March 2001.
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW 10-13
SANITATION AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT
11
CITY OF ST. HELENA
I. INTRODUCTION
The City of St. Helena was established in the
mid-1800s as an agricultural trading and
shipping center in Napa Valley. St. Helena
quickly developed as tourism increased after the
opening of the White Sulphur Springs Hotel
and the Napa Valley Railroad Company. St.
Helena incorporated in 1876. Today, the City
continues to serve as a rural agricultural center.
With the growth of the wine industry, the City
serves as a tourism center and has also become
an important business and banking center for
the wine industry as well.
Table 11-1
City of St. Helena The City of St. Helena today serves one
Agency Profile non-contiguous area comprising 3,285
Date Incorporated 1876 acres. The adopted sphere of influence is
2,929 acres. The City of St. Helena is
Enabling Legislation N/A
located in northern Napa County, east of
Agency Type General Law City
Lake Berryessa and is accessible by
City Size 3,285 acres
Highway 29. According to the Department
Services Provided Water and Sewer
of Finance, St. Helena currently serves
Population in 2004
5,994 5,994 residents as shown in Table 11-1.
Permanent Residents
Also, Figure 11-1 shows the City
Source: Napa LAFCO Survey, 2005. boundaries.
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW 11-1
SANITATION AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT
Chapter 11
City of St. Helena
Figure 11.1
City of St. Helena
11-2 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
SANITATION AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT
Chapter 11
City of St. Helena
II. POPULATION GROWTH
This section reviews the City’s history, land use patterns, infrastructure issues, and other
factors which affect population growth during the timeframe of this MSR
St. Helena was formally incorporated as a general law city in 1876. Historically, the City
developed as a service center for the agricultural industry in upper Napa Valley. While still
an agricultural service center, the development of the viticultural industry significantly
impacted the City. The City has experienced significant changes in land use patterns
(substantial increase in agricultural land planted with vineyards), rapid increases in
visitor/tourist serving uses, demand for vacation homes, and general growth pressures.
These trends led to the City Council’s adoption of a Residential Growth Management
System (RGM) in the late 1970s. The RGM was recently amended in 2002 to incorporate
2000 Census data.
The St. Helena General Plan was last prepared in 1993 and is scheduled for update. The
land use plan reflects the community’s desire to maintain its small town character. The
primary zones include three residential zones; two commercial zones; agriculture and
winery; woodlands and watershed; and industrial. “Agricultural” zoning standards require
minimum parcel sizes of 20 acres. Land outside the City is designated “Agriculture,
Watershed, and Open Space,” a designation that discourages LAFCO from approving
annexation proposals based on its policy to direct the extension of municipal services away
from land designated for agriculture.
Since the middle 1970s, St. Helena and other communities in Napa County have also
faced uncertainty over the reliability of water supplies. Water supply concerns continue to
affect potential growth. In the 1980s, growth pressures stemming from the 1970s taxed the
City’s water supply as did the drought of 1987-1992. To meet system demands, the City
instituted mandatory water restrictions in 1987, 1988, 1989, and 1991. The City is
evaluating options for better using its existing water supply, by developing a reclaimed
water program. By using reclaimed water to irrigate vineyards, turf and other landscaping,
the City could more reliably preserve its limited water supply for municipal and industrial
uses.
As of January 2004, St. Helena has a total of 2,743 housing units and a permanent
population of approximately 5,994 residents, according to the State Department of
Finance. The City’s present General Plan forecasts a buildout population of about 7,500
residents. However, the City Municipal Code states “with a limitation of nine building
permits for market rate housing per year, issued over ten years, the number of dwelling
units will be two thousand eight hundred (2,800), not including regulated affordable units,
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW 11-3
SANITATION AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT
Chapter 11
City of St. Helena
guest cottages, accessory dwelling units or second units.1 This translates into a population
of 6,215 by 2015. ABAG projects that the City will have a total population of 6,200
residents by 2015, which is consistent with the City’s General Plan and the City’s growth
management controls.
III. INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS AND DEFICIENCIES
This section reviews the infrastructure needs and
deficiencies of the City of St. Helena based on a
Table 11-2
review of wastewater reports and wastewater
City of St. Helena
treatment plant design, capital improvement
Wastewater System
program, and interviews with City staff.
