LAFCO

Napa Countywide Water and Wastewater (2021)

Local Agency Formation Commissions · napa-msr-2021-napacountywidewaterwastewatermsr-updated-10-4-21 · Msr · 2020-11-02

Read the report at Local Agency Formation Commissions ↗

N APA C O U N T YW I D E WAT E R A N D WA S T EWAT E R M U N I C I PA L S ERV I C E R E VI E W F I N A L Approved November 2, 2020 Prepared for the Napa Local Agency Formation Commission by Policy Consulting Associates, LLC. and Berkson Associates Prologue The preparation of the Napa Countywide Water and Wastewater Municipal Service Review (MSR) occurred over a two-year period culminating in November 2020. During the course of preparing this MSR, substantial effort was expended to ensure the accuracy of the report and garner consensus to the greatest degree possible. However, as expected for studies of this nature, the MSR surfaced issues which will require further research, analysis, collaboration and agreement among the water and wastewater providers, other affected agencies, and LAFCO. These issues are anticipated to be addressed in the future as circumstances demand. A number of natural and man-made disasters befell communities in Napa County, including wildfires, droughts, and an economic downturn triggered by the COVID-19 pandemic. These events damaged infrastructure and caused short- and long-term impacts on the ability of governments to provide public services, in addition to taking a toll on residents and businesses. As agencies respond to these serious circumstances, this MSR will be updated to reflect changed conditions. Future, ongoing updates to sections of this MSR will be included in Appendix C. The Napa Local Agency Formation Commission appreciates the efforts provided by all participants: stakeholders (the County, cities, districts, and other organizations) for the information and input they provided throughout this process; the public for detailed review and feedback; and the consultants for their extraordinary effort compiling an informative report and useful tool for ongoing use by the Commission. Respectfully, Kenneth Leary, Chair Napa Local Agency Formation Commission ________________________________________________ ________________________________________________ Diane Dillon, Vice Chair Gregory Rodeno, Commissioner ________________________________________________ ________________________________________________ Margie Mohler, Commissioner Brad Wagenknecht, Commissioner NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR TA B L E O F C O N T E N T S ACRONYMS AND DEFINITIONS ...................................................................................................................................... VIII PREFACE ............................................................................................................................................................................... XIII CONTEXT ................................................................................................................................................................................................... XIII CREDITS ..................................................................................................................................................................................................... XIII 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................................... 1 PROVIDERS ...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 1 WATER SERVICES ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 3 WASTEWATER SERVICES .............................................................................................................................................................................. 3 RECYCLED WATER ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 4 FINANCIAL ABILITY TO PROVIDE SERVICES ............................................................................................................................................... 4 RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 5 GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE ALTERNATIVES ............................................................................................................................................... 6 2. BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................................................... 8 LAFCO OVERVIEW ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 8 MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW LEGISLATION ............................................................................................................................................ 8 MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW PROCESS ................................................................................................................................................... 9 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE UPDATES ............................................................................................................................................................... 9 DISADVANTAGED UNINCORPORATED COMMUNITIES ........................................................................................................................... 10 3. OVERVIEW ................................................................................................................................................................... 12 SETTING ........................................................................................................................................................................................................ 12 POTENTIAL EFFECTS OF CLIMATIC SHIFTS ON UTILITY SYSTEMS ..................................................................................................... 17 LOCAL AND REGIONAL PLANNING CONTEXT .......................................................................................................................................... 20 REGULATION OF WATER PROVIDER AGENCIES ..................................................................................................................................... 23 REGULATION OF WASTEWATER PROVIDER AGENCIES ......................................................................................................................... 32 COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS ........................................................................................................................................................................... 35 RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................................................................................................................. 42 4. CITY OF AMERICAN CANYON ................................................................................................................................. 57 AGENCY OVERVIEW .................................................................................................................................................................................... 57 ACCOUNTABILITY AND GOVERNANCE ...................................................................................................................................................... 60 GROWTH AND POPULATION PROJECTIONS ............................................................................................................................................. 60 DISADVANTAGED UNINCORPORATED COMMUNITIES ........................................................................................................................... 64 FINANCIAL ABILITY TO PROVIDE SERVICES ............................................................................................................................................ 64 WATER SERVICES ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 72 WASTEWATER SERVICES ........................................................................................................................................................................... 94 GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE OPTIONS ..................................................................................................................................................... 102 RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................................................................................................ 102 CITY OF AMERICAN CANYON DETERMINATIONS ................................................................................................................................. 104 5. CITY OF CALISTOGA ............................................................................................................................................... 107 AGENCY OVERVIEW .................................................................................................................................................................................. 107 ACCOUNTABILITY AND GOVERNANCE .................................................................................................................................................... 110 GROWTH AND POPULATION PROJECTIONS ........................................................................................................................................... 110 DISADVANTAGED UNINCORPORATED COMMUNITIES ......................................................................................................................... 113 FINANCIAL ABILITY TO PROVIDE SERVICES .......................................................................................................................................... 114 WATER SERVICES ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 122 WASTEWATER SERVICES ......................................................................................................................................................................... 136 GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE OPTIONS ..................................................................................................................................................... 142 RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................................................................................................ 142 TABLE OF CONTENTS i NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR CITY OF CALISTOGA DETERMINATIONS ................................................................................................................................................. 144 6. CITY OF NAPA .......................................................................................................................................................... 148 AGENCY OVERVIEW .................................................................................................................................................................................. 148 ACCOUNTABILITY AND GOVERNANCE .................................................................................................................................................... 151 GROWTH AND POPULATION PROJECTIONS ........................................................................................................................................... 151 DISADVANTAGED UNINCORPORATED COMMUNITIES ......................................................................................................................... 155 FINANCIAL ABILITY TO PROVIDE SERVICES .......................................................................................................................................... 155 WATER SERVICES ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 160 GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE OPTIONS ..................................................................................................................................................... 179 RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................................................................................................ 188 CITY OF NAPA DETERMINATIONS ........................................................................................................................................................... 189 7. CITY OF ST. HELENA ............................................................................................................................................... 193 AGENCY OVERVIEW .................................................................................................................................................................................. 193 ACCOUNTABILITY AND GOVERNANCE .................................................................................................................................................... 196 GROWTH AND POPULATION PROJECTIONS ........................................................................................................................................... 196 DISADVANTAGED UNINCORPORATED COMMUNITIES ......................................................................................................................... 198 FINANCIAL ABILITY TO PROVIDE SERVICES .......................................................................................................................................... 199 WATER SERVICES ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 206 WASTEWATER SERVICES ......................................................................................................................................................................... 222 GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE OPTIONS ..................................................................................................................................................... 228 RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................................................................................................ 231 CITY OF ST. HELENA DETERMINATIONS ............................................................................................................................................... 232 8. TOWN OF YOUNTVILLE ........................................................................................................................................ 235 AGENCY OVERVIEW .................................................................................................................................................................................. 235 ACCOUNTABILITY AND GOVERNANCE .................................................................................................................................................... 238 GROWTH AND POPULATION PROJECTIONS ........................................................................................................................................... 238 DISADVANTAGED UNINCORPORATED COMMUNITIES ......................................................................................................................... 240 FINANCIAL ABILITY TO PROVIDE SERVICES .......................................................................................................................................... 241 WATER SERVICES ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 248 WASTEWATER SERVICES ......................................................................................................................................................................... 263 GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE OPTIONS ..................................................................................................................................................... 271 RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................................................................................................ 271 TOWN OF YOUNTVILLE DETERMINATIONS ........................................................................................................................................... 273 9. CIRCLE OAKS COUNTY WATER DISTRICT ....................................................................................................... 277 AGENCY OVERVIEW .................................................................................................................................................................................. 277 ACCOUNTABILITY AND GOVERNANCE .................................................................................................................................................... 280 GROWTH AND POPULATION PROJECTIONS ........................................................................................................................................... 280 DISADVANTAGED UNINCORPORATED COMMUNITIES ......................................................................................................................... 282 FINANCIAL ABILITY TO PROVIDE SERVICES .......................................................................................................................................... 282 WATER SERVICES ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 286 WASTEWATER SERVICES ......................................................................................................................................................................... 292 GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE OPTIONS ..................................................................................................................................................... 296 RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................................................................................................ 297 CIRCLE OAKS COUNTY WATER DISTRICT DETERMINATIONS ............................................................................................................ 298 10. CONGRESS VALLEY WATER DISTRICT ........................................................................................................ 301 AGENCY OVERVIEW .................................................................................................................................................................................. 301 ACCOUNTABILITY AND GOVERNANCE .................................................................................................................................................... 304 GROWTH AND POPULATION PROJECTIONS ........................................................................................................................................... 304 DISADVANTAGED UNINCORPORATED COMMUNITIES ......................................................................................................................... 305 FINANCIAL ABILITY TO PROVIDE SERVICES .......................................................................................................................................... 305 WATER SERVICES ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 309 TABLE OF CONTENTS ii NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE OPTIONS ..................................................................................................................................................... 313 RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................................................................................................ 319 CONGRESS VALLEY WATER DISTRICT DETERMINATIONS .................................................................................................................. 320 11. LAKE BERRYESSA RESORT IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT ......................................................................... 323 AGENCY OVERVIEW .................................................................................................................................................................................. 323 ACCOUNTABILITY AND GOVERNANCE .................................................................................................................................................... 326 GROWTH AND POPULATION PROJECTIONS ........................................................................................................................................... 326 DISADVANTAGED UNINCORPORATED COMMUNITIES ......................................................................................................................... 327 FINANCIAL ABILITY TO PROVIDE SERVICES .......................................................................................................................................... 327 WATER SERVICES ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 332 WASTEWATER SERVICES ......................................................................................................................................................................... 337 GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE OPTIONS ..................................................................................................................................................... 341 RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................................................................................................ 342 LAKE BERRYESSA RESORT IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT DETERMINATIONS ....................................................................................... 343 12. LOS CARNEROS WATER DISTRICT ............................................................................................................... 345 AGENCY OVERVIEW .................................................................................................................................................................................. 345 ACCOUNTABILITY AND GOVERNANCE .................................................................................................................................................... 348 GROWTH AND POPULATION PROJECTIONS ........................................................................................................................................... 348 DISADVANTAGED UNINCORPORATED COMMUNITIES ......................................................................................................................... 350 FINANCIAL ABILITY TO PROVIDE SERVICES .......................................................................................................................................... 350 WATER SERVICES ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 354 GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE OPTIONS ..................................................................................................................................................... 361 RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................................................................................................ 362 LOS CARNEROS WATER DISTRICT DETERMINATIONS ........................................................................................................................ 363 13. NAPA BERRYESSA RESORT IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT ......................................................................... 366 AGENCY OVERVIEW .................................................................................................................................................................................. 366 ACCOUNTABILITY AND GOVERNANCE .................................................................................................................................................... 370 GROWTH AND POPULATION PROJECTIONS ........................................................................................................................................... 370 DISADVANTAGED UNINCORPORATED COMMUNITIES ......................................................................................................................... 371 FINANCIAL ABILITY TO PROVIDE SERVICES .......................................................................................................................................... 371 WATER SERVICES ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 376 WASTEWATER SERVICES ......................................................................................................................................................................... 381 GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE OPTIONS ..................................................................................................................................................... 384 RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................................................................................................ 385 NAPA BERRYESSA RESORT IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT DETERMINATIONS ....................................................................................... 386 14. NAPA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT ................................... 388 AGENCY OVERVIEW .................................................................................................................................................................................. 388 ACCOUNTABILITY AND GOVERNANCE .................................................................................................................................................... 391 GROWTH AND POPULATION PROJECTIONS ........................................................................................................................................... 391 DISADVANTAGED UNINCORPORATED COMMUNITIES ......................................................................................................................... 391 FINANCIAL ABILITY TO PROVIDE SERVICES .......................................................................................................................................... 392 WATER SERVICES ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 396 FLOOD CONTROL SERVICES ..................................................................................................................................................................... 398 RECYCLED WATER SERVICES .................................................................................................................................................................. 399 GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE OPTIONS ..................................................................................................................................................... 399 RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................................................................................................ 399 NAPA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT DETERMINATIONS .................................................... 400 15. NAPA RIVER RECLAMATION DISTRICT NO. 2109 ................................................................................... 402 AGENCY OVERVIEW .................................................................................................................................................................................. 402 ACCOUNTABILITY AND GOVERNANCE .................................................................................................................................................... 405 GROWTH AND POPULATION PROJECTIONS ........................................................................................................................................... 405 TABLE OF CONTENTS iii NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR DISADVANTAGED UNINCORPORATED COMMUNITIES ......................................................................................................................... 406 FINANCIAL ABILITY TO PROVIDE SERVICES .......................................................................................................................................... 