Connections 1,655
Residential 1,480
Wastewater System Overview
NonResidential 175
Sewer Lines (mi.) 15 miles
St. Helena was incorporated in 1876. The City
Gravity Lines 14 miles
serves 1,665 connections, of which 1,494 are
residential and 175 are commercial and industrial Force Mains 1 mile
connections. The City has 16 miles of lines Lift Stations 1
which are primarily gravity fed lines. Treatment Level: Secondary
Approximately 80% of the entire sewer lines are
Source: Napa LAFCO Survey, 2005.
between 25 to 50 years old, and the remaining
20% are less than 25 years old. The City owns
and operates a wastewater treatment and reclamation plant that provides secondary level
treatment of municipal wastewater flow from domestic and commercial sources and
reclaims the water produced to the extent feasible by land application at agronomic rates.
1 St. Helena Municipal Code, Section 17.152.030 Population caps and annual growth rate calculation
11-4 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
SANITATION AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT
Chapter 11
City of St. Helena
The treatment plant consists of
headworks, an integrated oxidation pond
system, disinfection and dechlorination,
and reclamation systems. Wastewater
enters the headworks facilities for
removal of large solids and grit by a flow
comminutor. Wastewater is treated via
advanced wastewater stabilization ponds
which use anaerobic pits, algae and solar
aeration supplemented by mechanical
aeration (as needed) to facilitate
microbial digestion. Treated wastewater
is stored in a 100 acre-foot pond.
During the dry season, treated wastewater
is discharged via the spray irrigation
St. Helena WWTP system to an adjacent field. During the
wet season, effluent that cannot be
reclaimed is discharged to the Napa
River. The plant does not include, nor require, equipment for handling and removal of
sludge due to advanced integrated pond system used. The City is also developing a
comprehensive reclaimed water project that will provide tertiary-treated water for
unrestricted irrigation of parks, landscaping, and vineyards.
Infrastructure Condition
The City’s wastewater capital improvement program (CIP) has determined the City’s
capital improvement needs to be $8.1 million covering the planning period of 2004-2010.
The City issued $2 million in bonds in 2005 to fund projects during 2005-2006.
Recommendations from the Water and Wastewater Financial Plan and Rate Study (which
did not include the Tertiary Project in its basis) suggest that the City work towards fully
funding the capital improvement needs from reserves. Recommendations include an
operating reserve equal to 15% of annual operating and maintenance expenditures and a
capital projects reserve funded annually at an amount that approximates the average future
rate of capital replacements which equates to 100% of depreciation or an average of
$165,000 per year. Once the costs and benefits of the water to be produced by the Tertiary
Project are more fully understood, the City will be in a position to develop a responsible
funding plan to construct and operate an appropriately sized plant. Issues under
evaluation include better characterization of the demand for tertiary water which in turn
will drive production capacity as well as storage and distribution system criteria for the
project.
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW 11-5
SANITATION AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT
Chapter 11
City of St. Helena
Wastewater Service Needs
The City serves all residential, commercial and industrial users within its boundaries.
Average dry weather flow is 0.482 mgd and the treatment plant has a permitted dry weather
capacity of 0.5 mgd. The City is designing an upgrade and expansion of the wastewater
and permitted dry weather treatment plant that will increase dry weather treatment
capacity up to 0.95 mgd, accommodate heavy winter inflows, and be capable of serving
population increases over the next twenty years. Existing level of treatment will also be
improved from secondary to tertiary approved for unrestricted uses at least for some of the
production. However, City population growth over the next ten years will be limited
under the City’s Residential Growth Management System. Thus, the City has sufficient
ability to serve new residential and commercial connections for the period covered under
this MSR.