406 RECLAMATION SERVICES ......................................................................................................................................................................... 409 WASTEWATER SERVICES ......................................................................................................................................................................... 412 GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE OPTIONS ..................................................................................................................................................... 415 RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................................................................................................ 416 NAPA RIVER RECLAMATION DISTRICT NO. 2109 DETERMINATIONS ............................................................................................. 417 16. NAPA SANITATION DISTRICT ........................................................................................................................ 419 AGENCY OVERVIEW .................................................................................................................................................................................. 419 ACCOUNTABILITY AND GOVERNANCE .................................................................................................................................................... 422 GROWTH AND POPULATION PROJECTIONS ........................................................................................................................................... 424 DISADVANTAGED UNINCORPORATED COMMUNITIES ......................................................................................................................... 425 FINANCIAL ABILITY TO PROVIDE SERVICES .......................................................................................................................................... 426 RECYCLED WATER SERVICES .................................................................................................................................................................. 431 WASTEWATER SERVICES ......................................................................................................................................................................... 441 GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE OPTIONS ..................................................................................................................................................... 450 RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................................................................................................ 454 NAPA SANITATION DISTRICT DETERMINATIONS ................................................................................................................................ 455 17. SPANISH FLAT WATER DISTRICT ................................................................................................................ 458 AGENCY OVERVIEW .................................................................................................................................................................................. 458 ACCOUNTABILITY AND GOVERNANCE .................................................................................................................................................... 461 GROWTH AND POPULATION PROJECTIONS ........................................................................................................................................... 461 DISADVANTAGED UNINCORPORATED COMMUNITIES ......................................................................................................................... 462 FINANCIAL ABILITY TO PROVIDE SERVICES .......................................................................................................................................... 463 WATER SERVICES ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 466 WASTEWATER SERVICES ......................................................................................................................................................................... 473 GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE OPTIONS ..................................................................................................................................................... 478 RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................................................................................................ 480 SPANISH FLAT WATER DISTRICT DETERMINATIONS ......................................................................................................................... 481 APPENDIX A ........................................................................................................................................................................ 484 APPENDIX B ........................................................................................................................................................................ 485 APPENDIX C ........................................................................................................................................................................ 486 REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................................................................... 487 CONTRIBUTORS ................................................................................................................................................................. 500 TABLE OF CONTENTS iv NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR L I S T O F F I G U R E S FIGURE 1-1: WATER AND WASTEWATER SERVICE PROVIDERS IN NAPA COUNTY ............................................................... 1 FIGURE 1-2: NAPA COUNTY WATER AND WASTEWATER UTILITY SERVICE PROVIDERS ............................................. 2 FIGURE 3-1: WATER AND WASTEWATER SERVICE PROVIDERS IN NAPA COUNTY ............................................................. 14 FIGURE 3-2: PRIVATE COMMUNITY WATER SYSTEMS IN NAPA COUNTY ........................................................................... 15 FIGURE 3-3: PRIVATE COMMUNITY WATER SYSTEMS MAP ............................................................................................. 16 FIGURE 3-4: WATER REGULATORY AGENCIES ........................................................................................................... 24 FIGURE 3-5: WASTEWATER REGULATORY AGENCIES ................................................................................................ 32 FIGURE 3-6: PERCENTAGE OF POTABLE WATER SUPPLY USED IN NORMAL YEAR ............................................................. 35 FIGURE 3-7: WASTEWATER FLOW AND TREATMENT CAPACITY (MGD), 2018 ................................................................. 36 FIGURE 3-8: PERCENT OF WASTEWATER FLOW BENEFICIALLY REUSED, 2018 ................................................................ 37 FIGURE 3-9: POTABLE WATER SYSTEM INTEGRITY INDICATORS ..................................................................................... 38 FIGURE 3-10: WATER SYSTEM VIOLATIONS PER 1,000 SERVED, 2008-2018 ................................................................... 39 FIGURE 3-11: SANITARY SEWER OVERFLOWS PER 100 MILES OF MAIN PER YEAR, 2014-2018 ........................................ 40 FIGURE 3-12: WASTEWATER PROVIDER REGULATORY COMPLIANCE, 2009-2019 ............................................................ 41 FIGURE 3-13: PLANNING PRACTICES ............................................................................................................................... 44 FIGURE 3-14: OUT OF AREA SERVICES ............................................................................................................................ 46 FIGURE 3-15: WATER TRUCKING CUSTOMERS (2018) .................................................................................................... 47 FIGURE 3-16: GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE OPTIONS ........................................................................................................... 47 FIGURE 4-1: CITY OF AMERICAN CANYON BOUNDARIES AND SOI .................................................................................... 59 FIGURE 4-2: CITY OF AMERICAN CANYON DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS ............................................................................... 61 FIGURE 4-3: SUMMARY OF SELECTED FINANCIAL INFORMATION, CITY OF AMERICAN CANYON WATER OPERATIONS ...... 64 FIGURE 4-4: SUMMARY OF SELECTED FINANCIAL INFORMATION, CITY OF AMERICAN CANYON WASTEWATER OPERATIONS 65 FIGURE 4-5: CITY OF AMERICAN CANYON WATER SERVICE AREA ................................................................................... 74 FIGURE 4-5A: CITY OF AMERICAN CANYON WATER SERVICE AREA ................................................................................... 75 FIGURE 4-6: SUMMARY OF CONTRACTED IMPORTED WATER SOURCES ............................................................................ 78 FIGURE 4-7: WATER PRODUCTION (2014-2018) ......................................................................................................... 79 FIGURE 4-8: PROJECTED RECYCLED WATER DEMAND .................................................................................................... 80 FIGURE 4-9: DEMAND FOR POTABLE AND RAW WATER BY CUSTOMER TYPE (ACRE-FEET) ............................................... 82 FIGURE 4-10: DEMAND FOR POTABLE AND RAW WATER OVER TIME, 2005-2015 ........................................................... 83 FIGURE 4-11: PROJECTED DEMAND FOR POTABLE AND RAW WATER , ACRE-FEET .............................................................. 84 FIGURE 4-12: PROJECTED WATER SUPPLY AND DEMAND DURING A NORMAL YEAR, ACRE-FEET ......................................... 84 FIGURE 4-13: WATER CONNECTIONS BY CUSTOMER TYPE (2018) ................................................................................... 85 FIGURE 4-14: AMERICAN CANYON WATER TREATMENT PLANT CHARACTERISTICS ............................................................ 86 FIGURE 4-15: AMERICAN CANYON STORAGE SYSTEM ....................................................................................................... 86 FIGURE 4-16: AMERICAN CANYON WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM ................................................................................... 88 FIGURE 4-17: WATER LOSS SUMMARY (2014-2018) ..................................................................................................... 89 FIGURE 4-18: RECYCLED WATER INFRASTRUCTURE ......................................................................................................... 89 FIGURE 4-19: RECYCLED WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM ................................................................................................. 90 FIGURE 4-20: CITY OF AMERICAN CANYON WASTEWATER SERVICE AREA ......................................................................... 95 FIGURE 4-21: AVERAGE DRY WEATHER FLOWS 2014-2018 AND BUILDOUT CONDITIONS (MGD) ...................................... 97 FIGURE 4-22: AMERICAN CANYON WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY ................................................................................. 97 FIGURE 4-23: CITY OF AMERICAN CANYON WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM ................................................................ 98 FIGURE 5-1: CITY OF CALISTOGA BOUNDARIES AND SOI ............................................................................................... 109 FIGURE 5-2: APPROVED PROJECTS (2015-2019), ACRE-FEET ..................................................................................... 112 FIGURE 5-3: PROJECTS IN PROGRESS (2015-2019), ACRE-FEET .................................................................................. 112 FIGURE 5-4: POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT THROUGH 2034, ACRE-FEET ........................................................................... 112 FIGURE 5-5: SUMMARY OF SELECTED FINANCIAL INFORMATION, CITY OF CALISTOGA WATER OPERATIONS ................ 114 FIGURE 5-6: SUMMARY OF SELECTED FINANCIAL INFORMATION, CITY OF CALISTOGA WASTEWATER OPERATIONS ........... 115 FIGURE 5-7: CITY OF CALISTOGA WATER SERVICE AREA .............................................................................................. 125 FIGURE 5-8: CITY OF CALISTOGA WATER SOURCES, ACRE-FEET .................................................................................... 127 FIGURE 5-9: WATER PRODUCTION (2014-2018), ACRE-FEET ..................................................................................... 127 FIGURE 5-10: DEMAND FOR POTABLE AND RECYCLED WATER BY CUSTOMER TYPE (ACRE-FEET) ..................................... 129 FIGURE 5-11: DAILY DEMAND VS. SUPPLY (GALLONS) .................................................................................................... 129 LIST OF FIGURES v NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR FIGURE 5-12: PROJECTED DEMAND FOR POTABLE AND RECYCLED WATER (ACRE-FEET) .................................................. 130 FIGURE 5-13: CITY OF CALISTOGA STORAGE TANKS ....................................................................................................... 132 FIGURE 5-14: AVERAGE DRY WEATHER FLOWS 2014-2018 AND BUILDOUT CONDITIONS (MGD) .................................... 138 FIGURE 5-15: WASTEWATER FLOWS AT THE WWTP .................................................................................................... 139 FIGURE 6-1: CITY OF NAPA ANNEXATIONS SINCE 2010 ............................................................................................... 149 FIGURE 6-2: CITY OF NAPA BOUNDARIES AND SOI ....................................................................................................... 150 FIGURE 6-3: CITY OF NAPA RURAL URBAN LIMIT LINE ................................................................................................. 153 FIGURE 6-4: SUMMARY OF SELECTED FINANCIAL INFORMATION, CITY OF NAPA WATER OPERATIONS ............................. 155 FIGURE 6-5: CITY OF NAPA WATER SERVICE AREA ...................................................................................................... 163 FIGURE 6-6: SUMMARY OF POTABLE WATER SOURCES ................................................................................................. 167 FIGURE 6-7: POTABLE WATER PRODUCTION BY SOURCE (2014-2018), ACRE-FEET ..................................................... 168 FIGURE 6-8: WATER CONNECTIONS BY CUSTOMER TYPE (2018) ................................................................................. 169 FIGURE 6-9: DEMAND FOR POTABLE WATER BY CUSTOMER TYPE (ACRE-FEET) ............................................................. 170 FIGURE 6-10: PROJECTED DEMAND FOR POTABLE WATER, ACRE-FEET ........................................................................... 171 FIGURE 6-11: PROJECTED WATER SUPPLY AND DEMAND DURING A NORMAL YEAR, ACRE-FEET ....................................... 171 FIGURE 6-12: POTABLE WATER STORAGE ..................................................................................................................... 173 FIGURE 7-1: CITY OF ST. HELENA BOUNDARIES AND SOI .............................................................................................. 195 FIGURE 7-2: CITY OF ST. HELENA DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS ......................................................................................... 197 FIGURE 7-3: SUMMARY OF SELECTED FINANCIAL INFORMATION, CITY OF ST. HELENA WATER OPERATIONS .................... 199 FIGURE 7-4: SUMMARY OF SELECTED FINANCIAL INFORMATION, CITY OF ST. HELENA WASTEWATER OPERATIONS .......... 200 FIGURE 7-5: CITY OF ST. HELENA WATER SERVICE AREA ............................................................................................. 209 FIGURE 7-6: CITY OF ST. HELENA WATER SOURCES (ACRE-FEET PER YEAR) .................................................................. 211 FIGURE 7-7: WATER PRODUCTION (2014-2018), ACRE-FEET ..................................................................................... 213 FIGURE 7-8: DEMAND FOR POTABLE WATER BY CUSTOMER TYPE (ACRE-FEET) ............................................................. 214 FIGURE 7-9: PROJECTED DEMAND FOR POTABLE WATER (ACRE-FEET) ......................................................................... 215 FIGURE 7-10: CITY OF ST. HELENA STORAGE FACILITIES ................................................................................................ 219 FIGURE 7-11: AVERAGE DRY WEATHER FLOWS 2014-2018 AND BUILDOUT CONDITIONS (MGD) .................................... 224 FIGURE 7-12: MEADOWOOD AREA MAP ........................................................................................................................ 230 FIGURE 8-1: TOWN OF YOUNTVILLE BOUNDARIES AND SOI .......................................................................................... 237 FIGURE 8-2: TOWN OF YOUNTVILLE DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS ..................................................................................... 239 FIGURE 8-3: SUMMARY OF SELECTED FINANCIAL INFORMATION, TOWN OF YOUNTVILLE WATER OPERATIONS ........... 241 FIGURE 8-4: SUMMARY OF SELECTED FINANCIAL INFORMATION, TOWN OF YOUNTVILLE WASTEWATER OPERATIONS ...... 242 FIGURE 8-5: TOWN OF YOUNTVILLE WATER SERVICE AREA ......................................................................................... 250 FIGURE 8-6: PURCHASED WATER FY 10-11 THROUGH FY 17-18 ................................................................................ 253 FIGURE 8-7: TOWN OF YOUNTVILLE WATER SOURCES (AFY) ........................................................................................ 254 FIGURE 8-8: DEMAND FOR POTABLE AND RECYCLED WATER BY CUSTOMER TYPE, 2015-2018 (AF) ............................. 257 FIGURE 8-9: PROJECTED DEMAND FOR POTABLE AND RECYCLED WATER, 2020-2040 (ACRE-FEET) ............................. 258 FIGURE 8- 10: WATER DISTRIBUTION INFRASTRUCTURE ................................................................................................. 259 FIGURE 8-11: WATER LOSS SUMMARY (2014-2018) ................................................................................................... 259 FIGURE 8-12: WASTEWATER FLOWS AND BUILDOUT CONDITIONS, 2014-2018 (MG) ..................................................... 265 FIGURE 9-1: CIRCLE OAKS COUNTY WATER DISTRICT BOUNDARIES AND SOI ................................................................ 279 FIGURE 9-4: SUMMARY OF SELECTED FINANCIAL INFORMATION, CIRCLE OAKS WATER DISTRICT ................................... 282 FIGURE 9-5: DEMAND FOR POTABLE WATER (ACRE-FEET) ........................................................................................... 288 FIGURE 9-6: ADWF WASTEWATER FLOWS 2014-2018 AND BUILDOUT CONDITIONS, GALLONS .................................... 293 FIGURE 10-1: CONGRESS VALLEY WATER DISTRICT BOUNDARIES, SOI, AND CONTRACT SERVICE AREA ............................ 303 FIGURE 10-3: SUMMARY OF SELECTED FINANCIAL INFORMATION, CONGRESS VALLEY WATER DISTRICT ........................... 306 FIGURE 10-4: DEMAND FOR POTABLE WATER, 2015-2018 (ACRE-FEET) ...................................................................... 311 FIGURE 11-1: LAKE BERRYESSA RESORT IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT BOUNDARIES AND SOI ................................................ 325 FIGURE 11-2: SUMMARY OF SELECTED FINANCIAL INFORMATION, LAKE BERRYESSA RESORT IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT WATER AND WASTEWATER OPERATIONS ............................................................................................................. 327 FIGURE 11-3: WASTEWATER FLOWS 2014-2018 AND BUILDOUT CONDITIONS ......................................................... 338 FIGURE 12-1: LOS CARNEROS WATER DISTRICT BOUNDARIES AND SOI .......................................................................... 347 FIGURE 12-2: SUMMARY OF SELECTED FINANCIAL INFORMATION, LOS CARNEROS WATER DISTRICT ................................. 350 FIGURE 12-3: LCWD SERVICE AREA/ASSESSMENT DISTRICT ........................................................................................ 355 FIGURE 12-4: DEMAND FOR RECYCLED WATER, 2015-2018 (ACRE-FEET) .................................................................... 358 FIGURE 13-1: NAPA BERRYESSA RESORT IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT BOUNDARIES AND SOI ............................................... 368 LIST OF FIGURES vi NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR FIGURE 13-1A: NAPA BERRYESSA RESORT IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT DISTRICT-OWNED PARCELS ....................................... 369 FIGURE 13-2: SUMMARY OF SELECTED FINANCIAL INFORMATION, NAPA BERRYESSA RESORT IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT WATER AND WASTEWATER OPERATIONS ................................................................................................. 371 FIGURE 13-3: WASTEWATER FLOWS 2014-2018 AND BUILDOUT CONDITIONS ......................................................... 382 FIGURE 14-1: NAPA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT BOUNDARIES AND SOI ................... 390 FIGURE 14-2A: SUMMARY OF SELECTED FINANCIAL INFORMATION, NAPA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL & WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT ............................................................................................................................................... 392 FIGURE 14-2B: SUMMARY OF SELECTED FINANCIAL INFORMATION, NAPA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL & WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT ............................................................................................................................................... 393 FIGURE 15-1: NAPA RIVER RECLAMATION DISTRICT NO. 2109 BOUNDARIES AND SOI .................................................... 404 FIGURE 15-2: SUMMARY OF SELECTED FINANCIAL INFORMATION, NAPA RIVER RECLAMATION DISTRICT .......................... 406 FIGURE 16-1: NAPA SANITATION DISTRICT BOUNDARIES AND SOI ................................................................................. 421 FIGURE 16-2: SUMMARY OF SELECTED FINANCIAL INFORMATION, NAPA SANITATION DISTRICT ........................................ 426 FIGURE 16-3: RECYCLED SERVICE CONNECTIONS BY TYPE .............................................................................................. 431 FIGURE 16-4: WASTEWATER AND RECYCLED WATER SERVICE AREA .............................................................................. 433 FIGURE 16-5: RECYCLED WATER PRODUCED DURING IRRIGATION SEASON (2014-2018) ............................................... 435 FIGURE 16-6: RECYCLED WATER SALES (2014-2018) ................................................................................................. 436 FIGURE 16-7: RECYCLED WATER USE BY TYPE (2018) ................................................................................................. 436 FIGURE 16-8: RECYCLED WATER DISTRIBUTION PIPELINES ........................................................................................... 437 FIGURE 16-9: RECYCLED WATER FORECASTED PRODUCTION (2020-2040) ................................................................... 438 FIGURE 16-10: NAPASAN WASTEWATER OUT OF AREA SERVICES ..................................................................................... 442 FIGURE 16-11: NAPASAN AVERAGE ANNUAL WASTEWATER INFLUENT FLOWS (2014-2018) .......................................... 444 FIGURE 16-12: NAPASAN AVERAGE DRY WEATHER WASTEWATER INFLUENT FLOWS (2014-2018) ................................ 444 FIGURE 16-13: NAPASAN PEAK WET WEATHER DISCHARGE (2014-2018) ..................................................................... 445 FIGURE 16-14: NAPASAN SANITARY SEWER OVERFLOWS (2014-2018) .......................................................................... 447 FIGURE 17-1: SPANISH FLAT WATER DISTRICT BOUNDARIES AND SOI ........................................................................... 460 FIGURE 17-2: SUMMARY OF SELECTED FINANCIAL INFORMATION, SPANISH FLATS WATER DISTRICT WATER AND WASTEWATER OPERATIONS .................................................................................................................... 463 FIGURE 17-3: SFWD WATER SOURCES (ACRE-FEET PER YEAR) ...................................................................................... 467 FIGURE 17-4: DEMAND FOR POTABLE WATER BY SERVICE AREA (ACRE-FEET) ................................................................ 468 FIGURE 17-5: SPANISH FLAT STORAGE FACILITIES ......................................................................................................... 470 FIGURE 17-6: BERRYESSA PINES STORAGE FACILITIES ................................................................................................... 471 FIGURE 17-7: ADWF WASTEWATER FLOWS 2014-2018 AND BUILDOUT CONDITIONS, MILLION GALLONS ....................... 474 LIST OF FIGURES vii NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR ACRO NYM S A ND DEF I NI TI O NS AB: Assembly Bill ABAG: Association of Bay Area Governments ACP: Asbestos cement ACCWD: American Canyon County Water District ADWF: Average dry weather flow af: acre-feet afy: acre-feet per year AIPS: Advanced Integrated Pond Systems AMP: Asset Management Plan BACWA: Bay Area Clean Water Agencies BAWAC: Bay Area Water Agencies Coalition BAWSCA: Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency BDCP: Bay Delta Conservation Plan BMPs: Best Management Practices BOD: Biochemical Oxygen Demand BOE: State Board of Equalization Cal Water: California Water Service Company CAFR: Comprehensive Annual Financial Report CCC: California Coast Conservancy CCF: one hundred cubic feet CCR: California Code of Regulations CCTV: Closed circuit television CCWD: Calaveras County Water District CD: Certificates of Deposit CDFW: California Department of Fish and Wildlife CDO: Cease and Desist Order CDPH: California Department of Public Health CDVA: California Department of Veterans Affairs CEQA: California Environmental Quality Act CERBT: California Employers’ Retiree Benefit Trust cfs: Cubic feet per second CIP: Capital Improvement Plan or Program CIWMB: California Integrated Waste Management Board CKH: Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 COCWD: Circle Oaks County Water District CPAR: Corrective or Preventive Actions CPUC: California Public Utilities Commission CSA: county service area CSD: community services district CSDA: California Special District Association CUWCC: California Urban Water Conservation Council CVP: Central Valley Project CVWD: Congress Valley Water District CWA: Federal Clean Water Act ACRONYMS AND DEFINITIONS viii NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR CWC: California Water Code CWD: County Water Districts CWSRF: Clean Water State Revolving Fund CY: Calendar year DAC: Disadvantaged Community DAF: dissolved air flotation DCP: Drought Contingency Plan DDW: Division of Drinking Water DEH: County Department of Environmental Health DOF: California Department of Finance DPH: California Department of Public Health DPR: direct potable reuse DSOD: Department of Safety of Dams DTSC: California Department of Toxic Substances Control DUCs: disadvantaged unincorporated communities DWR: Department of Water Resources EES: Environmental Enhancement Surcharge EIR: Environmental Impact Report EIRD: Edgerly Island Reclamation District ENSO: El Niño Southern Oscillation EPA: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ERAF: Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund ERP: Emergency Response Plan FAQ: Frequently Asked Questions FCWCD: Flood Control and Water Conservation District FEIR: Final Environmental Impact Report FOG: fats, oil and grease fps: feet per second FTE: full-time equivalent FY: Fiscal year GFOA: Governmental Finance Officers Association of the United States and Canada GHAD: geologic hazard abatement district GIS: Geographic Information Systems GM: General Manger GMS: Growth Management System GP: General Plan gpd: gallons per day gpm: gallons per minute GSA: Groundwater Sustainability Agency HAA5: haloacetic acids I/I: infiltration and inflow ILI: Infrastructure Leakage Index IRWMP: Integrated Regional Water Management Plan ISA: Interim Supply Allocation ISG: Individual Supply Guarantee JPA: Joint Powers Authority or Agency KCWA: Kern County Water Agency ACRONYMS AND DEFINITIONS ix NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR LAs: Load Allocations lf: linear feet LAFCO: Local Agency Formation Commission LBRID: Lake Berryessa Resort Improvement District LCWD: Los Carneros Water District LOMU: Letter of Mutual Understanding MBR: Membrane bioreactor MCL: Maximum Contaminant Level MFD: Multi-family dwelling mg: millions of gallons mgd: Millions of gallons per day MOUs: Memorandums of Understanding MSR: Municipal Service Review MST: Milliken-Sarco-Tulocay MTBE: methyl tertiary butyl ether MTC: Metropolitan Transportation Commission MWC: Mutual Water Company NA: Not applicable Napa IWRMPF: Napa County Integrated Water Resource Management Planning Framework NapaSan: Napa Sanitation District NBA: North Bay Aqueduct NBRID: Napa Berryessa Resort Improvement District NBWRP: North Bay Water Reuse Program NCRCD: Napa County Resource Conservation District NCFCWCD: Napa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District NCSWMP: Napa County Stormwater Management Program NNV: North Napa Valley Basin NOD: North of Delta NP: Not provided NPDES: National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NPDWRs: National Primary Drinking Water Regulations NRRD: Napa River Reclamation District NSD: Napa Sanitation District NVTA: Napa Valley Transportation Authority OPEB: Other Post-Employment Benefits OPR: Governor’s Office of Planning and Research OVAK: Oakville to Oak Knoll PAFR: Popular Annual Financial Report PAKTM27: sodium carbonate peroxyhydrate PDWF: peak day weather flow PHG: Public Health Goal PMWWF: Peak Maximum Wet Weather Flow psi: pounds per square inch PRSP: Pension Rate Stabilization Plan PVC: polyvinyl chloride PWWF: Peak wet weather flow ACRONYMS AND DEFINITIONS x NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR R&R: Renewal and Replacement RCAC: Rural Community Assistance Corporation RCD: Resource conservation district RCP: reinforced concrete RD: Reclamation District RFP: Request for Proposals RMS: Resource Management System RRWTP: Rector Reservoir Water Treatment Plant RUL: Rural Urban Limit Line RWQCB: Regional Water Quality Control Board SCADA: Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition SCWA: Solano County Water Agency SDWA: Safe Drinking Water Act SDWIS: Safe Drinking Water Information System SFD: Single family dwelling SFWD: Spanish Flat Water District SGMA: Sustainable Groundwater Management Act SOI: Sphere of influence SSMP: Sewer System Management Plan SSO: Sewer System Overflow SSOs: Sanitary Sewer Overflows SWP: State Water Project SWRCB: State Water Resources Control Board SWRF: Soscol Water Recycling Facility T&O: taste and odor TDS: Total dissolvable solids THM: trihalomethanes TMDL: Total maximum daily load TOC: Total Organic Carbon TON: Threshold Odor Number TS: Time Schedule Order TSS: total suspended solids TTHMs: total trihalomethanes UAC: Utilities Advisory Commission ULL: Urban Limit Line USA: Urban Service Area USBR: U.S. Bureau of Reclamation USDA: U.S. Department of Agriculture USEPA: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency UV: Ultraviolet UWMP: Urban Water Management Plan VCP: vitrify clay pipe WARMF: Watershed Analysis Risk Management Framework WATRTAC: Water Resources Technical Advisory Committee WICC: Watershed Information and Conservation Council WLAs: Waste Load Allocations WQLS: Water Quality Limited Segments ACRONYMS AND DEFINITIONS xi NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR WRF: Water Reclamation Facility WRR: water reclamation requirements WSAP: Water Shortage Allocation Plan WSA: Water Supply Agreement WSIP: Water System Improvement Program WSV: Water Supply Verifications WTP: Water Treatment Plant WWRF: Wastewater Reclamation Facility WWTP: Wastewater Treatment Plant ZWF: Zero Water Footprint ACRONYMS AND DEFINITIONS xii NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR P R EFAC E Prepared for the Local Agency Formation Commission of Napa County (LAFCO), this report is a countywide water and wastewater services review—a state-required comprehensive study of services within a designated geographic area. This Service Review focuses on local agencies and other service providers in Napa County that provide water and wastewater services. CONTEXT Napa County LAFCO is required to prepare this Countywide Water Service Review by the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 (Government Code §56000, et seq.), which took effect on January 1, 2001. The water and wastewater service review examines services provided by public agencies whose boundaries and governance are subject to LAFCO. Those agencies providing water and wastewater services in Napa County are the focus of this review. CREDITS The authors extend their appreciation to those individuals at the many agencies that provided planning and financial information and documents used in this report. The contributors are listed individually at the end of this report. Napa LAFCO staff provided project coordination and GIS support. This report was prepared in conjunction by Policy Consulting Associates, LLC and Berkson Associates, and was co-authored by Jennifer Stephenson, Oxana Wolfson, and Richard Berkson. Jennifer Stephenson served as project manager. PREFACE xiii NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR 1. EXECUTI V E S UM M A RY This report is a countywide service review report on water and wastewater services prepared for the Napa Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO). A service review is a State-required comprehensive study of services within a designated geographic area, in this case, Napa County. The service review requirement is codified in the Cortese-Knox- Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 (Government Code §56000 et seq.). PROVIDERS Overview This review focuses on water and wastewater services provided in incorporated and unincorporated Napa County. The 14 agencies reviewed in this report and the services provided are listed in Figure 1-1. Of the districts reviewed, 11 provide domestic water services, five provide recycled water, and 10 provide wastewater collection and treatment. Figure 1-1: Water and Wastewater Service Providers in Napa County Services Agency Recycled Water Water Wastewater City of American Canyon P P P City of Calistoga P P P City of Napa P City of St. Helena P 1 P Town of Yountville P P P Circle Oaks Water District P P Congress Valley Water District P Lake Berryessa Resort Improvement District P P Los Carneros Water District P Napa Berryessa Resort Improvement District P P Napa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District P Napa River Reclamation District P Napa Sanitation District P P Spanish Flat Water District P P The agencies reviewed are largely located in the Napa Valley and around Lake Berryessa as shown in Figure 1-2. 1 The City of St. Helena treats wastewater and spray discharges on a city-owned field, which does not replace the use of potable water and is not considered recycled water. CHAPTER 1: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Lake County ! ! ! ! Yolo County ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! LBRID ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Canyon R d ! ! ! ! B utts P o p e V PopeCanyon R d ! ! Sonoma County ! alley ! ! Rd ! ! ! ! Jurisdictional ! ! ! ! ! ! C ! alistoga SilveradoTrl C h ile s P o p e V alleyRd Berrye s sa B K n o e xv L r ille r a R d y k e e ssa ! ! ! ! Boundaries ! ! ! SFWD ! C C C C i a i i t t t n y y y y o o o o f f f n A C N m a a l p i e a s r t i o c g a a n ! ! ! ! ! ! ! St. Helena Conn ValleyRd He L nn ak es e sey NBRID State High w ay 12 ! ! ! 8 ! ! ! City of St. Helena ! ! Town of Yountville ! ! ! ! A tlas P eak R d ! ! ! ! COCWD ! ! ! ! ! Yountville ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Re ! M d ! w o o u o n d tV R e e D d d r e y r R C d reek R d a Atl s P ea N k S R D d 3rd A v e ! ! W oo ! den Valle ! y R d C L ! u a r k r G e y ord ! on V alley !R d ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Napa ! µ ! CVWD ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! LCWD ! ! ! Solano County ! ! ! NRRD ! ! ! ! ! Napa American ! ! River Canyon ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Figure 1-2 £¤ 29 £¤ 128 Bell Canyon Reservoir £¤ 29 £¤ 128 Rector Reservoir Napa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (NCFCWCD) Napa Sanitation Napa River Milliken District (NSD) £¤ 29 Reservoir Circle Oaks County Water District (COCWD) Congress Valley Water District (CVWD) Lake Berryessa Resort Improvement District NSD (LBRID) Los Carneros Water District (LCWD) £¤ Napa Berryessa 12 £¤ 221 Resort Improvement District (NBRID) Spanish Flat Water NSD £¤ 12 District (SFWD) Napa River Reclamation District No. 2109 (NRRD) 0 1.25 2.5 5Miles £¤ Prepared by LAFCO Staff 80 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Jurisdictional µ Boundaries ! ! LBRID PopeCanyon R d ! ! ! ! ! Lake ! Berryessa B ! erryessaKn o ! ! Yolo xville R ! County d ! ! ChilesPopeValley ! ! R d ! ! ! Lower SFWD ! C hiles ! Valley ! ConnValleyRd R d Sage Canyon R d NBRID Stat e High way1 ! ! 2!8 ! Lake ! Hennessey ! ! ! ! ! N Ri a v p e a r Oakville Cross Rd da CanyonRd A tlas P eak R d Monti c ello Rd ! ! ! ! C So o l u a n n t o y o S ta te H YountM ill R d S ilv e ar d o S COCWD ! ! ighway29 T rl A tlas P ! ! e a ! k R d ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Figure 1-2a 0 0.5 1 2Miles Napa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (NCFCWCD) Circle Oaks County Water District (COCWD) Lake Berryessa Resort Improvement District (LBRID) Napa Berryessa Resort Improvement District (NBRID) Spanish Flat Water District (SFWD) Prepared by LAFCO Staff £¤ 128 £¤ 128 £¤ 128 Rector Reservoir £¤ 128 £¤ 29 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! NSD ! Napa ! River ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Sonoma ! ! County ! Napa ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! CVWD ! ! ! µ ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! LCWD ! Jurisdictional ! ! Boundaries ! ! ! Napa River ! ! Reclamation District ! No. 2109 (NRRD) ! ! Napa Sanitation ! District (NSD) ! NRRD ! ! City of American ! ! ! Canyon ! ! City of Napa ! ! !! ! Congress Valley ! ! ! Water District American ! Solano ! (CVWD) ! ! Canyon County Los Carneros Water ! ! ! District (LCWD) ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Figure 1-2b So d a C an yo n R o ad Milliken £¤ 29 Silverad Reservoir o Trail Atlas Peak Road D M o unt Veeder Road ry Creek Road Oak Knoll Avenue B ig R Monticello Road an ch R o ad R ed w o o d R o ad Hagen Road e v A ts 1 3rd A venu e n u e NSD Coombsville Road d a o R ma o n o d S Ol £¤ £¤221 0 0.4250.85 1.7Miles 29 NSD £¤ 12 Napa River Napa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (NCFCWCD) £¤ 80 Prepared by LAFCO Staff NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR WATER SERVICES This report reviews indicators of water service adequacy for each of the service providers, including distribution system integrity as defined by breaks and leaks and system water loss, and drinking water quality. Based on these indicators, it was found that all agencies in Napa provide at least minimally adequate services. Certain improvements could be made to the services offered. In particular, the City of Calistoga, Lake Berryessa Resort Improvement District, and Napa Berryessa Resort Improvement District need to address the relatively high levels of water loss in the water systems. Additionally, Lake Berryessa Resort Improvement District and Spanish Flat Water District could greatly improve on regulatory compliance for the water systems. It is apparent that the smaller agencies with limited budgets and staffing constraints struggled most with planning for and addressing infrastructure needs and complying with regulatory requirements. These districts would greatly benefit from technical support from one of the larger agencies or through reorganization as a single large provider as discussed in Governance Structure Options. Ensuring adequate water supply availability is a priority for all agencies. It was found that during normal year scenarios, all of the public water retailers in Napa have sufficient water supply under normal conditions given existing demand. However, the Circle Oaks County Water District need to institute additional water conservation measures to prevent fluctuation in demand. Also, it is recommended that Circle Oaks CWD perform an assessment on its water system to determine firm and safe yield of its existing water sources and identify an appropriate location for another well. WASTEWATER SERVICES Indicators of wastewater service adequacy evaluated as part of this report consist of collection system integrity and regulatory compliance. There are several measures of integrity of the wastewater collection system. For the purposes of this report integrity is defined by the rate of sanitary sewer overflows and peaking factors as a result of infiltration and inflow. Similar to the water service providers, it was found that all of the wastewater agencies provide at least minimally adequate services. Significant improvements should be made to address the high rate of sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs) reported by Lake Berryessa Resort Improvement District, Napa Berryessa Resort Improvement District, and the City of St. Helena. A number of agencies struggled to provide accurate wastewater flow data for the five- year period 2014 to 2018. It is essential that these agencies institute a data management system where flow is tracked and recorded on a regular basis and make this information readily available upon request in an easy to read format. Due to the limited information available on wastewater flows during dry and wet weather conditions, peaking factors could not be calculated for many agencies to determine the extent of infiltration and inflow in the systems. However, based on the information available it is apparent that a majority, if not all, of the wastewater providers are greatly impacted by infiltration and inflow. A majority of the agencies have initiated programs CHAPTER 1: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR directed at addressing problem areas in order to reduce the impact on the system during wet weather events. Similar to the water agencies, the smaller wastewater agencies are challenged by planning for and addressing infrastructure needs and complying with regulatory requirements. Reorganization as a single large provider, such as a county water district as discussed in Governance Structure Options may augment the level of services offered. RECYCLED WATER Four agencies produce recycled water for beneficial reuse—the cities of American Canyon and Calistoga, the Town of Yountville, and Napa Sanitation District. The City of St. Helena is considering implementing a recycled water program. The agencies must meet strict water quality regulations to provide recycled water. Production of recycled water is constrained by the volume of wastewater flowing into the reclamation facilities, while demand is greatly contingent on weather conditions. Some agencies are encouraging customers to fill storage with the recycled water during the off season at free or reduced prices to maximize the ratio of beneficial reuse to volume of effluent. The City of Calistoga and the Town of Yountville are nearing maximum reuse for present conditions. There is potential for expansion of recycled water use in the City of American Canyon and Napa Sanitation District service areas. Both agencies continue to evaluate the means to maximize recycled water demand and availablity. The City of St. Helena is in the process of making substantial improvements at its wastewater treatment facility that will increase the level of treatment and make recycled water services feasible. FINANCIAL ABILITY TO PROVIDE SERVICES Water and wastewater service providers in Napa County face numerous financial challenges unique to Napa County as well as those common to local governments throughout California. Examples of challenges include: v Costs to comply with increasing regulatory standards and requirements v Repair and replacement of aging infrastructure v Limited ability of residents to continue to absorb increasing operational and capital costs v Growing financial demands caused by unfunded pension liabilities v Costs to repair and protect against climate change, drought, wildfire, and other natural disasters In Napa County there are numerous water and wastewater agencies formed in the 1950’s and subsequent decades prior to the creation of LAFCO. Many of these agencies provided limited services to smaller, rural areas and are having financial difficulty responding to growing costs and service demands. While none of the agencies appear to be in fiscal distress and at risk of financial failure, the smaller agencies are often less able to plan for and address fiscal issues; however, several CHAPTER 1: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 4 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR smaller agencies in Napa County benefit from management and services provided by larger agencies, such as the County. Many agencies, particularly the smaller districts, do not prepare plans and policies representative of “Best Practices.” Without adequate financial planning documents, it is difficult to assess and provide for financial stability, transparency, and public engagement. Essential planning documents that typically receive low priority include capital improvement programs including costs, timing and future funding sources; fully documented budgets and financial reports; current cost of service studies necessary to adjust rates to assure adequate funding for operations and ongoing capital requirements. In many cases, weak financial conditions can be improved through reorganizations that take advantage of the economies of scale that may be achieved by a larger entity, and by the expertise and shared resources of a larger organization. While elements of “local control” may be lost, mitigations are possible through creation of local advisory groups. This MSR provides examples of ways that services and financial conditions may be improved, for example through collaborations and reorganizations involving larger entities. The recent and ongoing COVID-19 pandemic is significantly affecting local agencies’ financial ability to provide services. Utility enterprises generally are less affected due to their ability to raise revenues as needed to cover costs; however, late or non-payment of utility and property tax bills and assessments, reduced consumption and related revenues, and limited ability of ratepayers to absorb increased rates will be issues of concern. Cities that share staff and overhead services with their enterprises are experiencing reduced sales tax and hotel tax revenues from cessation of tourist activity, adversely affecting their ability to fund shared services and overhead. Long-term implications are unknown, but in the near- term, agencies are deferring rate increases and postponing capital projects, eliminating vacant positions, and in some cases reducing staff. COVID-19 conditions and impacts highlight the importance of considering service and facility sharing options and reorganizations that could improve financial conditions. A countywide governance option could facilitate not only responses to pandemic-induced economic factors, but also to natural disasters such as wildfire, earthquakes, flooding. RECOMMENDATIONS Throughout this review recommendations are made for each of the reviewed agencies with regard to various aspects of the administration and operation of the agency and its services. Many of the recommendations were applicable to multiple agencies. In particular, the data tracking, planning efforts, and mandated reporting of the smaller agencies are challenged by minimal budgets and staffing constraints. Those agencies that provide out of area services could improve on how the extraterritorial services are tracked and recorded in a useful format. 1) It is recommended that all agencies review their websites to ensure compliance with AB 2257. 2) All agencies should review their existing system or develop a data management system where essential information is collected, consistency and accuracy of information is enhanced, and information is readily available to the public in a format CHAPTER 1: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 5 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR that is easily interpretable. This is an opportunity for enhanced collaboration and resource sharing amongst the agencies. 3) All of the cities should develop and have on record GIS compatible maps of these extra-territorial service connections. 4) Well-managed organizations plan and budget for capital replacement needs, conduct master planning to have a comprehensive view of the existing and planned utility system, and conduct advance planning for projected future growth. Many of the agencies reviewed could improve upon these best management practices. 5) Provision of trucked water without limitations has the potential to promote development and growth in unincorporated areas where water supply is not sustainable, and which may adversely affect agricultural uses. Of the six providers that make water available for hauling, only Napa Sanitation District and the City of St. Helena have adopted policies that clearly define the priority of use of trucked water. It is recommended that approved uses and locations for trucking of water be defined in each City’s municipal code. In addition, while the County’s General Plan Policy CON-53 requires all discretionary projects to demonstrate an adequate water supply prior to approval, the County should be explicit about its conditions for use of trucked water in its review process to facilitate public discussion about trucked water. 6) The smaller agencies are challenged to comply with all reporting requirements to the regulating agencies. The most common violation amongst the smaller districts is deficient reporting. Significant improvements need to be made in order to protect the public health and ensure adequacy of services offered. It is recommended that the districts make compliance with reporting requirements a priority to enhance service levels. GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE ALTERNATIVES Over the course of this MSR several governance options were identified with respect to each of the agencies under review. These options are summarized in the Overview chapter (Chapter 3). Refer to the affected agency’s chapter for discussion on options specific to that agency. In addition to the agency specific options, the potential for a county water agency and/or a countywide county water district was also identified. These options have the potential to affect many or all of the reviewed agencies in the County. Forming a county water agency or county water district would require further evaluation of numerous opportunities and constraints: v Efficient use of the County’s water resources, v Enhanced water resource management, v Solidarity amongst Napa water purveyors with greater leveraging power, v Greater scrutiny of all utility providers, v Enhanced technical and operational support for local providers, v Elimination of redundancies and duplication of efforts amongst the smaller systems, and CHAPTER 1: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 6 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR v Improved economies of scale. Concerns that need to be addressed through stakeholder discussion and analysis include: v Achieving consensus among affected agencies about the form, organization, jurisdiction and services, v Retaining local control, v Composition of the decision-making body, v Funding of upfront organizational costs, v Ongoing revenues sources that are equitable to each community, and v Willingness of all agencies to adapt to new or altered roles. The MSR recommends that water purveyors in Napa begin discussions regarding their vision for water utilities in the County in the long term to address existing concerns and to provide reliable and sustainable water services throughout the County. This discussion can address issues related to a countywide agency, as well as other options for collaboration such as a JPA and contracting for services between agencies. CHAPTER 1: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 7 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR 2. B ACKGROUND This report is prepared pursuant to legislation enacted in 2000 that requires LAFCO to conduct a comprehensive review of municipal service delivery and update the spheres of influence (SOIs) of all agencies under LAFCO’s jurisdiction. This chapter provides an overview of LAFCO’s powers and responsibilities. It discusses legal requirements for preparation of the municipal services review (MSR), and describes the process for MSR review, MSR approval and SOI updates. LAFCO OVERVIEW LAFCO regulates, through approval, denial, conditions and modification, boundary changes proposed by public agencies or individuals. It also regulates the extension of public services by cities and special districts outside their boundaries. LAFCO is empowered to initiate updates to the SOIs and proposals involving the dissolution or consolidation of special districts, mergers, establishment of subsidiary districts, and any reorganization including such actions. Otherwise, LAFCO actions must originate as petitions or resolutions from affected voters, landowners, cities or districts. MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW LEGISLATION The Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 requires LAFCO review and update SOIs not less than every five years and to review municipal services before updating SOIs. The requirement for service reviews arises from the identified need for a more coordinated and efficient public service structure to support California’s anticipated growth. The service review provides LAFCO with a tool to study existing and future public service conditions comprehensively and to evaluate organizational options for accommodating growth, preventing urban sprawl, and ensuring that critical services are provided efficiently. Government Code §56430 requires LAFCO to conduct a review of municipal services provided in the county by region, sub-region or other designated geographic area, or by type of service, as appropriate, for the service or services to be reviewed, and prepare a written statement of determination with respect to each of the following topics: v Growth and population projections for the affected area; v The location and characteristics of any disadvantaged unincorporated communities (DUCs) within or contiguous to the SOI; v Present and planned capacity of public facilities and adequacy of public services, including infrastructure needs or deficiencies (including needs or deficiencies related to sewers, municipal and industrial water, and structural fire protection in any DUCs within or contiguous to the sphere of influence); v Financial ability of agencies to provide services; v Status of, and opportunities for shared facilities; v Accountability for community service needs, including governmental structure and operational efficiencies; and CHAPTER 2: BACKGROUND 8 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR v Any other matter related to effective or efficient service delivery, as required by commission policy. MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW PROCESS The MSR process does not require LAFCO to initiate changes of organization based on service review findings, only that LAFCO identify potential government structure options. However, LAFCO, other local agencies, and the public may subsequently use the determinations to analyze prospective changes of organization or reorganization or to establish or amend SOIs. Within its legal authorization, LAFCO may act with respect to a recommended change of organization or reorganization on its own initiative (e.g., certain types of consolidations), or in response to a proposal (i.e., initiated by resolution or petition by landowners or registered voters). MSRs are exempt from California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to §15306 (information collection) of the CEQA Guidelines. LAFCO’s actions to adopt MSR determinations are not considered “projects” subject to CEQA. SPHERE OF INFLUENCE UPDATES The Commission is charged with developing and updating the sphere of influence (SOI) for each city and special district within the county.2 SOIs must be updated every five years or as necessary. In determining the SOI, LAFCO is required to complete an MSR and adopt the seven determinations previously discussed. An SOI is a LAFCO-approved plan that designates an agency’s probable future boundary and service area. Spheres are planning tools used to provide guidance for individual boundary change proposals and are intended to encourage efficient provision of organized community services and prevent duplication of service delivery. Territory cannot be annexed by LAFCO to a city or a district unless it is within that agency's sphere. The purposes of the SOI include the following: to ensure the efficient provision of services, discourage urban sprawl and premature conversion of agricultural and open space lands, and prevent overlapping jurisdictions and duplication of services. LAFCO cannot regulate land use, dictate internal operations or administration of any local agency, or set rates. LAFCO is empowered to enact policies that indirectly affect land use decisions. On a regional level, LAFCO promotes logical and orderly development of communities as it considers and decides individual proposals. LAFCO has a role in reconciling differences between agency plans so that the most efficient urban service arrangements are created for the benefit of current and future area residents and property owners. The Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg (CKH) Act requires to develop and determine the SOI of each local governmental agency within the county and to review and update the SOI every five years. LAFCOs are empowered to adopt, update and amend the SOI. They may do so with or without an application and any interested person may submit an application proposing an SOI amendment. 