Table 11-3
City of St. Helena
Wastewater Flow and System Capacity
Type of Connection Connections
• Domestic 1,480
• Commercial 172
• Industrial 3
• Total 1,655
Wastewater Design Capacity
Type of Wastewater Flow
Flow (mgd) in mgd
• Municipal Flow 0.41 0.50
• Industrial Flow 0.17 N/A
• Infiltration Flow N/A N/A
• Average Annual Flow 0.58 0.50
Peak Daily Wet Weather 3.6 >3
Source: City of St. Helena, Water and Wastewater Financial Plans and Rate Studies, 2004
11-6 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
SANITATION AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT
Chapter 11
City of St. Helena
IV. FINANCIAL ISSUES
This section reviews the financial status of the
Table 11-4
City of St. Helena Wastewater Enterprise
City of St. Helena
Fund based on a review of audited financial
Income and Expense Statement
statements, revenue and expenditure reports, a
Revenues Amount
review of rate structures and reserve policies,
Charges for Services $793,721
and capital improvement programs.
Other Operating Revenue $38,518
Expenses
Services and Supplies $886,413
Depreciation $144,709
Purchased Power $39,862
Operating Inc./(Exp.) ($238,745)
Non-Operating Rev. $316,713
Net Income $77,968
Source: City of St. Helena, CAFR 2002-2003.
Income and Expenses
Table 11-5
The City Wastewater Enterprise Fund had
City of St. Helena
operating revenues of $832,239 and operating
Balance Sheet
expenses of $1,070,984 for a total operating
Assets Amount
income of ($238,745) during FY 2002-2003.
Current Assets $803,462
The shortfall is being funded by non-
Long Term Assets $7,207,928
operating revenues of $37,129, and capital
Total Assets $8,011,390
contributions from the general fund of
$115,877 and transfers in of $163,707 thus, Total Current Liabilities $64,381
net change in assets is $77,968. The Fund Long Term Liabilities $0
receives 95% of its revenue from sewer Total Liabilities $64,381
charges. Maintenance and operations Invested in Capital Assets $6,468,181
expenses comprise the majority (83%) of total Restricted Equity $716,913
expenses. The City has $717,000 in reserves
Unrestricted Equity $761,915
for sewer improvements.
Total Equity $7,947,009
Source: City of St. Helena, CAFR 2002-2003.
Balance Sheet
The City Wastewater Enterprise Fund had $8,011,390 in total assets and $64,381 in total
liabilities. The Fund had $803,462 in current assets including cash, accounts receivable
and short term investments. Long term assets consisted of $7,207,928 of which all is
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW 11-7
SANITATION AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT
Chapter 11
City of St. Helena
invested in capital assets such as sewer structures and waste treatment facilities or in
reserves for capital improvements. The Fund has sufficient current assets to meet its
current liabilities. The Wastewater Enterprise Fund has no long term debt due to a pay-as-
you-go philosophy adhered to by the City Council. Unrestricted equity in the Fund
consisted of $761,915.
Reserve Policy
Water and sanitation services should adopt specific policies and amounts for reserve funds.
These include an operating reserve to provide working capital for operations and
maintenance costs, a rate stabilization reserve to guard against unanticipated economic
consequences (such as temporary reduction in district funding), and a capital project
reserve to set aside money to replace or other wise upgrade existing facilities. The optimal
amount of reserves depends on the needs of the agency. A common industry practice is to
place an amount equal to three months of operating expenses into an operating reserve
and an amount equal to at least the annual depreciation on assets into a capital reserve
account.
St. Helena has established various reserves
Table 11-6
for its Wastewater Enterprise Fund to
City of St. Helena
ensure that adequate funds are available to Capital Replacement Plans
maintain current service levels. The City’s
FY 2002-
Financial Statistics
current policy is to maintain a 15 percent 2003
minimum operating reserve for each
Renewal/Replacement Cost N/A
utility because this provides
Depreciation on Assets $144,709
approximately two months of working
$2.8 million
capital. As such, approximately Capital Improvement Budget
(citywide)
$8,082,035 was available as an operating
Replacement Fund for
reserve as of ending FY 2003-2004. The
improving wastewater system
City also has established a rate
$761,915
Capital Reserve Fund for
stabilization reserve in the amount of
infrastructure expansion,
$300,000 for its wastewater fund. In
construction, & replacement.
addition, the wastewater fund has general
Source: City of St. Helena, CAFR 2002-2003.
reserves of $761,915.
Funding Asset Replacement
Wastewater agencies have a significant investment in capital assets (e.g., sewer lines,
wastewater treatment plant, facilities, equipment, etc.). Protection of capital assets requires
periodic and planned maintenance, capital improvements, and recapitalization as needed.