2 The initial statutory mandate, in 1971, imposed no deadline for completing sphere designations. When most LAFCOs failed to act, 1984 legislation required all LAFCOs to establish spheres of influence by 1985. CHAPTER 2: BACKGROUND 9 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR LAFCO may recommend government reorganizations to particular agencies in the county, using the SOIs as the basis for those recommendations. In addition, in adopting or amending an SOI, LAFCO must make the following determinations: v Present and planned land uses in the area, including agricultural and open-space lands; v Present and probable need for public facilities and services in the area; v Present capacity of public facilities and adequacy of public service that the agency provides or is authorized to provide; v Existence of any social or economic communities of interest in the area if the Commission determines these are relevant to the agency; and v Present and probable need for water, wastewater, and structural fire protection facilities and services of any DUCs within the existing sphere of influence. By statute, LAFCO must notify affected agencies 21 days before holding the public hearing to consider the SOI and may not update the SOI until after that hearing. The LAFCO Executive Officer must issue a report including recommendations on the SOI amendments and updates under consideration at least five days before the public hearing. DISADVANTAGED UNINCORPORATED COMMUNITIES LAFCO is required to evaluate disadvantaged unincorporated communities (DUCs) as part of this service review, including the location and characteristics of any such communities. The purpose of Senate Bill (SB) 244 (Wolk, 2011) is to begin to address the complex legal, financial, and political barriers that contribute to regional inequity and infrastructure deficits within DUCs. Identifying and including these communities in the long-range planning of a city or a special district is required by SB 244. The Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act (CKH) requires LAFCO to make determinations regarding DUCs when considering a change of organization, reorganization, sphere of influence expansion, and when conducting municipal service reviews. For any updates to an SOI of a local agency (city or special district) that provides public facilities or services related to sewer, municipal and industrial water, or structural fire protection, LAFCO shall consider and prepare written determinations regarding the present and planned capacity of public facilities and adequacy of public services, and infrastructure needs or deficiencies for any DUC within or contiguous to the SOI of a city or special district.3 CKH prohibits LAFCO from approving an annexation to a city of any territory greater than 10 acres if a DUC is contiguous to the proposed annexation, unless an application to annex the DUC has been filed with LAFCO. An application to annex a contiguous DUC shall not be required if a prior application for annexation of the same DUC has been made in the 3 Government Codes §56425(e)5, Present and Probable need; disadvantaged unincorporated communities CHAPTER 2: BACKGROUND 10 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR preceding five years or if the Commission finds, based upon written evidence, that a majority of the registered voters within the affected territory are opposed to annexation.4 Government Code §56033.5 defines a DUC as 1) all or a portion of a “disadvantaged community” as defined by §79505.5 of the Water Code, and as 2) “inhabited territory” (12 or more registered voters), as defined by §56046, or as determined by commission policy. Napa Local Agency Formation Commission has adopted a policy that defines a DUC as territory that meets all of the following: 1) substantially developed with primarily residential uses as determined by the Commission by considering the factors set forth in subsection (b)(4) of Government Code §56375.3, 2) does not have reliable public water, sewer, or structural fire protection service available, 3) meets the definition of “inhabited territory,” meaning at least 12 registered voters, and 4) has a median household income level of less than 80 percent of the statewide median household income based on available data provided by the U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey.5 According to Napa LAFCO’s definition of DUCs, there are currently no DUCs in Napa County. Based on the adopted policy, the Commission annually reviews Census Bureau American Community Survey data to determine if local and/or statewide median household income levels have changed.6 However, the Rural Community Assistance Corporation (RCAC) conducted a Median Household Income Survey on behalf of the Lake Berryessa Resort Improvement District (LBRID) in the spring of 2018 and determined that the community qualified as a Disadvantaged Community (DAC) under its own definition.7 The DAC status enabled application to the State for financial assistance. The results of the survey apply for a five-year period and a new survey is likely in 2023.8 4Government Codes section 56375 (a) (8) (A)- Annexations Greater than 10 acres; Contiguous to a DUC 5 Napa Local Agency Formation Commission, Policy on Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities, 2018. 6 Napa Local Agency Formation Commission, Policy on Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities, 2018. 7 LBRID Agenda Letter 9/11/18. 8 Follow-up response rec’d 12/9/19 to LBRID interview 12/4/19. CHAPTER 2: BACKGROUND 11 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR 3. OV ERVIEW This chapter provides an overview of water and wastewater service providers in Napa County. The most recent municipal service review (MSR) for water providers in Napa County was completed in 2004 and for wastewater providers in 2005. Additional MSRs were completed for individual agencies at various times, the details of which are included in individual agency chapters. For the detailed description of each local agency, please refer to the agency-specific chapters of this report. SETTING Napa County is located north of San Francisco and San Pablo Bay. It is abutted by Sonoma County to the west, Lake County to the northwest, Yolo County to the northeast, and Solano County to the east and south. The County is a world-famous grape-growing and wine-making region with a viable agriculture industry. Napa County has adopted various policies to protect its agricultural industry and maintain its rural character. It promotes agricultural preservation, resource conservation and urban-centered growth. Initially, Napa County contained no incorporated cities—the first city, Napa, incorporated in 1872. St. Helena became a city in 1876, followed by Calistoga in 1886. Almost 80 years would elapse before the next incorporation of Yountville in 1965. The incorporation of American Canyon in 1992 completed what is likely the last incorporation in the County. Modern Napa County remains sparsely settled outside of the incorporated cities and town and a small number of urbanized areas in the unincorporated county. Although the County has grown, it has grown relatively slowly, particularly compared to the other counties in the Bay Area. Napa County remains relatively small in terms of population as compared to other Bay Area counties. The entire population of Napa County in 2019 was 140,779. On April 9, 1968, the Napa County Board of Supervisors passed the ordinance that created the first Agricultural Preserve in the United States. This statute launched a succession of progressive land use policies to prevent the urbanization of agricultural and open space lands in the fertile Napa Valley and foothill areas of Napa County. The Agricultural Preserve district is a zoning designation in the County General Plan that sets a minimum parcel size of 40 acres. The Agricultural Preserve district classification is intended to be applied in the fertile valley floor areas of Napa County in which agriculture is and should continue to be the predominant land use, where uses incompatible to agriculture should be precluded and where the development of urban-type uses would be detrimental to the continuance of agriculture and the maintenance of open space which are economic and aesthetic attributes and assets of the County. No land has ever been removed from the Agricultural Preserve. Napa County has managed to retain its prime vineyard lands in production, while vast tracts of farmland in other parts of the Bay Area have been urbanized. Water Resources Water in Napa County is one of the most complex issues related to land use planning, development, and conservation; it is governed and affected by hundreds of federal, state, CHAPTER 3: OVERVIEW 12 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR regional, and local mandates pertaining to pollution, land use, mineral resources, flood protection, soil erosion, reclamation, etc. Every year, the State legislature considers hundreds of bills related to water issues, and in Napa County, more than two dozen agencies have some say in decisions and regulations affecting water quality and water use. The unincorporated areas of Napa County rely principally on groundwater resources and surface water collection, while the incorporated areas rely on local reservoirs and regional water providers. Principal exceptions include the County’s Airport Industrial Area, which relies on municipal water from the cities of Napa and American Canyon; the Silverado area, which relies on municipal water from the City of Napa; a number of small communities around Lake Berryessa, which rely on water from the lake; and other developed areas like Angwin, which relies on private water suppliers. There are three main groundwater basins in Napa County: the North Napa Valley Basin (NNV), Milliken- Sarco-Tulocay (MST), and Carneros. The NNV is the largest basin, extending from just north of Napa to the northwestern end of the valley just north of Calistoga. The MST basin is the second largest groundwater basin in the County, located adjacent to the city of Napa along the eastern edge of the valley floor. The Carneros basin is a very small basin at the southern end of the county. The MST basin is considered a Groundwater Deficient Area as groundwater levels have been in decline primarily since 1975 due to increases in agricultural uses. The Napa County Board of Supervisors adopted a groundwater ordinance in 1996. The ordinance is intended to regulate the extraction and use and promote the preservation of the County’s groundwater resources. Periodic review and revisions to the ordinance to identify groundwater areas in decline or projected decline are essential components of the ordinance. Compliance with this ordinance applies to the development of new water systems or improvements to an existing water system that may use groundwater. In 2009, Napa County embarked on a countywide project referred to as the “Comprehensive Groundwater Monitoring Program, Data Review, and Policy Recommendations for Napa County’s Groundwater Resources” (Comprehensive Groundwater Monitoring Program) to meet identified action items in the 2008 General Plan update. The program emphasizes developing a sound understanding of groundwater conditions and implementing an expanded groundwater monitoring and data management program as a foundation for future coordinated, integrated water resources planning and dissemination of water resources information. In 2019, the California Department of Water Resources instructed Napa County to form a local groundwater agency to create a Napa Valley subbasin groundwater sustainability plan. Under state law, a groundwater sustainability agency (GSA) has the power to conduct investigations, measure and limit groundwater pumping, impose fees on property owners for groundwater management and enforce the groundwater management plan that it creates. On December 17, 2019, the Napa County Board of Supervisors conducted a public hearing and adopted a resolution affirming Napa County’s intention to manage groundwater in the Napa Valley Subbasin and to form the Napa County Groundwater Sustainability Agency pursuant to Water Code §10724. Napa County has since formed its GSA with the five Napa County Supervisors as the Board. The GSA appointed a Groundwater Sustainability Plan Advisory Committee with 25 members, representing various stakeholders. CHAPTER 3: OVERVIEW 13 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR Water Supply Projections Projecting water needs involves planning for “wet” and “dry” years, having adequate supplies, and having enough storage and capacity to hold and deliver needed water. According to predictions, during wet years, with ample rainfall, there is currently and will be enough water for all users, though not all users have sufficient capacity to store what they need. Projections for dry years, however, shows users in both Napa’s incorporated and unincorporated areas may not have enough water to meet all their needs through the year 2050. In other words, both municipal water supplies and groundwater supplies may face deficits in the next 30 years.9 Water and Wastewater Service Providers This review focuses on water and wastewater services provided in incorporated and unincorporated Napa County. The 14 agencies reviewed in this report are listed in Figure 3- 1. Of the districts reviewed, 11 provide domestic water services, five provide recycled water, and 10 provide wastewater collection and treatment. Figure 3-1: Water and Wastewater Service Providers in Napa County Services Agency Water Recycled Water Wastewater City of American Canyon P P P City of Calistoga P P P City of Napa P City of St. Helena P 10 P Town of Yountville P P P Circle Oaks Water District P P Congress Valley Water District P Lake Berryessa Resort Improvement District P P Los Carneros Water District P Napa Berryessa Resort Improvement District P P Napa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District P Napa River Reclamation District P Napa Sanitation District P P Spanish Flat Water District P P 9 West Yost & Associates, 2050 Napa Valley Water Resources Study, 2005. 10 The City of St. Helena treats wastewater and spray discharges on a city-owned field, which does not replace the use of potable water and is not considered recycled water. CHAPTER 3: OVERVIEW 14 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR The private water purveyors are not subject to LAFCO jurisdiction and their review is not included in this report. In Napa County, there are 20 private water providers that meet the definition of a community water system—a water system which serves at least 15 year- round service connections or regularly serves at least 25 year-long residents. A majority of these systems rely on groundwater; however, only three are subject to groundwater monitoring requirements. Figure 3-2: Private Community Water Systems in Napa County Service Community Water Water Subject Connections Population Area System Name Source to GSA (Acres) Adventist Health - St. Helena Hospital 227.00 660.00 14.80 Groundwater No Calistoga Farm Worker Center 3 63 1.40 Groundwater Yes Capell Valley Estates 90 250 15.70 Surface water No Carneros Inn 1 30 27.70 City of Napa11 No Espinoza Water System 1 30 0.90 Groundwater Yes Hess Winery 1 100 12.00 Groundwater No Howell Mountain Mutual Water Company 380 1,035 345.60 Surface water No La Tierra Height Mutual Water Company 19 67 11.90 Groundwater No Linda Falls Terrace Mutual Water Company 10 35 62.70 Groundwater No Linda Vista Mutual Water Company 15 50 120.30 Groundwater No Meyers Water Company 96 250 37.80 Groundwater No Milton Road Water Company 25 55 3.70 Groundwater No Mondavi Farm Worker Center 2 63 2.30 Groundwater No Moore's Resort 20 70 38.10 Groundwater No Pacific Union College 312 2,360 680.00 Groundwater No R Ranch at the Lake 1 28 238.50 Groundwater No River Ranch Farm Worker Center 4 66 1.50 Groundwater No Silverado Pines Mobile Home 1 255 9.90 Groundwater Yes Tucker Acres Mutual Water Company 23 200 38.30 Groundwater No Vailima Estates Mutual Water Company 15 25 81.20 Groundwater Unknown Totals (20 Water 17 GW / 3 Yes / Systems) 1,246 5,692 1,744.30 3 SW 16 No 11 Carneros Inn initiated water service from the City of Napa in 2020 to replace its use of groundwater. CHAPTER 3: OVERVIEW 15 Figure 3-3 Lake County Yolo County d R Canyon B utts P o p e PopeCanyon R V d alley Rd Lake S C ilv a er l a i d s o t ^ o Tr g l a 2 15 8 A ^ ^ n ^ gwin 7 9 C h ile s P o p e V alleyRd Berrye B s s e a K r n r ox y vil e le R ssa ^^ d ^ 10 19 ^ ^ 1 Sonoma County Spring Mou S n t ta 2 . i n 0 H Rd elena 14 ^ C ^ onn Va 1 ll 7 e S y a R ge d Canyon Rd ^ St e el e C anyonRd State High w ay 128 16 ^ 3 Legend Unincorporated Area Incorporated Area Yountville ^ 13 S 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 C ) ) ) ) ) ) ) o A C C C E H H m s a a a d e o p l p r s v w m i n i s e s e n e e t l n u W o o l r l t l o n z g V i i s M s a a n i a t t e I l W F y H o l n r e a u y n a e W y r n t a m e t E l a a r t h s i W t S n t e a - y o M r t s S e r t S k s t W e . e m y H r C s C e te l e e m n n t a s e r Hospital M ou R nt e V d D w e r e y o d C o 6 e d re r R e R d k d N ^ R d apa tate H ig h w a y 2 9 B ig R ^ a n ch R d A s a tl P ea M k 5 o R n d tice 3 ll r o d A R v e d W ooden Valley R d G ordon V alley R d 8) La Tierra Heights ^ 18 Solano County 9) Linda Falls Terrace MWC 10) Linda Vista MWC 11) Meyers Water Company ^ 4 12) Milton Road Water Company 13) Mondavi Farm Worker Center 14) Moore's Resort ^ 1 1 5 6 ) ) P R a R ci a f n ic c h U a n t i o th n e C L o a ll k e e ge 12 14 ^ S A ta m teH e ig r h i w caayn12 17) River Ranch Farm Worker Center 11 ^ B Canyon Ü 18) Silverado Pines Mobile Home ro a d w 0 1 2 3 4 19) Tucker Acres MWC a y Miles 20) Vailima Estates NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR The Meyers Water Company is the sole private provider regulated by the California Public Utilities Commission. In addition to these providers, Pacific Union College in the unincorporated community of Angwin operates a water supply and distribution system for the college site and associated college housing.12 Because these systems serve the public yet are considered private, it is of interest which agency may ultimately bear responsibility should the system fail and/or be in need of assistance. Should a private system face compliance challenges and potential failure, there are safeguards in place to identify and prevent failure resulting in receivership. Once a system has gone into violation, the SWRCB mandates steps to remedy the violation. Should the system be unable to come into compliance, the SWRCB can elevate enforcement, fine the system, and eventually order the system to get assistance or take other specific actions to address the issues of concern. If the issues continue to persist after these steps, then the system may go into receivership by court order. There would need to be a willing receiver of the system, which, due to a lack of other suitable options, generally falls on the County. However, SWRCB reportedly prefers pushing for system consolidation or managerial consolidation to prevent receivership. POTENTIAL EFFECTS OF CLIMATIC SHIFTS ON UTILITY SYSTEMS Ongoing climatic shifts will affect water supply reliability throughout Napa County in the future. However, the degree, timing, and long-term effect will depend on numerous factors including natural climatic cyclicality (i.e., variability), atmosphere-ocean interactions, the robustness of the Pacific oscillation cycles, global emissions of greenhouse gases, and the Statewide adaptive capabilities of offsetting the resulting hydrologic changes, to name but a few. Since the delicate atmosphere-ocean feedback mechanisms that dictate global circulation of both the atmospheric and oceanic systems are driven by the energy balance of the earth, changes in that balance will affect our climate. Shifts in the energy balance, such as those caused by attenuated outgoing longwave radiation will affect climate to some degree. How such climatic shifts ultimately affect California and, more specifically, Napa County, will depend on each of the aforementioned factors. A dominating factor in the weather of California is the semi-permanent high-pressure area of the north Pacific Ocean. This pressure center typically moves northward in summer, holding storm tracks well to the north and, as a result, California receives little or no precipitation from this source during that period. In winter, however, the Pacific high typically retreats southward permitting storm centers to swing into and across California. These storms bring widespread precipitation to the State. When changes in the circulation pattern, however, permit storm centers to approach the California coast from a southwesterly direction, copious amounts of moisture are carried by the northeastward streaming air (the "Pineapple Express"). This circulation of the Pacific high, when combined with the topography of California is what influences the actual precipitation patterns observed on the ground.13 A major oscillation in the Pacific atmospheric circulation is known as the El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) condition. Under an ENSO condition, sea surface temperatures in the eastern Pacific are above normal and the central and eastern Pacific experience 12 Napa County, Public Services and Utilities, 2007. 13 Shibatani, Robert, 2011 Countywide Water Service Review, December 2011, p. 35. CHAPTER 3: OVERVIEW 17 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR increased convection activity. It is this convection activity that manifests itself into what we observe as a typically wet winter in California. The opposite ENSO phase is known as La Niña where, cold upwelling water in the eastern Pacific coincides with convection activity displaced further westwards towards the central Pacific. In California, this more distant displacement of Pacific convection activity is experienced as a drier period. 14 For Napa County, these effects will be experienced in three primary ways. First and foremost, will be a reduction of available imported water supplies. Second, will be a decrease in locally-derived water supplies, should the prevailing storm tracks experience permanent latitudinal shifts. And finally, the volume of freshwater inflows from melting permanent icepacks coupled with thermal expansion of the oceanic water bodies will lead to a rise in mean sea levels worldwide. 15 California's precipitation (and, therefore, primary water source) is largely focused in upper watershed areas or source areas. This time sensitive supply will likely experience both a change in character, from snow to rain, where a higher proportion of the annual precipitation could occur as rain, and a change in overall precipitation quantity as well as timing. With a shift in primary precipitation from snow to rain, the responsiveness of the draining streams and rivers will also be affected. No longer will the time-released capability of the existing snowpack play the role that it does today. It is expected, therefore, that alterations in hydrologic composition will occur and exhibit a more pronounced shift from snow-dominated to rain or rain/snow-dominated systems. For Napa County this has implications to water supply security by reducing the ability of the existing State Water Project (SWP) terminal reservoirs to manage altered inflow under their existing operational rules. 16 Generally, it can be surmised that, with less snowfall, watershed responses will be quicker and, in many cases, earlier. For all of the regions and systems within the State that rely on river flows, a decrease in the proportionality of the spring pulse can have significant implications as demands for allocations continue to increase. Under these diverging conditions, there will quite simply be less water to go around. This anticipated shortage includes the entire Delta watershed including the Delta itself, its upper catchments, Central Valley Project (CVP) and SWP terminal reservoirs, the mainstem rivers (Sacramento and San Joaquin) and their tributaries (e.g., Feather, American, Stanislaus, etc.), and to a lesser extent the Coastal watersheds and Southern California watersheds. 17 Acknowledging the various trends set forth in the numerous hydrological and climatological studies is very useful in providing the baseline from which to forewarn policy makers, water managers, and resource management practitioners of the potential repercussions of climatic shifts to water resources, including governance issues such as water rights. 18 Some of the likely trends that may negatively affect Napa County water supply include but are not limited to: 14 Shibatani, Robert, 2011 Countywide Water Service Review, December 2011, p. 35. 15 Shibatani, Robert, 2011 Countywide Water Service Review, December 2011, p. 36. 16 Shibatani, Robert, 2011 Countywide Water Service Review, December 2011, p. 36. 17 Shibatani, Robert, 2011 Countywide Water Service Review, December 2011, p. 36. 18 Shibatani, Robert, 2011 Countywide Water Service Review, December 2011, p. 36. CHAPTER 3: OVERVIEW 18 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR 1) Lower summer and late-spring runoff, 2) Higher mid-winter stream flows, 3) Altered total annual precipitation, 4) Shift in precipitation form, from snow to rain, 5) Snowpack peak water content earlier in the year, 6) Lower natural snowpack storage and, therefore, a decrease in time-delay capability, 7) More responsive watersheds (quicker flow response), 8) Watershed saturation and storage will occur earlier in the season, 9) Rates of water flows will by stunted (a more flattened unit hydrograph), 10) Existing ephemeral streams may dry up earlier, 11) Intensities of individual precipitation events may increase, and 12) Likely shift towards overall drier annual conditions. For each of these general trends, however, variations between watersheds will exist. Each watershed, some even adjacent to each other, will respond differently depending on their own inherent physiologic, geologic, pedologic, and hydrologic characteristics. Universal applicability of these trends across all watersheds is not possible—despite modelers’ attempts to do so. The degree to which these trends play out across California will depend significantly on the robustness of the shifts in Pacific storm tracks, which as discussed earlier, will depend on a complex series of atmospheric and hydro-climatological interactions. 19 For Napa County, the potential implications to water supply and water resources management resulting from these likely trends include, but are not limited to: 1) Reduced State contract deliveries, 2) Increased frequency of shortage impositions by State water managers on contractor deliveries, 3) Shifted seasonal availability from which Sierra Nevada supplies would be available, 4) Long-term shift away from imported supplies, 5) Increased need to develop new local/regional storage—with longer carryover potential, 6) Higher variability in inter-annual localized reservoir inflows (more intense drier and wetter periods), 7) Greater urgency to develop groundwater storage and banking, 8) Increased localized storm intensities, 9) Revisiting localized flood detention/stormwater management strategies, 10) Increased recycled water development, 19 Shibatani, Robert, 2011 Countywide Water Service Review, December 2011, p. 37. CHAPTER 3: OVERVIEW 19 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR 11) Longer-term sea level rise, and 12) Increased frequency of seasonal desiccation of localized streams, but coincident with higher peak flow events. LOCAL AND REGIONAL PLANNING CONTEXT Regional Water and Sanitation Planning Regional water planning has become increasingly critical to increase drought preparedness, regional self-sufficiency, sustainable resource management, and to improve coordination among land use and water planners. The Legislature promoted the concept by authorizing local public agencies to form regional water management groups and adopt regional plans to address qualified programs or projects (SB 1672). The legislation requires the State Department of Water Resources (DWR) to prioritize funding for projects identified in integrated regional water management plans (IRWMPs). Integrated resource planning is a comprehensive systems approach to resource management and planning that explores the cause-and-effect relationships affecting water resources. The plans are recommended to not only analyze the watershed and espouse principles, but also to effect change by including a finance plan with prioritized objectives, an implementation plan, and plans for ongoing performance measurement to evaluate progress. Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan San Francisco Bay Area water, wastewater, flood protection and stormwater management agencies; cities and counties represented by ABAG; and watershed management interests represented by the California Coastal Conservancy (CCC) and non- governmental organizations signed a Letter of Mutual Understanding (LOMU) to develop an Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (IRWMP) for the San Francisco Bay Area. Participants included the Bay Area Water Agencies Coalition (BAWAC) involving water supply and water quality, the Bay Area Clean Water Agencies (BACWA) involving wastewater and recycled water, Bay Area Flood Protection and Stormwater Management Agencies and Districts involving flood protection and stormwater management, and ABAG and the CCC involving watershed management and habitat protection and restoration. The IRWMP was first completed and adopted in 2006 and further expanded and updated in 2013. The Plan provides a framework to improve collective understanding and to take actions to collaboratively address the many major water related challenges, needs and conflicts within the Region through the 20-year planning horizon (2013-2033). The overall goals of the Plan are to: v Promote environmental, economic and social sustainability v Improve water supply reliability and quality v Protect and improve watershed health and function and Bay water quality v Improve regional flood management v Create, protect, enhance, and maintain environmental resources and habitats CHAPTER 3: OVERVIEW 20 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR The San Francisco Bay Area Region is currently preparing the update to meet the new requirements outlined in the Department of Water Resources (DWR) 2016 updated standards for Integrated Regional Water Management Plans (IRWMPs) and maintain funding eligibility. Urban Water Management Plans Urban Water Management Plans (UWMPs) are prepared by urban water suppliers every five years. These plans support the suppliers’ long-term resource planning to ensure that adequate water supplies are available to meet existing and future water needs. Every urban water supplier that either provides over 3,000 acre-feet of water annually or serves more than 3,000 urban connections is required to submit an UWMP. In Napa County, only the cities of Napa and American Canyon are required to adopt UWMPs. 2050 Napa Valley Water Resources Study The 2050 Napa Valley Water Resources Study was conducted by West Yost & Associates from 2003 to 2005 at the direction of the five Cities, the County of Napa, and the Napa Sanitation District (NSD). The participating agencies recognized the urgent need to update the previous Napa Valley regional water study completed in 1991, and a desire to take a long- term view in evaluating supply, demand, and potential projects. The final report of the 2050 Study was accepted by the Board of the Napa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (NCFCWCD) on November 15, 2005. The Study evaluated the ability of local and imported water supplies within Napa Valley to adequately meet existing and future water demands of Napa Valley’s municipal, rural and agricultural customers. Additionally, if available water supplies were found to be inadequate to meet demands, the Study was supposed to identify regional and local water supply options and projects to address the identified supply shortfalls. The 2050 Study reviewed each agency's long-term water supplies and demands then recommended potential individual and regional projects to address supply deficits in event of a drought. A number of those projects have since been implemented. Groundwater Sustainability Plan On January 7, 2020, the Napa County GSA held its first meeting, at which time the Agency approved a resolution authorizing the submittal of a $2.6-million dollar grant application to the DWR to support the development of a Groundwater Sustainability Plan for the Napa Valley Subbasin. On February 6, 2020, the Napa County GSA submitted notification to the Department of Water Resources of their intent to prepare a Groundwater Sustainability Plan for the Napa Valley Subbasin. Drought Contingency Plan In 2019, Napa County took the lead among local agencies in commissioning a Drought Contingency Plan to help cope with California’s next drought emergency. The study is estimated to cost $430,193. The City of Napa obtained a $200,000 grant from the Bureau of Reclamation to fund roughly half the associated costs of the study. The City requested that the County, the Cities and Town, and Napa Sanitation District participate to fund the remaining local cost-share, totaling an estimated $230,193. Each government’s payment toward the drought plan was based on its population and water use, with the City of Napa CHAPTER 3: OVERVIEW 21 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR paying about 60 percent of the local share. The plan will review the water supply and consumption in each city and agency and recommend potential projects to make up supply deficits during a drought. North Bay Water Reuse Program The North Bay Water Reuse Program (NBWRP) is a coordinated effort of 11 municipal, water and wastewater agencies working together to address water supply shortages from a regional, watershed perspective by investing in diverse projects to offset potable demand. Those projects provide community benefits in two fundamental ways: each project reflects the priorities and needs of each local agency, while concurrently, and incrementally, contributing toward water supply reliability for all water users throughout the region. The NBWRP has planned treatment, storage, distribution and water management projects to meet the broadest possible end user needs and in doing so, have yielded significant value for the region’s infrastructure investment. Napa County Integrated Water Resource Management Planning Framework Napa County Integrated Water Resource Management Planning Framework (Napa IWRMPF) is intended to provide a blueprint for developing an integrated planning and implementation initiative. The planning framework proposes a governance structure to facilitate the development of and participation in inter- and intra-regional water resource management by achieving locally specific stakeholder-endorsed goals and objectives. A guiding principle behind the proposed planning structure was to utilize established boards and committees for governance and decision-making whenever feasible. The existing entity currently representing the Napa County IWRMPF is the Napa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (NCFCWCD) Board of Directors, which provides direction and oversight to the planning process and may serve as the primary fiduciary entity, as appropriate, for funding the planning process or local sponsoring entity for IWRMP grants. Watershed Information and Conservation Council The Napa County Board of Supervisors passed Resolution No. 02-103 on May 21, 2002, creating the Watershed Information and Conservation Council (WICC). The role of the WICC is to assist the Supervisors in their decision-making process and serve as a conduit for citizen input by gathering, analyzing and recommending options related to the management of watershed resources countywide. The WICC has a responsibility to publicly evaluate and discuss matters relating to watershed restoration and resource protection activities, coordination of land acquisition, development of long-term watershed resource management plans and programs. The WICC also serves to provide public outreach and education, monitoring and assessment coordination, and data management of Napa County's water and watershed resources. Napa County General Plan The Napa County General Plan is the County’s main planning document. It is the official policy statement of the County Board of Supervisors to guide the private and public CHAPTER 3: OVERVIEW 22 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR development of the County. In regard to water and wastewater services, the General Plan contains the following goals: Goal CON-8: Reduce or eliminate groundwater and surface water contamination from known sources (e.g., underground tanks, chemical spills, landfills, livestock grazing, and other dispersed sources such as septic systems). Goal CON-9: Control urban and rural storm water runoff and related non-point source pollutants, reducing to acceptable levels pollutant discharges from land-based activities throughout the county. Goal CON-10: Conserve, enhance and manage water resources on a sustainable basis to attempt to ensure that sufficient amounts of water will be available for the uses allowed by this General Plan, for the natural environment, and for future generations. Goal CON-11: Prioritize the use of available groundwater for agricultural and rural residential uses rather than for urbanized areas and ensure that land use decisions recognize the long-term availability and value of water resources in Napa County. Goal CON-12: Proactively collect information about the status of the county’s surface and groundwater resources to provide for improved forecasting of future supplies and effective management of the resources in each of the County’s watersheds. Goal CON-13: Promote the development of additional water resources to improve water supply reliability and sustainability in Napa County, including imported water supplies and recycled water projects. Assembly Bill 402 (2016) In 2016, the State approved a pilot program for Napa and San Bernardino Counties, which is codified in California Government Code §56133.5. The program allows Napa and San Bernardino LAFCOs to authorize cities and special districts to provide municipal services outside their boundaries and SOI based on the following requirements: 1) The extension of service or services deficiency was identified and evaluated in a review of municipal services prepared pursuant to §56430. 2) The extension of service will not result in either (1) adverse impacts on open space or agricultural lands or (2) growth inducing impacts. 3) A sphere of influence change involving the affected territory and its affected agency is not feasible under this division or desirable based on the adopted policies of the commission. The current statute has an expiration date of January 1, 2021. Legislation is pending in the State Senate to make this pilot program permanent or extend the sunset date. REGULATION OF WATER PROVIDER AGENCIES Water providers are subject to numerous federal and state requirements covering water rights, long-term planning, protecting water systems from terrorism vulnerabilities, and ensuring that water employees are adequately trained to perform their functions, among others. This section provides an overview of the more significant and recent requirements. Federal, state and local agencies play regulatory roles in Napa water. CHAPTER 3: OVERVIEW 23 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR Figure 3-4: Water Regulatory Agencies Agency Regulatory Role U.S. Environmental Drinking water quality standards, source water protection, Protection Agency contaminated site remediation. Water rights, water quality standards, water protection plans, State Water Resources discharger enforcement, drinking water quality standards, water Control Board employee certification CA Department of Water Resources State Water Project, water planning dam safety, flood control CA Department of Fish and Stream flow requirements, streambed alterations, species Game conservation CA Department of Toxic Oversight of hazardous substances, remediation of contaminated Substances Controls sites San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board Water quality Napa County Flood and Water Flood control, management and monitoring of groundwater, Conservation District assistance in compliance with NPDES requirements Napa County Wells, local public water systems, groundwater The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is responsible for enforcing drinking water quality standards, although much of this authority is delegated to the states. The EPA conducts groundwater protection and contaminated site remediation programs. The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) allocates water rights, adjudicates water right disputes, develops statewide water protection plans, establishes water quality standards, and guides the nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards located in the major watersheds of the state. SWRCB is responsible for granting water rights permits and approving certain transfers of water rights, to investigate violations and reconsider or amend water rights. The nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs) develop and enforce water quality objectives and implementation plans. The SWRCB is also responsible for the enforcement of the federal and California Safe Drinking Water Acts. DWR is responsible for the planning, construction and operation of State Water Project facilities and sets conditions on use of SWP facilities. In addition, DWR is responsible for statewide water planning, evaluating urban water management plans, overseeing dam safety and flood control, and transfer of certain water rights permits (e.g., pre-1914). The California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) is responsible for oversight of hazardous substances and remediation of contaminated sites, including water sources. The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) has jurisdiction over conservation and protection of fish, wildlife, plants and habitat. CDFW determines stream flow requirements in certain streams, acts as permitting agency for streambed alterations, presents evidence at water rights hearings on the needs of fish and wildlife, and enforces the California Endangered Species Act. The Napa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District’s (NCFCWCD’s) mission is the conservation and management of flood and storm waters to protect life and property; CHAPTER 3: OVERVIEW 24 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR the maintenance of the County watershed using the highest level of environmentally sound practices; and the provision of coordinated planning for water supply needs of the community. Additionally, while the NCFCWCD is primarily charged with flood protection in the County, it also provides management and monitoring of groundwater, and assistance to the community in complying with NPDES requirements, and watershed maintenance activities among other services. Water Supply Regulations Water rights are subject to various and complex legal requirements, many of which have been resolved in the courts. For surface water sources within California, the State monitors water rights and allocations. The groundwater basins in Napa County are monitored by the County. Each year a report on groundwater conditions and trends is provided to the public. On December 17, 2019, the Napa County Board of Supervisors adopted a resolution affirming the County’s intent to manage groundwater in the Napa Subbasin and to form the Napa County Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA) for the Napa Valley Subbasin. Since 2001, land use agencies in California have been required to obtain written verification of sufficient water supply before approving plans for new development. Any project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) supplied with water from a public water system must be provided a water supply assessment, except as specified in the law. The plan must include information relating to the quality of existing sources of water available to an urban water supplier over given periods and include the manner in which water quality affects water management strategies and supply reliability.20 The Department of Water Resources (DWR) manages California’s water resources, systems, and infrastructure, including the State Water Project (SWP). State law contains strict infrastructure and reporting requirements for the SWP. DWR prepares a SWP water delivery reliability report in response to the 2001 legislation requiring water supply assessments for new development. DWR additionally prepares a California Water Plan. Required by Water Code §10005(a), the Plan presents the status and trends of California’s water dependent natural resources, water supplies, and agricultural, urban and environmental water demands for a range of plausible future scenarios. The Natural Resources Defense Council released a 2001 study raising concerns over groundwater contamination in California. The report described the regulatory framework as fragmented and an “ineffective patchwork of monitoring and assessment”21 and described planning and data as inadequate. Legislation followed shortly thereafter to establish comprehensive groundwater monitoring and increase the availability of information about groundwater quality to the public. In 2014, the California Governor signed into law the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA). The Act serves as the State’s framework for sustainable groundwater management. SGMA requires governments and water agencies of high and medium priority basins to halt overdraft and bring groundwater basins into balanced levels of pumping and recharge. Under SGMA, these basins should reach sustainability within 20 years of implementing their sustainability plans. For critically over- 20 California DWR, 2003, p. 68. 21 Helperin, Beckman and Inwood, 2001, pp. 72-75. CHAPTER 3: OVERVIEW 25 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR drafted basins, that will be 2040. For the remaining high and medium priority basins, 2042 is the deadline. Urban water suppliers are required by the Urban Water Management Planning (UWMP) Act to prepare a water shortage contingency plan every five years. The plan describes and evaluates sources of water supply, efficient uses of water, demand management measures, implementation strategy and schedule, and other relevant information and programs. Those reliant on groundwater must provide evidence to the State of their water rights, and if the particular groundwater basin is overdrafted (i.e., the water used exceeds the water replenished over the long-term), must describe efforts to correct the problem. Enhanced water conservation is another statewide goal. DWR was required by legislation to report on opportunities and constraints for increasing recycled water use in 2003. Since 2005, urban water suppliers have been required to install water meters on municipal and industrial services connections, and since 2010 charge customers based on volume of water. Additionally, in 2019 Senate Bill 606 and Assembly Bill 1668 overhauling California’s approach to conserving water took effect. The bills call for new urban efficiency standards for indoor and outdoor uses, water lost to leaks and appropriate variances. Water agencies are also required to stay within their water budgets regardless of current drought conditions. The bills require the SWRCB, in coordination with the DWR, to establish long- term urban water use efficiency standards by June 30, 2022. Those standards will include components for indoor residential use, outdoor residential use, water losses and other uses. The bills direct water agencies to limit customers’ indoor water use to an average of 55 gallons per person each day. The goal is reduced to 52.5 gallons by 2025 and 50 gallons by 2030. New five-year drought risk assessments and water shortage contingency plans must also be incorporated into Urban Water Management Plans. Starting in 2027, local water suppliers’ failure to comply with SWRCB’s adopted long-term standards could result in fines of $1,000 per day during non-drought years, and $10,000 per day during declared drought emergencies and certain dry years. The federal government requires water providers to prepare terrorism vulnerability assessments and implementation of needed corrections. Water treatment personnel must meet State certification requirements. Source Quality To prevent further deterioration of impaired water bodies, the EPA and state and regional water quality boards have established Total Maximum Daily Load standards (TMDLs) for many impaired water bodies. TMDLs set numerical targets for the amount of pollutants allowed in a water body and methods for meeting those targets. TMDLs are established for high-priority, impaired water bodies. Multiple TMDLs have been established in Napa County to mitigate the effects of trash, bacteria, nutrients, and other pollutants. Two primary articles of legislation provide the legal basis and authority for water quality standards in California. The Federal Clean Water Act (CWA) specifically and directly addresses the matter of water pollution control. The primary California legislation addressing the control of water quality is the “Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act.” The CWA requires that states adopt water quality standards, including standards for toxic substances. The states are also required to have an ongoing planning process, to CHAPTER 3: OVERVIEW 26 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR conduct public hearings once every three years to review water quality standards and revise them if necessary. After about 20 years of water pollution regulation from point sources, the act was amended in 1990 to require management of stormwater and urban runoff water quality. The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act established a comprehensive program for the protection of water quality and the beneficial uses of water. It applies to surface waters, wetlands and groundwater, and to both point and nonpoint sources of pollution or waste discharge.22 In addition, Title 23 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR) contains administrative and regulatory elements of water quality and quantity management in California. Other pertinent state law affecting water quality in California include regulations set forth by the Health and Safety Code, the Fish and Game Code, the Public Resources Code, and the Revenue and Taxation Code. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires all state agencies, boards and commissions to include an environmental impact report (EIR) in any report on any project having a significant effect on the environment. CWA delegates the responsibility to administer the act to the EPA. In turn, the EPA has delegated responsibility for portions of CWA to state and regional boards, including water quality planning and control programs such as the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). CWA directs states to review water quality standards every three years and, as appropriate, modify and adopt new standards. CWA also regulates wastewater operation through state boards. CWA authorizes the EPA to administer requirements and primarily deal with the quality of effluent which may be discharged from treatment facilities, the recycling of residual solids generated in the process, the reuse of reclaimed water for irrigation and industrial uses to conserve potable water, and the nature of waste material (particularly industrial) discharged into the collection system. The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act directs the California state and regional boards to review and update Water Quality Control Plans, or Basin Plans, periodically. The act also authorizes state boards to adopt water quality control plans. In the event of inconsistencies among state and regional board plans, the more stringent provisions apply. To reduce pollution in watersheds, CWA requires the states to establish TMDLs of pollutants. The San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (Region 2) (RWQCB2) and the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (Region5) (RWQCB5) have jurisdiction in Napa County, and thus the authority to establish TMDLs in the County. The TMDLs require local agencies to monitor pollutant levels and develop remedial actions that will prevent contaminants from exceeding maximum allowable levels. TMDLs present numerical targets for water quality pollutant levels in impaired water bodies. Within Napa County, water bodies on the EPA’s 303(d) list of impaired water bodies, include James Creek, Lake Henne, Napa River, Lake Berryessa, Suisun Creek, and Ledgewood Creek.23 22 California Water Code §1300. 