Inadequate attention to or funding of maintenance, rehabilitation, and construction of
11-8 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
SANITATION AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT
Chapter 11
City of St. Helena
infrastructure is one of the greatest unfunded liabilities facing public agencies. Annual
depreciation on wastewater assets totals $145,000 annually.
The City has identified $8.1 million in wastewater system capital improvements and repairs
through 2010. The City has also adopted a capital improvement budget of $2,811,660
citywide and allocated $762,000 in reserves of the wastewater enterprise fund for sewer
repairs (Table 11-6). To ensure sufficient reserves for needed improvements to the
wastewater system, the City’s financing plan recommends a 15% increase in rates in 2005,
followed by 10% increases annually through FY 08-09.
Service Fees and Charges
Table 11-7
The City of St. Helena charges service City of St. Helena
and connection fees to fund its Wastewater Service Fees
wastewater operation. Setting Fee Type Amount
appropriate sewer fees is a complex task Availability or Standby
None
and requires predicting the fixed and Charge
variable costs of providing collection $46.59 for SFR
Residential Sewer
and treatment services, and translating $29.93 + $1.36/HCF -
Charge (bimonthly)
such costs into a rate structure. In MFR/Mobile Home)
evaluating rates, low rates do not Commercial Sewer Variable based on
necessarily indicate efficiency of an Charge water consumption
agency. Agencies in built-out areas may Connection Fee $1.90 to $3.36 per
need only to maintain the integrity of Gravity Line square foot depending
current infrastructure and service levels, Force Main on land use
while agencies in growing areas may
Source: SWRCB Survey, 2003.
need to plan for expansion as well.
Topography, age of infrastructure,
deferred maintenance, and the existing
capacity of treatment facilities impact
the cost of providing services.
Table 11-7 details the City sewer fees and charges. In 2004, the City released a Water and
Wastewater Financial Plans and Rate Studies Report. This report detailed progressive rate
increases that would occur from 2005 to 2009, with a rate adjustment of 15% beginning
January 2005 and 10% annually thereafter until 2009. These rate changes would increase
revenues to enable the City to meet its current revenue needs.2 The City also assesses a
sewer impact fee for new construction, expansion or conversions, ranging from $1.90 per
square foot for office uses to $3.63 per square foot for commercials uses.
2 St. Helena, Water and Wastewater Financial Plans and Rate Studies Final Report, September 15, 2004.
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW 11-9
SANITATION AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT
Chapter 11
City of St. Helena
Financial Issues
The City continues to work towards increasing the reliability of its water supplies and
includes a water recycling program in its long-range planning. The City is preparing
detailed designs for upgrade and expansion of its primary and secondary treatment and
reclamation plant facilities, as well as a feasibility study for upgrade of the treatment plant
to zero discharge status, and development of a range of phased projects for production,
storage and distribution of tertiary treated wastewater suitable for
unrestricted use to reduce demand on potable water sources. In
January 2005, the City initiated sewer rate increases and is currently
evaluating its impact fee structure with the objective of
accumulating a higher level of fiscal reserves for its wastewater
enterprise. These projects underscore the City's recognition of need
for additional revenue over the next five and more years.
V. ADMINISTRATION AND OPERATIONS
This section reviews the administration and operation of the City of St. Helena’s
wastewater operations based on a review of the Napa LAFCo water municipal review,
completion of agency surveys, review of permitting requirements, and interviews with City
staff.
Governance
The City of St. Helena is a general law city and operates under a Council-City Manager
form of government. The governing body consists of a four-member council and a
directly elected mayor. Elections are conducted by general vote; the mayor serves a two-
year term while the four City council members serve staggered four-year terms. A city
manager is appointed to oversee and implement policies on behalf of St. Helena’s
governing body and to oversee the administration of the City’s seven departments:
finance, fire, library, planning, police, public works, and recreation.
Operations
St. Helena’s water and wastewater collection and treatment system is maintained and
operated by the City Public Works Department. A public works director is appointed by
the city manager to oversee and manage the wastewater operations two sections: wastewater
treatment section and the collection section, which is jointly staffed with streets and storm
drains. As of June 2005, the wastewater treatment division had three full time employees.