23 Final 2014/2016 California Integrated Report (Clean Water Act Section 303(d) List / 305(b) Report). CHAPTER 3: OVERVIEW 27 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR Potable Water Regulations Potable water systems in Napa County are regulated by a number of agencies, depending on the type of entity (public or investor-owned) and size of system (number of connections). The regulatory oversight includes both operational for service areas, system capacity and rates, and health for water quality. Various operations and activities of these water systems are regulated by several agencies depending on size (number of connections and population served), water source, and ownership. Water Quality The California State Water Resources Control Board and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) are charged with developing and enforcing state and federal drinking water standards, which are the same for both investor-owned and municipal water providers. There are a number of threats to drinking water: improperly disposed chemicals, animal wastes, pesticides, human wastes, wastes injected deep underground, and naturally occurring substances can all contaminate drinking water. Likewise, drinking water that is not properly treated or disinfected, or which travels through an improperly maintained distribution system, may also pose a health risk. The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) is the main federal law that ensures the quality of Americans' drinking water. The law requires many actions to protect drinking water and its sources—rivers, lakes, reservoirs, springs and groundwater wells—and applies to public water systems serving 25 or more people. It authorizes the EPA to set national health-based standards for drinking water to protect against both naturally occurring and man-made contaminants and to oversee the states, localities and water suppliers that implement the standards. EPA drinking water standards are developed as a Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) for each chemical or microbe. The MCL is the concentration that is not anticipated to produce adverse health effects after a lifetime of exposure, based upon toxicity data and risk assessment principles. EPA’s goal in setting MCLs is to assure that even small violations for a period of time do not pose significant risk to the public's health over the long run. National Primary Drinking Water Regulations (NPDWRs or primary standards) are legally enforceable standards that limit the levels of contaminants in drinking water supplied by public water systems. Secondary standards are non-enforceable guidelines regulating contaminants that may cause cosmetic effects (such as skin or tooth discoloration) or aesthetic effects (such as taste, odor, or color) in drinking water. The EPA recommends secondary standards to water systems but does not require systems to comply. However, states may choose to adopt them as enforceable standards. Federal and State regulations on maximum contaminant levels in drinking water have evolved and expanded since 1977. The State Water Resources Control Board Division of Drinking Water (DDW) implements the Safe Drinking Water Act in California. DDW requires public water systems to perform routine monitoring for regulated contaminants. To meet water quality standards and comply with regulations, a water system with a contaminant exceeding a maximum contaminant limit (MCL) must notify the public and remove the source from service or initiate a process and schedule to install treatment for removing the contaminant. Health violations occur when the contaminant amount exceeds the safety standard (MCL) or when CHAPTER 3: OVERVIEW 28 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR water is not treated properly. In California, compliance is usually determined at the wellhead or the surface water intake. Monitoring violations involve failure to conduct or to report in a timely fashion the results of required monitoring. Napa County has a contract with the California SWRCB to oversee water systems with less than 200 service connections. These water systems include the following classifications: community water systems (serving at least 15 connections used by yearlong residents or regularly serve at least 25 yearlong residents), non-transient noncommunity water systems (noncommunity water systems that regularly serve at least 25 persons over 6 months per year), transient noncommunity water systems (serving at least 15 service connections or 25 or more persons for at least 60 days per year), and state small water systems (serve five to 14 service connections and do not serve drinking water to more than 25 individuals for more than 60 days per year; in Napa County they operate the same as transient noncommunity water systems). Investor-Owned Water Systems Water systems that are investor owned, meaning that the owners, whether it be an individual or group, are not customers of the water system, are regulated by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). CPUC oversees the service areas and rates of these utilities. A system may be regulated by both CPUC and State Water Resources Control Board; the two are not mutually exclusive. Applicable Regulations Some of the regulations applicable to water systems within the County include the following: v California Health and Safety Code v California Public Utilities Code v California Public Utilities Commission: The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) governs the provision of water by private entities, including service area, system design, levels of service and rates. The Commission regulates investor-owned water systems but does not have jurisdiction over municipal utilities or districts. Mutual water companies or companies owned by homeowner associations are exempt if they serve only their stockholders or members. The following General Orders apply: v General Order No. 103: Rules Governing Water Service Including Minimum Standards for Design and Construction, and v General Order No. 96-A, Rules Governing the Filing and Posting of Schedules of Rates, Rules, and Contracts. v County of Napa Ordinance Code (described further below) v Guidelines for Projects within Milliken-Sarco-Tulocay Groundwater Deficient Area (described further below) v Northeast Napa Management Area (described below) CHAPTER 3: OVERVIEW 29 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR The following is a summary of key County Code provisions associated with water supply systems. Approved Water Supply Systems (County Code Chapter 13.04) This provision of the County Code regulates water supply systems associated with public utilities, public water systems and individual water systems and defines “sustained yield” as the ability of the well facility to provide a sustained water supply of one gallon per minute per dwelling unit at a stable drawdown level. Local Public Water System (County Code Chapter 13.08) County Code Chapter 13.08 requires public water systems to submit plans and specifications on the design and operation of water supply systems in compliance with state regulations. In addition, these provisions include the ability for the County to enforce the proper operation and maintenance of public water systems. Wells (County Code Chapter 13.12) This chapter of the County Code regulates the design, construction and operation of various well types in the County and requires the approval of a permit for the operation of wells. Napa County Groundwater Ordinance (County Code Chapter 13.15) The Napa County Board of Supervisors adopted a groundwater ordinance in 1996, revised in 2003, to regulate the extraction, use, and preservation of the County’s groundwater resources. Compliance with this ordinance applies to development of new water systems and improvements to an existing water system that may use groundwater. Specifically, the ordinance applies to agricultural land development or redevelopment activities located on parcels within areas including the Milliken Sarco-Tulocay (MST), Pope Valley, Chiles Valley, Capell Valley, and Carneros groundwater basins. The ordinance identifies issuance of groundwater permits based on three types of applications exempt, ministerial, and required and the process by which compliance with the ordinance is determined. Applications for a groundwater permit require identification of existing and future uses of any existing water system which is supplied by groundwater, potential alternative water sources, the number of existing and future connections, intent of groundwater use, and an assessment of the potential impacts to the affected groundwater basin. Because groundwater resources are highly valued in the County, further guidance for activities conducted within the MST groundwater deficient area have been developed, as detailed below. Guidelines for Projects within Milliken-Sarco-Tulocay Groundwater Deficient Area The Milliken-Sarco-Tulocay area is a groundwater deficient area. Due to the sensitive nature of the MST groundwater basin, the County requires special consultation to determine the need for a groundwater permit. This particularly applies to construction projects, erosion control plans for new or expanded agricultural projects, and new or expanded wineries that intend to use groundwater from the MST basin. Depending on the governing authority (either the Environmental Management or Conservation Development and Planning Department), the appropriate department will determine the potential effects of the project on the MST groundwater basin and whether a permit is required. CHAPTER 3: OVERVIEW 30 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR Northeast Napa Management Area Additionally, the County has had concerns related to continued groundwater development east of the Napa River. Due to these concerns and in order to understand recent historical changes in water level trends in the small northeastern Napa Valley Subbasin, the County Board of Supervisors authorized a study. The study conducted between 2016 and 2017 included evaluation of the potential effects from pumping in the overall Northeast Napa Study Area, potential mutual well interference in an area of interest near Petra Drive, and potential streamflow effects. Based on the findings and recommendations of the study, the County formally established the Northeast Napa Management Area covering approximately 1,960 acres within Napa Valley Subbasin.24 Historically, in the Northeast Napa Management Area, water demand included residential and winery uses. Since 2015, Napa County has approved three additional discretionary permits for wineries with mandatory monitoring and reporting of groundwater levels and groundwater pumping. Napa County will consider additional future discretionary projects in the Northeast Napa Management Area with project-specific analyses to be conducted to ensure that the proposed project location or planned use of groundwater does not cause an undesirable result. The County has updated its Groundwater Ordinance to reflect the additional requirements for project-specific analysis and to incorporate water use criteria and water use reporting requirements for the Management Area using an approach similar to what has already been implemented in the MST Subarea.25 Human Right to Water In 2012, California was the first state in the nation to legislatively recognize the human right to water. In Water Code §106.3, the State statutorily recognizes that “every human being has the right to safe, clean, affordable, and accessible water adequate for human consumption, cooking, and sanitary purposes.” The human right to water extends to all Californians. The law sets an ongoing obligation for State agencies to consider the human right to water—specifically the factors of safety, affordability, and accessibility—in all relevant policy, programming, and budgetary activities. Recycled Water Regulations California has one of the most developed regulatory environments for water reuse. California’s Recycled Water Policy, which includes a “Mandate for the Use of Recycled Water,” was adopted in 2009 and amended in 2013 and 2018.26 The purpose of the Recycled Water Policy is to increase the use of recycled water from municipal wastewater sources that meets the definition in Water Code §13050(n), in a manner that implements state and federal water quality laws. For the purpose of this Policy, recycled water refers to the reuse of treated wastewater derived from municipal sources, i.e., water that is covered under California Code of Regulations Title 22, Water Recycling Criteria. Title 22 of California’s Code of Regulations refers to state guidelines for how treated 24 Luhdorff & Scalmanini Consulting Engineering, Napa Valley Groundwater Sustainability, Northeast Napa Management Area: Amendment to the 2016 Basin Analysis, Report for the Napa Valley Subbasin, January 2018. 25 Luhdorff & Scalmanini Consulting Engineering, Napa Valley Groundwater Sustainability, Northeast Napa Management Area: Amendment to the 2016 Basin Analysis, Report for the Napa Valley Subbasin, January 2018. 26 State Water Resources Control Board, Resolutions No. 2009-0011, 2013-0003, 2018-0057. CHAPTER 3: OVERVIEW 31 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR and recycled water is discharged and used. State discharge standards for recycled water and its reuse are regulated by the 1969 Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act and the State Water Resources Control Board’s 2019 Water Recycling Policy. In 2014, California adopted indirect potable reuse rules that provide detailed criteria for treatment processes, contaminants to test for, and how long treated water must remain underground. In early 2018, the State finalized the Reservoir Augmentation statewide regulations that allow highly purified potable reuse water to be placed into drinking water reservoirs. The State does not currently have direct potable reuse (DPR) regulations but is currently working on a DPR regulatory framework and research. AB 574 became law in January 2018 and sets a 2023 deadline for the development of Raw Water Augmentation regulations. The State Water Board staff has prepared the Framework to satisfy the recommendation in AB 574. The public comment period on the second edition of the framework ended on October 9, 2019. The State Water Board is currently working on the final report. There are no specific statewide regulations in California to encourage onsite or decentralized water reuse. However, some California cities have developed their own onsite reuse ordinances. REGULATION OF WASTEWATER PROVIDER AGENCIES Wastewater service providers are subject to numerous federal and state requirements. This section provides an overview of the more significant and recent requirements. Figure 3-5: Wastewater Regulatory Agencies Agency Regulatory Role State Water Resources Control Board Surface water quality, NPDES permits Navigable waters, discharge permits, specify disposal sites U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and disposal conditions San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board Surface water quality, discharge permits Individual public and private sewer systems in the Napa County unincorporated Napa County Wastewater Regulations 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 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 CHAPTER 3: OVERVIEW 32 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR fishable and swimmable. It requires dischargers to obtain permits regulating the amount, quality, location, and timing of pollutant discharges. Applicable sections of the CWA include: 1. §303(d) – Impaired Waters List and Total Maximum Daily Loads 2. §319 – Non-point Source Management Program 3. §401 – State Water Quality Certification Program 4. §402 (p) – The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System CWA §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. §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. Control of this type of pollution has proven to be difficult and usually requires costly upgrades in existing facilities and permit costs, particularly for wastewater facilities with high rates of infiltration. The SWRCB certifies the quality of surface waters pursuant to §401 of the Clean Water Act. §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. §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, §402, §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. The Clean Water Act (CWA) regulates the water quality of all discharges into waters of the United States including wetlands, perennial and intermittent stream channels. §401, Title 33, §1341 of the CWA sets forth water quality certification requirements for “any applicant applying for a federal license or permit to conduct any activity including, but not limited to, the construction or operation of facilities, which may result in any discharge into the navigable waters.” §404, Title 33, §1344 of the CWA in part authorizes the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to: Set requirements and standards pertaining to such discharges: subparagraph (e); v Issue permits “for the discharge of dredged or fill material into the navigable waters at specified disposal sites”: subparagraph (a); v Specify the disposal sites for such permits: subparagraph (b); CHAPTER 3: OVERVIEW 33 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR v Deny or restrict the use of specified disposal sites if “the discharge of such materials into such area will have an unacceptable adverse effect on municipal water supplies and fishery areas”: subparagraph (c); v Specify type of and conditions for non-prohibited discharges: subparagraph (f); v Provide for individual State or interstate compact administration of general permit programs: subparagraphs (g), (h), and (j); v Withdraw approval of such State or interstate permit programs: subparagraph (i); v Ensure public availability of permits and permit applications: subparagraph (o); v Exempt certain Federal or State projects from regulation under this Section: subparagraph (r); and, v Determine conditions and penalties for violation of permit conditions or limitations: subparagraph (s). Section 401 certification is required prior to final issuance of Section 404 permits from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 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 SWRCB and California RWQCBs. The Porter-Cologne Act is similar to federal water quality regulations and programs. The SWRCB and RWQCBs 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. Napa County Title 13 Title 13 “Water, Sewers and Public Services” of the Napa County Code regulates individual private and public sewage systems within the unincorporated portions of the County. Napa County Code Title 13 includes connection requirements, permits and applicable fees, system location, design and operation requirements to ensure public safety and lessen environmental related impacts. County Code specifically includes required site evaluations on soil conditions, percolation tests, depth to groundwater (sewage disposal areas must have a three-foot separation from the seasonal high groundwater levels, and CHAPTER 3: OVERVIEW 34 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR distances from wells, creeks, slopes and reserve areas. In addition, County Code includes required details regarding operation and maintenance of sewage facilities. COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS Capacity Water Supply The unincorporated areas of Napa County rely principally on groundwater resources and surface water collection, while the incorporated areas typically rely on local reservoirs and regional water providers. Availability of these water sources vary depending on weather conditions. Agencies just weathered the five-year California drought (2012–2016) and are working to build diverse water portfolios to enable them to endure extreme conditions. Availability of water supplies in drought conditions is anticipated to be addressed in the ongoing Napa Valley Drought Contingency Plan. Water supply availability in normal years is assessed here to determine the water supply capacity consistently available to each agency and the portion of that capacity in use. As shown in Figure 3-6, during normal year scenarios, all of the agencies have sufficient water supply under normal conditions given existing demand. The percentage of water supply capacity in use ranges from 17 percent by Lake Berryessa RID to 78 percent by the City of St. Helena. While the City of St. Helena is within its available water supply capacity, at 78 percent of supply any fluctuations could have a significant impact on availability. The City needs to obtain new water supplies and/or achieve more water savings, even under current conditions in order to reliably meet the current and future water demand. At the same time, the City recognizes that any new water supply, even if forthcoming, is likely to be expensive, potentially increasing the unit cost of potable water. Thus, the main emphasis going forward will be on conservation, seeking to reduce demand by all classes of users.27 Additionally, the City will be assessing the feasibility of reclaimed water as a potential water source. Figure 3-6: Percentage of Potable Water Supply Used in Normal Year American Canyon Calistoga Napa St. Helena Yountville COCWD CVWD LBRID LCWD NBRID SFWD 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 27 City of St. Helena, General Plan Update 2040, 2019, p. 4-10. CHAPTER 3: OVERVIEW 35 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR Circle Oaks CWD firm or safe yield from its one well and springs is unknown. However, it is apparent that there is a limited available water supply. COCWD reported that its water tanks cannot be fully filled, and it presently requires that the pumps be run 24 hours a day to fill the tanks. Several challenges further constrain the District’s water source capacity, including 1) lack of a suitable location for another well, 2) quick draw down of the spring water source, 3) high average usage per connection, and 4) high iron content in well requiring backwash. While Circle Oaks CWD faces water supply constraints, it has been able to meet water demands. Wastewater Treatment Wastewater demand is affected primarily by growth in residential population and commercial development, and secondarily by factors such as water usage and conservation efforts. During dry weather, wastewater flows are less than potable water consumed. Water used for outdoor purposes, such as landscape, irrigation, firefighting, street cleaning, and residential car washing, does not flow into the wastewater system. Each wastewater treatment plant has permitted capacity as determined by the RWQCB. Permitted capacity is typically defined as average dry weather flow (ADWF) or the average day flow during dry months. It appears that all agencies are within treatment capacity of their plants. However, because the Spanish Flat Water District did not provide averaged dry weather flows for its plants, the degree to which capacity is in use could not be determined. Additionally, Napa River Reclamation District did not have its flow information available as the meter was inaccurate. Once wastewater flows reach 75 percent of available treatment capacity, it is a best management practice to plan for future capacity needs. The City of St. Helena is the only agency that is exceeding that standard, making use of 82 percent of its treatment capacity. Figure 3-7: Wastewater Flow and Treatment Capacity (mgd), 2018 American Canyon Calistoga St. Helena Yountville COCWD LBRID NBRID NRRD NapaSan SFWD - Spanish Flat WWTP SFWD - Berryessa Pines WWTP 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% CHAPTER 3: OVERVIEW 36 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR Beneficial Reuse Four agencies produce recycled water for beneficial reuse—the cities of American Canyon and Calistoga, the Town of Yountville, and Napa Sanitation District. The City of St. Helena is considering implementing a recycled water program. The agencies must meet strict water quality regulations to provide recycled water. Production of recycled water is constrained by the volume of wastewater flowing into the reclamation facilities, while demand is greatly contingent on weather conditions. Some agencies are encouraging customers to fill storage with the recycled water during the off season at free or reduced prices to maximize the ratio of beneficial reuse to volume of effluent. As shown in the following figure, the four agencies make use of between 30 and 93 percent of the annual effluent flow at their respective reclamation facilities. The City of Calistoga and the Town of Yountville are nearing maximum reuse for present conditions. Figure 3-8: Percent of Wastewater Flow Beneficially Reused, 2018 American Canyon Calistoga Yountville NapaSan 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Water Service Adequacy This section reviews indicators of water service adequacy, including distribution system integrity as defined by breaks and leaks and system water loss, and drinking water quality. Whenever available, industry standards are used to determine the level of services provided. In lieu of adopted standards, the report also makes use of generally accepted industry best practices or benchmarking with comparable providers. System Integrity Water system integrity is defined for the purposes of this report by the degree of unaccounted for water loss from the system, meaning the amount of water that goes missing between the supply sources and the distribution points, and the number of breaks or leaks per 100 miles of mains. CHAPTER 3: OVERVIEW 37 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR Figure 3-9: Potable Water System Integrity Indicators Estimated Main Breaks and Main Breaks and Unaccounted for Leaks per Year Leaks per 100 Main Water Loss (2014 – 2018) Miles per Year (2018) (2014-2018) American Canyon 6.9% 8.8 10.7 Calistoga 15% 3.5 7 Napa 5% 56 16 St. Helena 9.1% 1.75 3.5 Yountville 1.2% 0.8 8 COCWD Unknown 1.66 21 CVWD Unknown Unknown Unknown LBRID 24% 1.5 28.5 NBRID 47% 1.5 Unknown SFWD 5% Unknown Unknown Some loss is expected due to meter error, as well as system flushes and checks, among other reasons. The ratio of water loss that occurs due to factors such as breaks, leaks, and illegal connections is a gauge of the system’s integrity. Industry standards define an acceptable level of unaccounted loss as being less than 10 percent of the amount of water supplied from the sources. 28 A rate of loss was not able to be calculated for Circle Oaks CWD and Congress Valley WD. The City of Calistoga, Lake Berryessa RID, and Napa Berryessa RID, have estimated rates of water loss above the generally defined industry standard. The 10 potable water agencies attempt to track and repair their breaks and leaks to minimize water losses. Because of how each of the agencies reported their breaks and leaks, it is difficult to perform comparison analysis of their reported numbers. As a common ground for comparison, the number of water main breaks and leaks per 100 miles of pipe was used to perform the analysis. The national average is between 21 and 27 breaks per 100 miles of pipe per year.29 Lake Berryessa RID has the highest ratio of 28.5 breaks per 100 miles, while St. Helena has the lowest ratio of 3.5 breaks per 100 miles. Water Quality The State Water Resources Control Board Division of Drinking Water (DDW) implements the Safe Drinking Water Act in California. DDW requires public water systems to perform routine monitoring for regulated contaminants. To meet water quality standards and comply with regulations, a water system with a contaminant exceeding a maximum contaminant limit (MCL) must notify the public and remove the source from service or initiate a process and schedule to install treatment for removing the contaminant. Health violations occur when the contaminant amount exceeds the safety standard (MCL) or when water is not treated properly. In California, compliance is usually determined at the wellhead or the surface water intake. Monitoring violations involve failure to conduct or to report in a timely fashion the results of required monitoring. 28 AWWA, 2013 29 WaterRF, Knowledge Portals, 2017. CHAPTER 3: OVERVIEW 38 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR For the purposes of this report, drinking water quality is assessed by a combination of historical violations reported by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) since 2008 and the percent of time that the agencies were in compliance with Primary Drinking Water Regulations in 2018. All of the agencies reviewed were in compliance with drinking water regulations 100 percent of the time in 2018. By comparison, the industry standard for compliance with Primary Drinking Water Regulations is 99 percent (361 days) of the year. The EPA documents health and monitoring violations for each public water system in the U.S. Since 2008, the Town of Yountville, Circle Oaks CWD, Congress Valley WD and Napa Berryessa RID have had no violations as reported by the EPA. Lake Berryessa RID and Spanish Flat WD had the highest rates of violations for the time period with 6.13 and 2.42 violations per 1,000 served. Figure 3-10: Water System Violations per 1,000 Served, 2008-2018 American Canyon Calistoga Napa St. Helena Yountville COCWD CVWD LBRID NBRID SFWD 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Wastewater Service Adequacy This section reviews indicators of wastewater service adequacy, including collection system integrity and regulatory compliance. Whenever available, industry standards are used to determine the level of services provided. In lieu of adopted standards, the report also makes use of generally accepted industry best practices or benchmarking with comparable providers. Sewer System Integrity There are several measures of integrity of the wastewater collection system, including sanitary sewer overflows, peaking factors as a result of infiltration and inflow (I/I), and efforts to address infiltration and inflow. Sanitary Sewer Overflows All wastewater agencies are required to report sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs) to SWRCB. Sewer overflows are discharges from sewer pipes, pumps and manholes. Overflows reflect the capacity and condition of collection system piping and the effectiveness of routine CHAPTER 3: OVERVIEW 39 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR maintenance. The sewer overflow rate is calculated as the number of overflows per 100 miles of main pipeline per year. The rate of SSOs of the reviewed agencies ranged from zero as reported by Napa River RD and Spanish Flat WD to 71.43 as reported by Lake Berryessa RID. By comparison, other wastewater agencies in California average 4.69 mainline SSOs per 100 miles per year.30 Figure 3-11: Sanitary Sewer Overflows per 100 Miles of Main per Year, 2014-2018 American Canyon Calistoga St. Helena Yountville COCWD LBRID NBRID NRRD NapaSan SFWD 0 20 40 60 80 Infiltration and Inflow Wastewater flow includes not only discharges from residences, businesses, institutions, and industrial establishments, but also infiltration and inflow. Infiltration refers to groundwater that seeps into sewer pipes through cracks, pipe joints and other system leaks. Inflow refers to rainwater that enters the sewer system from sources such as yard and patio drains, roof gutter downspouts, uncapped cleanouts, pond or pool overflow drains, footing drains, cross-connections with storm drains, and even holes in manhole covers. Infiltration and inflow tend to affect older sewer systems to a greater degree. Infiltration and inflow rates are highest during or right after heavy rain. They are the primary factors driving peak flows through the wastewater system and a major consideration in capacity planning and costs. The peaking factor is the ratio of peak day wet weather flows to average dry weather flows. The peaking factor is an indicator of the degree to which the system suffers from I/I, where rainwater enters the sewer system through cracks, manholes or other means. A peaking factor of up to three is generally considered acceptable based on industry practices. A number of agencies did not provide the requested flow information in order to calculate the peaking factors for comparison purposes. However, based on the information available it is apparent that a majority if not all of the wastewater providers are greatly impacted by I/I. The Town of Yountville has the lowest peaking factor of 4.55, and the City of Calistoga is a close second with a peaking factor of 4.9. A majority of the agencies had initiated programs directed at addressing problem areas in order to reduce the impact on the system during wet weather events. 30CIWQS Reporting System, 8/14/2019. CHAPTER 3: OVERVIEW 40 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR Regulatory Compliance The RWQCBs enforce the Clean Water Act, permit conditions and other requirements of wastewater providers. Violations of State requirements for wastewater providers and treatment facilities are recorded by SWRCB. The Board may levy fines or order the provider to take specific actions to comply with water quality regulations. Each wastewater provider’s regulatory compliance over the last 10 years is shown in the following figure. As shown, the smaller special districts tend to struggle with complying with State requirements. A majority of the violations experienced by the special districts are for late or deficient reporting. Lake Berryessa RID and Napa Berryessa RID had the only Priority 1 violations—one and four, respectively—during that period for unauthorized discharges in 2010. Figure 3-12: Wastewater Provider Regulatory Compliance, 2009-2019 Violations Enforcement Actions 2009 - 2019 2009 - 2019 American Canyon 3 4 Calistoga 10 16 St. Helena 47 15 Yountville 2 1 COCWD 49 6 LBRID 72 11 NBRID 59 11 NRRD 2 2 NapaSan 4 3 SFWD 47 4 CHAPTER 3: OVERVIEW 41 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR RECOMMENDATIONS Throughout this review recommendations are made for each of the reviewed agencies with regard to various aspects of the administration and operation of the agency and its services. Many of the recommendations were applicable to multiple agencies, which are summarized here. In particular, the data tracking, planning efforts, and mandated reporting of the smaller agencies are challenged by minimal budgets and staffing constraints. A majority of the agencies could improve how out of area services are tracked and recorded in a useful format such as maps. Accountability and Transparency The Special District Transparency Act (SB 929) signed into law in 2018 requires special districts in California to have websites by January 1, 2020 and holds special districts accountable to the Brown Act, which mandates transparency. The website is mandated to clearly list the district’s contact information in addition to the recommended agendas and minutes, budgets and financial statements, compensation reports, and other relevant public information and documents. A district may be exempt from the law by a resolution adopted by a majority vote of its governing body declaring detailed findings regarding a hardship that prevents the district from establishing or maintaining a website. Such resolution must be adopted annually as long as the hardship exists.31 In October 2018, Napa LAFCO sent out a letter to all independent districts in Napa County informing them about the SB 929 requirements and the related districts’ obligations. Of the districts reviewed, only Congress Valley Water District has elected to adopt a resolution stating hardship preventing it from creating a website. All other agencies have created or are in the process of compiling a website. In 2016, the State Legislature enacted Assembly Bill 2257 (Government Code §54954.2) to update the Brown Act with new requirements governing the location, platform and methods by which an agenda must be accessible on the agency’s website for all meetings occurring on or after January 1, 2019. AB 2257 provides two options for compliance. Under the first option, an agency that maintains a website must post a direct link to the current agenda on its primary homepage. The link may not be placed in a “contextual menu,” such as a drop-down tab, that would require a user to perform an action to reveal the agenda link. Additionally, the agenda must be: (a) downloadable, indexable, and electronically searchable by common internet browsers; (b) platform independent and machine readable; and (c) available to the public, free of charge and without restrictions that might interfere with the reuse or redistribution of the agenda. Under the second option, an agency may implement an “integrated agenda management platform,” meaning a dedicated webpage that provides the necessary agenda information. The most current agenda must be located at the top of the page. Under this option, a direct link to the current agenda does not need to be posted on the homepage; however, the agency is required to post a link to the platform containing the agenda information. Again, this link may not be hidden in a contextual menu.32 Many of the agencies, in particular certain smaller special districts (with the exception of 31 California Government Code, Sections 6270.6 and 53087.8 32 https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/ab-2257-new-brown-act-requirements-for-35346/ CHAPTER 3: OVERVIEW 42 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR LBRID, NBRID and NRRD), do not appear to meet these agenda posting requirements. It is recommended that all agencies review their websites to ensure compliance with AB 2257. Data Management Maintaining accurate and up-to-date information on the use of an agency’s utility system is essential to meet reporting requirements, inform infrastructure needs, conduct long-term capacity planning, and enhance efficiency of services. Agencies at a minimum should maintain records on and be aware of 1) the number, location and type of connections served, 2) the amount of water produced from each source, 3) the volume of water delivered to connections, 4) peak day demand for water, 5) the volume of water loss, 6) the number of breaks and leaks in the water system, 7) the average dry weather wastewater flow, 8) the peak wet weather wastewater flow, 9) the wastewater system’s peaking factor/degree of infiltration and inflow, and 10) the number of sanitary sewer overflows. Many of the agencies struggled to provide the requested information and often when the information was provided it contained conflicting numbers in different reports. Additionally, the smaller agencies were challenged in providing multiple years of consistent data due to inaccurate flow meters that were eventually replaced and due to staff turn-over with lack of appropriate record archives. It is recommended that all agencies review their existing system or develop a data management system where essential information is collected, consistency and accuracy of information is enhanced, and information is readily available in a format that is easily interpretable. This is an opportunity for enhanced collaboration and resource sharing amongst the agencies. Those agencies with tried and true systems could either provide information sharing or technical support to those agencies that are in need. Additionally, the smaller agencies may capitalize on resource sharing with the other small agencies by instituting the same or a shared system. Furthermore, those agencies that provide extra-territorial services, in particular the cities, often lack comprehensive and useful records of where exactly these services are provided and instead rely on a service area boundary that encircles the area served but not indicating precisely where services are provided. The cities of Calistoga, Napa, and Yountville were able to provide parcel numbers for the parcels served. It is recommended that the cities of American Canyon and St. Helena compile a comprehensive list of out of area service connections with correlating parcel numbers to inform them as to the exact number and location of outside water (St. Helena) and wastewater (American Canyon) service connections. All of the cities should develop and have on record GIS compatible maps of these extra-territorial service connections. Planning Well-managed organizations plan and budget for capital replacement needs, conduct master planning to have a comprehensive view of the existing and planned utility system, and conduct advance planning for projected future growth. Many of the agencies reviewed could improve upon these best management practices. These providers should initiate or improve upon existing capital improvement planning and advanced growth planning to more adequately plan for future growth and minimize deferred maintenance. A capital improvement plan should generally include anticipated CHAPTER 3: OVERVIEW 43 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR timing for proposed projects. Updates should be made annually to capital plans based on actual outcomes and adjusting for any changes in available financing and anticipated growth. Capital improvement plans should also adequately plan for a level of capital reinvestment that replaces depreciated capital. Adequate capital planning would involve a multi-year capital improvement plan (or comparable planning effort) for capital replacement and, if relevant, expansion. These plans are essential to preparation of cost of service and rate studies. A master plan should be in place that describes the existing system and plans for enhancement when necessary. Often times master planning is conducted in conjunction with advanced growth planning. Advanced growth planning is adequate when an up to date plan discloses existing capacity, anticipated needs, and projected demand throughout the existing service area and SOI. Most of the water and wastewater providers engage in appropriate long-term capital planning and advanced growth planning. Of the 14 agencies reviewed five have adopted formal capital improvement plans covering multi-year planning horizons, which are updated annually. While City of American Canyon adopts a five-year capital improvement plan, it is not updated annually. Lake Berryessa and Napa Berryessa RIDs conduct capital improvement planning; it is not part of a formal planning document. The remaining agencies do not conduct capital improvement planning. It is recommended that these agencies develop a five-year capital plan to anticipate future system repair and replacement costs, and to assure that current rates and reserves will be adequate to address future needs. The plan should be used to inform a cost of service study. Figure 3-13: Planning Practices CHAPTER 3: OVERVIEW 44 latipaC gninnalP retsaM gninnalP decnavdA htworg gninnalp City of American Canyon I A A City of Calistoga A I I City of Napa A A A City of St. Helena A A I Town of Yountville A I A Circle Oaks County Water District N I N Congress Valley Water District N N N Lake Berryessa Resort Improvement District I N N Los Carneros Water District N A N Napa Berryessa Resort Improvement District I N N Napa County Flood Control and Water - - - Conservation District Napa River Reclamation District No. 2109 N I N Napa Sanitation District A A A Spanish Flat Water District N N N Note: A = Practiced adequately, I = Practiced but improvement needed, N = Not practiced, - = Not applicable NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR The agencies with comprehensive master plans include the City of American Canyon, City of Napa, City of St. Helena, Los Carneros Water District, and Napa Sanitation District. Some agencies make use of their General Plan or capital improvement plan as planning documents for their utility systems, neither of which give a comprehensive assessment of the utility system and operations. Master plans are integral for determining capacity and capacity constraints and informing capital needs and funding strategies. In Napa County, those agencies that are required to develop Urban Water Management Plans are more likely to have conducted advanced growth planning for water and wastewater needs in their projected service areas. While some of the agencies, such as the cities of Calistoga and St. Helena, had at some point projected future demand, these projections were generally out of date. The agencies that have conducted up to date advanced growth planning with projected water needs for their SOI or projected service areas are City of American Canyon, City of Napa, Town of Yountville, and Napa Sanitation District. It is recommended that all utility providers compile and maintain up to date demand projections in order to better plan for anticipated growth. Growth Policies Napa County agencies formerly were able to extend services outside of their boundaries largely unencumbered. However, starting in the late 1960’s, Napa County and the municipalities experienced a paradigm shift away from urban sprawl and toward planned urban growth and agricultural preservation, resulting in the establishment of voter- approved urban growth limit lines for some cities and county agricultural preservation policies. Additionally, State law now precludes the extension of services outside of an agency’s LAFCO-approved boundary without LAFCO approval. Government Code §56133 requires LAFCO approval after January 1, 2001 to extend services outside of an agency’s boundaries. This requirement may be conducted in anticipation of a later change of organization. Additionally, an agency may be authorized to respond to an existing or impending threat to the health or safety of the public or the residents of the affected territory. This requirement does not apply to non-potable or nontreated water or the provision of surplus water to agricultural lands and facilities. Of the 14 agencies under review, seven agencies provide services to out of area connections, a majority of which occurred prior to the previously mentioned land use paradigm shift, creation of LAFCOs, and implementation of applicable State laws restricting extensions and requiring LAFCO approval. All of the land use agencies (the cities) have adopted policies precluding or limiting the extension of services to connections outside of the city limits. These policies are in place to limit the growth inducing effects that could occur from the provision of extended utility services. Of the seven agencies that provide extraterritorial services, Napa Sanitation District is the only agency that does not have policies regarding outside services. It is recommended that NapaSan consider defining where outside services will be considered to prevent conflict with land use authority growth policies. CHAPTER 3: OVERVIEW 45 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR Figure 3-14: Out of Area Services Policy about Extension of Service Connections Services American Canyon Water 213 Limits but does not prevent American Canyon Wastewater Not provided Limits but does not prevent Calistoga Water 78 Yes Napa Water 2,213 Limits but does not prevent St. Helena Water 361 Yes Yountville Water 35 Yes Yountville Wastewater 1 Yes Congress Valley Water Water 11 Yes District Napa Sanitation District Wastewater 4 No Six agencies make water available at truck filling stations for use outside of the agency’s boundaries. Based on the exceptions outlined for Government Code §56133 for non-potable or nontreated water or the provision of surplus water to agricultural lands and facilities, these agencies are not required to seek LAFCO approval to provide this service outside of jurisdictional bounds. However, provision of trucked water without limitations has the potential to promote development and growth in unincorporated areas where water supply is not sustainable and may adversely affect agricultural uses. Of the six providers that make water available for hauling, only Napa Sanitation District and the City of St. Helena have adopted policies that clearly define the priority of use of trucked water. The County of Napa indicated that while it currently regulates trucked water through its discretionary and ministerial permitting processes, a vast majority of existing trucked water sold by municipalities is entirely outside of the County’s control and even outside of the cities’ control for water purchased outside of the County, through a broker or other third party. In an attempt to address this issue, it is recommended that approved uses and locations for trucking of water be defined in each City’s municipal code. In addition, while the County’s General Plan Policy CON-5333 requires all discretionary projects to demonstrate an adequate water supply prior to approval, the County should be explicit about its conditions for use of trucked water its review process to facilitate public discussion about trucked water. It should be noted that entitlements and County Zoning are prescriptive, so trucking of water would not be considered a permissible activity unless expressly enabled within the entitlement. Permittees are bound to rely upon the water source they proposed, and the County approved in their entitlement. 33 The County shall ensure that the intensity and timing of new development are consistent with the capacity of water supplies and protect groundwater and other water supplies by requiring all applicants for discretionary projects to demonstrate the availability of an adequate water supply prior to approval. Depending on the site location and the specific circumstances, adequate demonstration of availability may include evidence or calculation of groundwater availability via an appropriate hydrogeologic analysis or may be satisfied by compliance with County Code “fair-share” provisions or applicable State law. In some areas, evidence may be provided through coordination with applicable municipalities and public and private water purveyors to verify water supply sufficiency. CHAPTER 3: OVERVIEW 46 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR Figure 3-15: Water Trucking Customers (2018) Policy Defining Customers Potable/Recycled Allowed Uses and Location American Canyon To be provided Recycled No Calistoga 17 Recycled No Napa 118 Potable No St. Helena 11 Non-potable Yes Yountville 10-15 Recycled No Napa Sanitation District To be provided Recycled Yes Mandated Reporting/Regulatory Compliance As previously discussed under the Water and Wastewater Service Adequacy section of this chapter, the smaller agencies are challenged to comply with all reporting requirements to the regulating agencies. The most common violation amongst the smaller districts is deficient reporting. Significant improvements need to be made in order to protect the public health and ensure adequacy of services offered. It is recommended that the districts make compliance with reporting requirements a priority to enhance service levels. Governance Structure Options Over the course of this MSR several governance options were identified with respect to each of the agencies under review. These options are summarized in Figure 3-16. Refer to the affected agency’s chapter for discussion on options specific to that agency. In addition to the agency specific options, the option for a county water agency and/or a countywide county water district was also identified. These options have the potential to affect many or all of the reviewed agencies and have far-reaching impacts on water and wastewater services in the County and are discussed in more detail here. Figure 3-16: Governance Structure Options Napa County Water and Wastewater Agency Governance Structure Options Affected Agency Governance Options City of American Canyon • Clarification of LAFCO-approved service area • Inclusion of non-contiguous city-owned property in SOI or clarification of LAFCO policy • Participation in a county water agency City of Calistoga • Participation in a county water agency City of Napa • Reorganization of Congress Valley Water District CHAPTER 3: OVERVIEW 47 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR Napa County Water and Wastewater Agency Governance Structure Options Affected Agency Governance Options • Contract service to other agencies • Merger with Napa Sanitation District • Creation of a Water Commission • Inclusion of non-contiguous city-owned property in SOI or clarification of LAFCO policy • Participation in a county water agency City of St. Helena • Elimination of Municipal Sewer District No. 1 • Inclusion of non-contiguous city-owned property in SOI or clarification of LAFCO policy • Participation in a county water agency • Expansion of services to Meadowood Resort Town of Yountville • Collaboration with California Department of Veterans Affairs to develop a water management plan • Continued collaboration with County regarding potential annexation of Domaine Chandon property • Participation in a county water agency Circle Oaks County Water District • Contracting for services with City of Napa and/or Napa Sanitation District • Reorganization into a county water agency or a countywide county water district Congress Valley Water District • Reorganization of Congress Valley Water District o Expansion of City of Napa SOI and annexation of Congress Valley community o Formation of a subsidiary district of City of Napa o Formation of a county service area o Dissolution and continued service by City of Napa CHAPTER 3: OVERVIEW 48 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR Napa County Water and Wastewater Agency Governance Structure Options Affected Agency Governance Options Lake Berryessa Resort • Reorganization as a county service area Improvement District • Reorganization into a county water agency or countywide county water district Los Carneros Water District • Reorganization with Napa Sanitation District Napa Berryessa Resort • Reorganization as a county service area Improvement District • Reorganization into a county water agency or countywide county water district Napa County Flood Control and • Establish zones of benefit Water Conservation District • Reorganization with Napa River Reclamation District No. 2109 • Participation in a county water agency Napa River Reclamation District • Expansion of services to include levee No. 2109 construction and maintenance • Reorganization into a community services district • Reorganization as zone of Napa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Napa Sanitation District • Merger with City of Napa • Annexation of Los Carneros Water District • Contract service to other agencies • Expansion of services to Monticello Park Spanish Flat Water District • Contracting for services with City of Napa and/or Napa Sanitation District • Reorganization into a county water agency or countywide county water district • Transition to a county service area Over the course of this review several challenges to water and wastewater services around the County were identified that could be potentially addressed by alternative governance structures. CHAPTER 3: OVERVIEW 49 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR v Lack of a regional outlook for water resources, v A need for cohesive and comprehensive policies affecting both growth and water supply (i.e., trucked water policies), v Lack of a single entity accounting for water supply and demand throughout the County to better leverage available resources, v Collaboration on a case-by-case scenario, v Some County water resources not being