Two water treatment division employees are cross trained and wastewater treatment
certified, work at the wastewater treatment plant. Four additional employees work in the
collection division, which is jointly staffed with streets, sewer, and storm drains. The
11-10 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
SANITATION AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT
Chapter 11
City of St. Helena
Public Works Department also maintains designated operations staff available to work
stand-by shifts on call, 24 hours a day and 7 days a week, to respond to any reported
emergencies.
Shared Arrangements
The City participates in several jointly-governed organizations that result from a
contractual arrangement, and that are owned, operated, or governed by two or more
participants in which the participants retain an ongoing financial interest or responsibility.
For instance, with respect to risk management, the City is a member of the Redwood
Empire Municipal Fund, a JPA which provides joint protection programs for public
entities covering automobile, general and auto liability, workers compensation, and
property claims. The City is a member of the Upper Valley Waste Management Agency
along with the cities of Calistoga, St. Helena, and the County of Napa. The City is a
member of the Flood Protection Sales Tax JPA for the purpose of planning use of the one
half percent sales tax passed by the voters in 1998. The Town is a member of the
countywide Water Technical Advisory Committee made up of the public works directors
of the five cities and the County of Napa. Its primary purpose is to focus on water issues
in Napa County, but it also provides a regular forum for the public works directors to
meet and discuss common issues, such as those relating to wastewater treatment and
recycled water.
Programmatic and Operational Tools
Wastewater operations should have a number of management and operational tools in
place to effectively manage their wastewater collection and treatment system. Some of the
more important management tools include audited financial statements, workload
management programs, master facility plan, SCADA or other electronic monitoring
systems, a sewer televising and sewer line cleaning program, capital improvement program,
preventive maintenance programs, and other similar tools. Although detailed analysis of
this topic is well beyond the scope of this review, it is possible to determine whether an
agency has a formal and well-organized program, informal or limited program, or lacks a
program.
A review of City operations reveals that several programmatic tools are in place. With
respect to preventive maintenance, City staff televise and clean the entire system once each
year and hotspots on a quarterly basis. The City prepares annual financial statement for
its Wastewater Enterprise Fund and a Comprehensive Annual Financial Report. Due to
recent studies, the Capital Improvement Program is explicitly linked to the wastewater fee
program. The City is currently working with a consultant to design the wastewater
treatment plant upgrade and expansion, as well as the recycled water project. The design
basis will provide a blueprint for wastewater collection and treatment upon which the City
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW 11-11
SANITATION AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT
Chapter 11
City of St. Helena
can build a long-term master plan for upgrades, expansions, operation, monitoring, and
maintenance.
Compliance with Applicable Laws
The City’s wastewater treatment plant operations are regulated by the California Regional
Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region Order No. 92-006 and the
NPDES Permit No. CA0038016 issued in 1992.3 St. Helena is authorized to receive inflow
up to a monthly average dry weather flow of 0.50 mgd. The CWRCB does not have a
current or tentative enforcement order pending against the City. The City of St. Helena is
in the process of working with the SWRCB to update their NPDES Permit and Wastewater
Discharge Requirements consistent with the planned upgrade and expansion of the City
Wastewater Treatment Plant.
VI. PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY
St. Helena’s City Council meetings are conducted on the second and fourth Tuesdays of
each month at 7:00 p.m. in the Vintage Hall Board Room located on the St. Helena High
School Campus. Meetings are open to the public. Members of the public are encouraged
to offer comments on any items. Meetings are broadcast live on Channel 28 and are
replayed on Fridays and Sundays after the meetings at 7:00 p.m. and 4:00 p.m.,
respectively.
The City provides, upon request, an annual summary of past and projected revenues and
expenditures relating to its water and wastewater service operations as part of its annual
budget. The budget is adopted following a publicly noticed City meeting in which
members of the public may comment and offer suggestions with respect to expenditures.
In addition to enhancing the accountability of the City Council, the budget process
provides a clear directive towards staff with respect to prioritizing City resources.
The City’s website provides limited information about the City’s water and wastewater
operations. The website can be accessed at http://city.ci.st-helena.ca.us/. Information
provided includes water and wastewater financial plans, urban water management plan,
agendas and minutes of meetings. Information about City budgets is not available from
the website. The City provides additional information regarding its wastewater operations
through various mailers, water bill inserts, newsletters, and other mediums.
3 City of St. Helena, 2003 Urban Water Management Plan, May 2003. The permit was reissued June 15, 2005.
11-12 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
SANITATION AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT
Chapter 11
City of St. Helena
VII. CITATION LIST
1. Comprehensive Water Service Study Service Review Report, Local Agency
Formation Commission of Napa County, October 2004
2. U.S. Census, 2000. Demographic Profiles
3. City of St. Helena Comprehensive Annual Financial Report 2002-2003.
4. Wastewater User Charge Survey Report, Summary and Listing of Data from
September 2003–April 2004 Survey of California Wastewater Agencies, FY 2003-04,
State Water Resources Control Board, May 2004.
5. City of St. Helena Water and Wastewater Financial Plans and Rate Studies Final
Report, September 2004.
6. California Regional Water Quality Control Board San Francisco Bay Region
NPDES Permit No. CA0038016 for City of St. Helena, Napa County.
7. City of St. Helena 2003 Urban Water Management Plan, May 2003.
8. City of St. Helena Approved Budget for Fiscal year 2001-2002, June 2001.
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW 11-13
SANITATION AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT
12
G A
LOSSARY AND CRONYMS
TERM DEFINITION
Aeration Tank Part of the wastewater treatment system, the aeration tank
exposes effluent to oxygen, thus speeding up the breakdown of
organic materials utilizing aerobic micro bacteria.
Annexation The annexation, inclusion, attachment, or addition of territory
to a city or district.
Board of Directors The legislative body or governing board of a district.
Board of Supervisors The elected board of supervisors of a county.
The Brown Act (Government Code §§ 54950-54962) governs
Brown Act
meeting access for local public bodies. Meetings of public
bodies must be "open and public," actions may not be secret,
and action taken in violation of open meetings laws may be
voided. Additionally agencies must take other steps to ensure
that the public is not excluded from the meeting process.
Change of A city incorporation, district formation, annexation to, or
organization detachment from, a city or district, disincorporation of a city,
district dissolution, consolidation of cities or special districts,
or merger or establishment of a subsidiary district.
City Any charter or general law city, including any city the name of
which includes the word "town."
City Council The elected legislative body of a city.
Clarifier Part of the wastewater treatment system that skims debris from
the top of effluent in the tank and allows suspended solids to
fall to the bottom where they are collected and processed as
sludge.
Consolidation The joining of two or more cities located in the same county
into a single new city or single new successor district. In the
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW 12-1
SANITATION AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT
Chapter 12
Glossary
case of consolidation of special districts, all of those districts
shall have been formed pursuant to the same principal act.
Cost avoidance Actions to eliminate unnecessary costs derived from, but not
limited to, duplication of service efforts, higher than necessary
administration/operation cost ratios, use of outdated or
deteriorating infrastructure and equipment, underutilized
equipment or buildings or facilities, overlapping/inefficient
service boundaries, inefficient purchasing or budgeting
practices, and lack of economies of scale.
Design capacity Referring to the maximum ability to supply public water or
treat wastewater from a jurisdiction’s existing infrastructure.
District or special An agency of the state, formed pursuant to general law or
district special act, for the local performance of governmental or
proprietary functions within limited boundaries. "District" or
"special district" includes a county service area.
Enterprise activities Activities accounted for in a manner similar to a private
business such as a water utility. The acquisition, operation, and
maintenance of governmental facilities and services are entirely
or predominantly self-supporting through user charges or fees.
The State Controller separates enterprise activities into seven
categories: airports, electric, harbor and port, transit, waste
disposal, utility, and hospital.
Feasible Capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a
reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, legal,
social and technological factors.
Federal Water Also known as the Clean Water Act (CWA), this is the principal
Pollution Control Act law governing the nation’s streams, lakes, and estuaries. It
of 1972 contains regulatory provisions that impose progressively more
stringent requirements on industries and cities to reduce and
eliminate pollution of waterways. The CWA establishes as
national goals the elimination of pollutant discharges to the
navigable waters and the assurance that all navigable waters
would be fishable and swimable. It requires dischargers to
obtain permits regulating the amount, quality, location, and
timing of pollutant discharges.