used to the fullest extent possible, v A need for greater oversight of all jurisdictions providing water services in the County, v A need for support buying on the spot market, v Certain redundancies with several smaller systems around the County, which could be eliminated, v A need for support of mutual water companies and small non-public water systems, v A need for supplemental technical expertise and support, and v A lack of economies of scale in the smaller water and wastewater systems. Some of the challenges are not applicable to all of the agencies, but all of the issues may be addressed by a long-term solution that also promotes regionalization of planning and organization for water resources. Governance options to address these issues include a single agency to conduct water supply management on a regional or countywide level, such as a county water agency and/or an agency to provide management and operational support to the smaller utility systems that could benefit from the consolidation of certain services (i.e., lab testing) or from fully transitioning to operations by a regional agency, such as a county water district. A county water agency or county water district could provide a means to improve efficiency of water supply management in the County, as well as continued and enhanced resource sharing. Each municipality within Napa County manages its own water supply and charges rates to a relatively small population base. Other California counties such as Marin County have one water authority that manages all water treatment, delivery, and wastewater across the County. Napa County’s separate and autonomous water utilities are a legacy of a rural history of city-by-city self-funding and self-management. This multiplicity of service provision systems has created small systems that lack economies of scale, creating a big disparity in rates between the utility providers. The annual cost for drinking water and wastewater paid by Calistoga and St. Helena residents for a single household can be more than double the cost of the City of Napa, American Canyon, or Town of Yountville rates. This amounts to an extra $1,000-$1,500 per household per year, or $10,000-$15,000 over 10 years. The smaller up-valley cities have fewer water connections and households to amortize the cost of large capital improvements. For example, St. Helena’s current bond debt for past water projects and State-mandated capital projects for future CHAPTER 3: OVERVIEW 50 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR drinking and wastewater projects exceeds $15,000 per household.34 This disparity in rates may indicate the potential for improved efficiency of a single utility agency. Formation of a County Water Agency In California, there are 25 water agencies, 17 of which serve all or a majority of a county. The counties served by a countywide or near countywide water agency consist of the following: v Alameda v Sacramento v Alpine v Santa Barbara v Amador v Shasta v Contra Costa v Solano v Kern v Sonoma/Marin v El Dorado v Sutter v Mariposa v Tuolumne v Nevada v Yuba v Placer Water agencies generally act as the primary water resource agency of a county with a varying and broad range of responsibilities. Water agencies are formed by special acts of the State Legislature and empowered to provide many services tailored to the needs of the community that is served. Examples of services provided by existing water agencies include 1) water resource planning and management, 2) retail and wholesale supply of drinking and irrigation water, 3) resource and environmental stewardship, 4) production of hydroelectric energy, 5) management and operation of sanitation zones and districts, 6) flood control, 7) watershed conservation, 8) contract agency for the State Water Project, and 9) provision of technical assistance to other agencies. Some of the water agencies were formed as flood control and water conservation districts then were altered to become a county water agency, such as Sonoma County Water Agency (Sonoma Water). Presently Napa County benefits from the services of the Napa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (NCFCWCD), which provides a portion of the roles of a water agency including: 1) Operates as the contracting agency for the State Water Project, 2) Operates as a water resource manager by subcontracting water supply, 3) Assists with planning services including recycled water, 4) Facilitates designs and funding for the Napa River/Napa Creek Flood Protection Project, 34 Napa County Civil Grand Jury, Grand Jury Report, 2018-2019, June 14, 2019, p. 16. CHAPTER 3: OVERVIEW 51 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR 5) Coordinates with local jurisdictions on implementing and maintaining local flood control and stormwater quality improvements, 6) Contracts services from specific cities for which the District is reimbursed, 7) Administers the Napa County Stormwater Management Program (NCSWMP) and coordinates the individual activities of NPDES permits and programs of the five cities and the County. While many of the roles offered by NCFCWCD are similar to those provided by a county water agency, the District does not meet all of the needs of the water and wastewater providers in the County. In particular, there is a need for a single entity leading water resource planning of all sources, similar to many of Napa’s neighboring counties. The other primary need is for an entity that could provide technical support to all agencies, as well as management and operations for smaller struggling agencies. A county water agency is capable of accomplishing these aims. There is the potential for NCFCWCD to transition into a water agency, similar to Sonoma Water; however, the County has not indicated whether it would be interested in taking on additional responsibilities. Also, an agency independent from the County may provide for more appropriate representation on the governing body, perhaps comprised of representatives of the agencies that are providing utility services. A county water agency has the potential to fulfill the exact roles that Napa agencies desire, and the agencies would play a role in developing the district and defining services to be provided and areas to be included. As mentioned, a county water agency would be enabled by a special act of the Legislature. Funding would need to be addressed through any combination of the following: negotiations with the County for property tax sharing, special assessments, funding from member agencies, charges for services, and/or grants. Sonoma Water is an example of the capabilities of a water agency. The District provides a wide range of services. In addition to water resource planning, the district also owns and operates sewer zones. This demonstrates that a county water agency is capable of taking on and operating the small utility systems that are in particular need of additional support or a service structure change in Napa County. Formation of a Countywide County Water District Another similar governance option is formation of a countywide county water district. There are 169 county water districts in California. County water districts are empowered in the Water Code §30000–33901. The Code enables county water districts to develop regulations for the distribution and consumption of water; sell water; collect and dispose sewage, garbage, waste, trash and storm water; store water for future needs; may generate hydroelectric power; and provide fire protection under specified conditions. While county water districts (CWDs) are generally considered as providing utility operations, they are also empowered to provide water resource management similar to water agencies. CWDs have broad general jurisdiction over the use of water within their boundaries, including the right of eminent domain, authority to acquire, control, distribute, store, spread, sink, treat, purify, reclaim, process and salvage any water for beneficial use, to provide sewer service, to sell treated or untreated water, to acquire or construct hydroelectric facilities and sell the power and energy produced to public agencies or public CHAPTER 3: OVERVIEW 52 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR utilities engaged in the distribution of power, and to contract with the United States, public subdivisions, public utilities, or other persons. An example of a CWD with jurisdiction over water resource management is Alameda County Water District, which is a State Water Project (SWP) contractor. Another example of a CWD providing services that could also benefit Napa agencies is Calaveras County Water District (CCWD). CCWD’s jurisdiction includes provision of public water service, water supply development and planning, wastewater treatment and disposal and recycling. CCWD is a countywide district that provides water resource management and owns and operates several small water and wastewater systems in unincorporated portions of the County. The City of Angels Camp in Calaveras County operates its own utility system. Of importance is that CCWD has three service specific SOIs to differentiate water resource management/wholesale water sales, domestic water, and wastewater services and limit extension of those services. Additionally, the County continues to be responsible for land use decisions in the unincorporated areas and can control development, thereby preventing extension of services from determining where and when development may occur. Based on preferences expressed by Napa County agencies, this arrangement may meet the needs of the agencies by providing a combination of water resource management and utility system operations, while maintaining County land use control in unincorporated areas. County Water Agency and/or Countywide County Water District In practice, a county water agency has more of a focus on water resource management; however, as described above, either agency is empowered to provide similar services that would help resolve current concerns of Napa agencies. Either of these options would address the challenges currently faced by the agencies including: v Efficient use of the County’s water resources, v Enhanced water resource management, v Solidarity amongst Napa water purveyors with greater leveraging power, v Greater scrutiny of all utility providers, v Enhanced technical and operational support for local providers, v Elimination of redundancies and duplication of efforts amongst the smaller systems, and v Improved economies of scale. Challenges to Reorganization As with any change of organization there are challenges that must be overcome prior to and during the reorganization process, including but not limited to the following: First and foremost, there needs to be consensus of the affected agencies on the desired form of the reorganized agency. The reorganization will not be effective nor beneficial if only a few potentially affected agencies choose to participate. Which agencies are deemed to be affected will be dependent on the format of the reorganization. For example, if the intent is to enhance only county water resource management, then only water purveyors would be affected agencies. Consensus among multiple agencies regarding such a significant change CHAPTER 3: OVERVIEW 53 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR would likely take substantial time and effort to achieve, and is likely the primary challenge to moving forward. A common concern during reorganization is whether member agencies will have the ability to retain local control if a separate regional governing body is formed. Generally, local governing bodies have a more immediate connection with customers and are attuned to the needs of the agency and its operations; however, multiple, overlapping governing bodies may be duplicative, inefficient, and counterproductive to the goals of reorganization. The governance structure of the new agency will need to be determined by the affected agencies when defining the desired new agency format and strive to maintain a desirable level of local control. Similarly, the composition of the decision-making body of the new agency is often contentious as agencies strive for representation that may most benefit their city or district. However, there are readily available examples of fair and equitable solutions to this challenge. The affected agencies will need to cumulatively fund upfront costs associated with initiating the desired reorganization. Reorganization costs will vary depending on the proposed outcome, and may include a detailed study with a plan for services, application costs, election costs, and/or time and costs associated with getting state legislation passed in the case of a water agency. It should be noted that the five Napa cities and town and the County have a proven record of collaborating on and funding regional plans, indicating their ability to cooperatively fund projects. Potential new agencies are often challenged to identify and establish sustainable revenue sources. For utility services, funding is generally guaranteed by rates for services. In the case of water resource management, however, funding would likely come from the member agencies. Revenues could be supplemented by property taxes and grants, or regional voter- approved measures. A primary concern of the agencies reviewed in this MSR was how such a reorganization may affect rates in each community. Additionally, agencies questioned how it would be ensured that each community is financing its own operation and infrastructure costs. These are issues that would need to be addressed and quantified in a special study prior to application. Likely, zones within the agency would ensure rates are appropriated to their respective community system and operations, and regional costs shared equitably according to benefit. Finally, all agencies will need to acclimate to new or altered roles. In particular, agencies may not find it acceptable to relinquish certain responsibilities. The degree of adjustments for each agency will be determined by the structure and detail of the chosen alternative. Other Collaboration or Reorganization Options The agencies may not be prepared to entirely commit to significant changes immediately. There are options that enable the agencies to explore collaborative activities and assess the feasibility of options without committing to formation of a new agency. Intermediate options may include a joint powers authority or contracting for services from a larger agency as discussed in the following. CHAPTER 3: OVERVIEW 54 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR Joint Powers Authority Joint powers are exercised when the public officials of two or more agencies agree to create another legal entity or establish a joint approach to work on a common problem, fund a project, or act as a representative body for a specific activity. A joint powers agreement is a formal legal agreement between two or more public agencies that share a common power and want to jointly implement programs, build facilities, or deliver services. Officials from those public agencies formally approve a cooperative arrangement. A joint powers agreement is like a confederation of governments that work together and share resources for mutual support or common actions. The government agencies that participate in joint powers agreements are called member agencies. With a joint powers agreement, a member agency agrees to be responsible for delivering a service on behalf of the other member agencies. Each joint powers agreement is unique as there is no set formula for how governments should use their joint powers. One agency will administer the terms of the agreement, which may be a short-term, long-term, or a perpetual service agreement. A joint powers authority (JPA) is a separate government organization created by the member agencies, but is legally independent from them. Like a joint powers agreement (in which an agency administers the terms of the agreement) a JPA shares powers common to the member agencies and those powers are outlined in the JPA agreement. Agencies create JPAs to deliver more cost-effective services, eliminate duplicative efforts, and consolidate services into a single agency. A joint powers authority offers the advantages of a more ephemeral and potentially more limited consolidation (e.g., planning or treatment), continued accountability and local control, and a potential structure to overcome inherent financial incompatibilities among the providers working towards future consolidation. Collaboration by means of JPAs does not currently exist among the Napa County water and wastewater providers. Creation of a JPA would be a significant step towards formation of an all-encompassing water agency or county water district. A JPA could entail whatever roles the member agencies desired, such as resource management for the cities or a regional approach amongst the cities for supply and treatment to improve efficiency. Of note is that a JPA could avoid overhead costs for fiscal and personnel management associated with formation of a new agency, as it could make use of existing participating agency support services, such as for budgeting or engineering. Contracting for Services Struggling smaller agencies are in need of immediate support in some form. They may wish to contract with larger agencies for services. Contracting for certain services from other agencies offers an opportunity to test a service structure prior to committing to full reorganization and may also offer cost efficiencies depending on the structure and participating agencies, as well as access to increased expertise and staff resources. Contracts for services are a way to build closer ties between cities and districts in Napa County. Options identified in this report include the City of Napa or NapaSan providing contract services to interested agencies. CHAPTER 3: OVERVIEW 55 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR Recommendation It is recommended that water purveyors and wastewater providers in Napa begin discussions regarding their vision for water utilities in the County in the long term to address existing concerns and ensure a persistent and stalwart effort at providing reliable and sustainable water and wastewater services throughout the County. CHAPTER 3: OVERVIEW 56 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR 4. CI TY O F A M ERI CA N CA NYO N AGENCY OVERVIEW City of American Canyon Profile Contact Information Contact: Jason Holley, City Manager 4381 Broadway, Suite 201, https://www.cityofamericancanyo Address: American Canyon, CA Website: n.org/ Phone: 707-647-5323 Email: jholley@cityofamericancanyon.org Formation Information Date of Incorporation: 1992 City type: General Law Governing Body Governing Body: City Council Members: 4 Council Members and 1 Mayor Length of Manner of Selection: Election at large term: 4 years Council Chambers at 4381 First and third Tuesday of each Meetings Location: Meeting date: Broadway, Suite 201 month at 6:30 p.m. Mapping and Population Population GIS Date: December 2019 (2019): 20,629 Purpose Enabling Empowered Legislation: California Constitution XI Services: All municipal services Municipal Services Water, wastewater, parks and recreation, street maintenance and traffic, Provided (directly stormwater, solid waste (private contractor) police (County Sheriff), fire (through or by contract) subsidiary district American Canyon Fire Protection District) Area Served Size: Nearly 6 square miles Location: Southern Napa County Most recent Current SOI: A little over 6 square miles SOI update: 2018 Municipal Service Reviews 2018 South County Region Municipal Service Review and Sphere of Influence Updates 2009 Municipal Service Review: Southeast Napa County Past MSRs: 2005 Comprehensive Sanitation and Wastewater Treatment Study 2004 Comprehensive Water Service Study 2003 Comprehensive Study of American Canyon Service Review Report CHAPTER 4: CITY OF AMERICAN CANYON 57 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR Boundaries The City of American Canyon encompasses approximately six square miles35 at the southern end of Napa County, as shown in Figure 4-1. The City is surrounded by mainly rural and agricultural land uses.36 In 2008, American Canyon and Napa County established an Urban Limit Line (ULL) to demark the allowable growth for the City. There have been six annexations since the ULL was established, all of which were approved by LAFCO and were consistent with ULL boundaries.37 There have been no boundary reorganizations since the last MSR completed in 2018. The City is currently in the midst of the annexation process for the 87-acre Paoli/Watson Lane property. The area is located within the City’s sphere of influence and consistent with the ULL. Besides the Paoli/Watson Lane property, the area includes other in-between properties to the south along Watson Lane and within the Southern Pacific Railroad Right- of-Way. Including the other properties along Watson Lane prevents the undesirable creation of a county island.38 The annexation entails a General Plan amendment, rezoning and tax sharing agreement.39 Sphere of Influence The City of American Canyon sphere of influence (SOI) was last updated in 2018. No changes to the SOI were made at that time since it had been LAFCO’s practice to defer any SOI expansions until such time that specific land uses within the affected territory are known. The City’s SOI was last expanded in 2015 when the Commission approved a concurrent sphere of influence amendment and annexation of Canyon Estates. The City’s current SOI is 3,849.440 acres or a little over six square miles in size and is shown in Figure 4-1. The current SOI is annexable with one area outside of the City’s boundaries but inside its SOI. Following the completion of the Paoli/Watson Lane annexation, all territory within the City’s SOI will be inside the city limits. There are three additional parcels, which are inside the City’s boundaries but outside of its SOI, consisting of a noncontiguous city-owned water plant to the northeast, a noncontiguous city-owned corporation yard to the southwest, and the noncontiguous city-owned Clark Ranch Park to the west. Typically, this would indicate LAFCO’s anticipation that these areas be detached from the City; however, it has been Napa LAFCO’s practice to not include city-owned property within a city’s SOI pursuant to Government Code §56742, which is specific to noncontiguous territories. LAFCO may wish to consider including the noncontiguous city- owned properties in the City of American Canyon’s SOI during its next update, or if LAFCO wishes to continue the practice of excluding these properties from the City’s SOI, then it may consider clarifying its intent in its policies. 35 Napa LAFCO, South County Region Municipal Service Review and Sphere of Influence Updates, 2018, p. 3-1. 36 Napa LAFCO, South County Region Municipal Service Review and Sphere of Influence Updates, 2018, p. 3-1. 37 Napa LAFCO, South County Region Municipal Service Review and Sphere of Influence Updates, 2018, pp. 6-1- 6-3. 38 City of American Canyon, City Council Agenda Staff Report, March 19, 2019. 39 City of American Canyon Active Community Development Projects, 2018. 40 3,333 acres 2004 SOI+479.2 acres added in 2010 +37.2 acres added in 2015. CHAPTER 4: CITY OF AMERICAN CANYON 58 City of American Canyon Figure 4-1 D £¤ e v lin R £¤ 29 12 o a d Legend Tower Road City of American Canyon Jurisdictional Boundary City of American Canyon Sphere of Influence Green Island Road Watson Lane Napa Junction Road Eucalyptus Drive N Napa e w River Donaldson Way e ll D r iv e American Canyon Road £¤ 29 0 0.225 0.45Miles Lake Napa Yolo Calistoga December 11, 2019 St. Helena Prepared by LAFCO Staff American Sonoma Canyon Yountville Napa Solano LAFCO of Napa County 1030 Seminary Street, Suite B Napa, California 94559 American Marin Canyon http://www.napa.lafco.ca.gov Figure 4-1a City of American Canyon D £¤ e v lin R £¤ 29 12 o a d Legend Tower Road City of American Canyon Jurisdictional Boundary City of American Canyon Sphere of Influence City of American Canyon Urban Limit Line Green Island Road Watson Lane Napa Junction Road Eucalyptus Drive N Napa e w River Donaldson Way e ll D r iv e American Canyon Road £¤ 29 0 0.225 0.45Miles Lake Napa Yolo Calistoga December 17, 2019 St. Helena Prepared by LAFCO Staff American Sonoma Canyon Yountville Napa Solano LAFCO of Napa County 1030 Seminary Street, Suite B Napa, California 94559 American Marin Canyon http://www.napa.lafco.ca.gov NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR ACCOUNTABILITY AND GOVERNANCE The City of American Canyon is governed by a four-member Council and one Mayor, all elected to staggered four-year terms. The Council selects a Vice Mayor annually.41 Regular meetings of the City Council take place on the first and third Tuesday of every month at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers. The meetings are broadcast live on public access Channel 28, the City’s YouTube Channel, and on the City’s website. Agendas and minutes are posted on the website, along with other information pertaining to city services and operations.42 In 2016, the State Legislature enacted Assembly Bill 2257 (Government Code §54954.2) to update the Brown Act with new requirements governing the location, platform and methods by which an agenda must be accessible on the agency’s website for all meetings occurring on or after January 1, 2019. The City of American Canyon has a designated web page for City Council and Commission meetings accessible from the homepage and reports that it is in compliance with AB 2257 requirements. The City demonstrated accountability and transparency in its disclosure of information and cooperation with Napa LAFCO. The City responded to the questionnaires and cooperated with document requests. GROWTH AND POPULATION PROJECTIONS According to the California Department of Finance (DOF), the City’s population as of 2019 is approximately 20,629. Based on the California Department of Finance (DOF) estimates, the City’s population increased from 18,731 in 2009 to 20,629 in 2019, or by about 10 percent over the 10-year period. Future development is limited by the ULL. Additionally, growth is constrained by the airport’s flyover zones to the north, City of Vallejo to the south, foothills of the Sulphur Springs Mountain Range to the east, and the Napa River to the west.43 Most of the undeveloped area in the ULL has been built out. One of the largest remaining areas with the potential to be developed is Watson Ranch. The City certified a Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the Watson Ranch project and adopted the Watson Ranch Specific Plan in November 2018.44 The adopted General Plan amendment, development agreement and the Specific Plan describe Watson Ranch as ultimately consisting of 1,253 residential units, 93,500 square feet of commercial/retail space, 50 live/work dwelling units, a 200-room hotel, and an elementary school.45 Another notable planned project is the Broadway District. The Broadway District Specific Plan guides the 41 City of American Canyon, Mayor and City Council, https://www.cityofamericancanyon.org/city-departments/mayor- city-council 42 City of American Canyon, Mayor and City Council, https://www.cityofamericancanyon.org/city-departments/mayor- city-council 43 Napa County Local Agency Formation Commission, South County Region Municipal Service Review and Sphere of Influence Updates, 2018 44 Napa County Local Agency Formation Commission, South County Region Municipal Service Review and Sphere of Influence Updates, 2018 45 City of American Canyon, Active Community Development Projects, 2018, https://www.cityofamericancanyon.org/home/showdocument?id=17165. CHAPTER 4: CITY OF AMERICAN CANYON 60 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR development of up to 1,200 net new dwelling units and up to 840,000 square feet of net new non-residential uses (commercial, office, etc.). Both