Force Mains Wastewater Lines that work under pressure and are typically the
12-2 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
SANITATION AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT
Chapter 12
Glossary
highest flow lines in the wastewater system.
Formation The formation, incorporation, organization, or creation of a
district.
Function Any power granted by law to a local agency or a county to
provide designated governmental or proprietary services or
facilities for the use, benefit, or protection of all persons or
property.
GPM (gallons per Rate of flow of water or wastewater. Also expressed in terms of
minute) gallons per day (gpd)
Gravity Lines Wastewater lines that work with gravity assisted movement only.
Incorporation The incorporation, formation, creation, and establishment of a
city with corporate powers. Any area proposed for
incorporation as a new city must have at least 500 registered
voters residing within the affected area at the time commission
proceedings are initiated.
Infrastructure needs The term, “infrastructure” is defined as public services and
and deficiencies facilities, such as sewage-disposal systems, water-supply systems,
other utility systems, and roads (General Plan Guidelines). Any
area needing or planned for service must have the infrastructure
necessary to support the provision of those services. The term,
“infrastructure needs and deficiencies,” refer to the status of
existing and planned infrastructure and its relationship to the
quality and levels of service that can or need to be provided.
Joint Commission A single Commission formed to preside over the functions of a
multi-LAFCO Joint Powers Agreement. The Commission may
be comprised of all or a portion of the Commissioners of the
individual Commissions that are participating in the Joint
Powers Agreement. A Joint Commission, as herein defined, does
not constitute an individual agency. It is intended to jointly
exercise existing powers common to each agency.
LAFCO Local Agency Formation Commission
Lift Station A pumping system utilized to move water uphill under
pressure.
Local accountability Local accountability and governance refers to public agency
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW 12-3
SANITATION AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT
Chapter 12
Glossary
and governance decision making, operational and management styles that
include an accessible staff, elected or appointed decision-making
body and decision making process, advertisement of, and public
participation in, elections, publicly disclosed budgets, programs,
and plans, solicited public participation in the consideration of
work and infrastructure plans; and regularly evaluated or
measured outcomes of plans, programs or operations and
disclosure of results to the public.
Local agency A city, county, or special district or other public entity, which
provides public services.
Merger The extinguishment, termination, and cessation of the existence
of a district of limited powers by the merger of that district
with a city as a result of proceedings taken pursuant to this
division.
Municipal services The full range of services that a public agency provides, or is
authorized to provide, except general county government
functions such as courts, special services and tax collection.
Napa LAFCO will review services that are provided by public
agencies that are required to have a Sphere of Influence, as well
as other agencies providing services to a countywide, regional,
or statewide area that includes portions of Napa County.
Non-enterprise A non-enterprise activity, such as fire protection, is an activity
activity that has an accounting system organized on a governmental
fund basis.
Open space Any parcel or area of land, which is substantially unimproved
and devoted to an open-space use.
Porter-Cologne Water Regulates water quality and pollution issues within California
Quality Control Act by protecting water quality and beneficial uses of all state
of 1970 waters. The Porter-Cologne Act is administered regionally by
the State Water Resources Control Board and California
Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCB).
Planning area The area directly addressed by the general plan. A city’s
planning area typically encompasses the city limits and
potentially annexable land within its SOI (General Plan
Guidelines (GPG) page 230).
Planned development Unlike other zones requiring very low density development, due
12-4 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
SANITATION AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT
Chapter 12
Glossary
zone to large minimum lot sizes, parcels zoned for Planned
Development are not required to have a minimum parcel size.
Public agency The state or any state agency, board, or commission, any city,
county, city and county, special district, or other political
subdivision, or any agency, board, or commission of the city,
county, city and county, special district, or other political
subdivision.
Rate restructuring Rate restructuring does not refer to the setting or development
of specific rates or rate structures. During a municipal service
review, LAFCO may compile and review certain rate related
data, and other information that may affect rates, as that data
applies to the intent of the CKH Act, factors to be considered,
SOI determinations, and all required service review
determinations. The objective is to identify opportunities to
positively impact rates without adversely affecting service
quality or other factors.
Regional Pertaining to activities or economies at a scale greater than that
of a single jurisdiction, and affecting a broad geographic area.
Renewal and Financial reserves that are designated specifically for current
Replacement infrastructure replacement and renewal and are not for future
Program infrastructure design or construction.
Reorganization Two or more changes of organization initiated in a single
proposal.
Retained Earnings The accumulated earnings of an enterprise or
intragovernmental service fund which have been retained in the
fund and are not reserved for any specific purpose (debts,
planned improvements, contingency/emergency).
Reserve (1) For governmental type funds, an account used to earmark a
portion of fund balance, which is legally or contractually
restricted for a specific use or not appropriable for expenditure.
(2) For proprietary type/enterprise funds, the portion of
retained earnings set aside for specific purposes. Unnecessary
reserves are those set aside for purposes that are not well
defined or adopted or retained earnings that are not reasonably
proportional to annual gross revenues.
Secondary Treatment Secondary treatment provides the mechanical treatment of the
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW 12-5
SANITATION AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT
Chapter 12
Glossary
primary treatment process which includes grinding, and
clarification as well as aeration or anaerobic digestion where
microbes break down effluent even further and also may
include chlorination.
Service A class established within, and as a part of, a single function, as
provided by regulations adopted by the commission pursuant
to Chapter 5 (commencing with §56820) of Part 3.
Service review A study and evaluation of municipal service(s) by specific area,
sub-region or region culminating in written determinations
regarding nine specific evaluation categories.
Sludge Solid waste generated from the de-watering during the
wastewater treatment process. Often composted or removed to
a solid waste facility.
Special District A district that is designed for a specific purpose and either
functions independently from other districts or is dependent on
outside support from Cities, the County, or other Special
Districts.
Sphere of influence A plan for the probable physical boundaries and service area of
(SOI) a local agency, as determined by the LAFCO commission.
Reorganization Two or more changes of organization initiated in a single
proposal which may include a merger or consolidation.
Tertiary Treatment Tertiary treatment provides all the treatment of the primary and
secondary treatment process and then adds one further step that
is chemical, ozone or ultraviolet treatment.
Water and A law created to facilitate the formation of public agencies to
Wastewater District provide water and sewer services.
Act, California Water
District Law,
Division 13 of the
California Water
Code 30000
Watrtac A technical advisory committee that is part of the Napa County
Flood Control and Water Conservation District and provides
consensus among five cities and the County as it relates to
current and future water issues affecting Napa County.
12-6 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
SANITATION AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT
Chapter 12
Glossary
II. ACRONYMS
ABAG Association of Bay Area of Governments
AFA Acre-Feet Annually
Af/yr Acre-Feet per Year
BOD Biological Oxygen Demand
CAFR Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CIP Capital Improvement Plan
CKH Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000
COCWD Circle Oaks County Water District
COD Chemical Oxygen Demand
COG Council of Governments
CSA County Service Area
CWA Clean Water Act
DOF State Department of Finance
EIR Environmental Impact Report
GP General Plan
GPD Gallons per Day
GPM Gallons per Minute
JPA Joint Powers Agreement
LA Load Allocations
LAFCO Local Agency Formation Commission
LBRID Lake Berryessa Resort Improvement District
MFP Master Facilities Plan
MGD Millions of Gallons per Day
MOU Memorandum of Understanding
MSR Municipal Service Review
MRP Monitoring and Reporting Program
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW 12-7
SANITATION AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT
Chapter 12
Glossary
NCFCWCD Napa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
NBRID Napa Berryessa Resort Improvement District
NPSMP Non-point Source Management Plan
NSD Napa Sanitation District
NRRD Napa River Reclamation District
PVC Poly-vinyl Chloride
RUL Rural Urban Line
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Boards
SCADA Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition
SFWD Spanish Flat Water District
SOI Sphere of Influence
SS Suspended Solids
SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board
SWRF Soscol Water Recycling Facility
TMDL Total Daily Maximum Load
TOD Total Oxygen Demand
TSS Total Suspended Solids
Watrtac Water Technical Advisory Council
WQLS Water Quality Limited Segments
WTP Water Treatment Plant
WWTP Wastewater Treatment Plant
12-8 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
SANITATION AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT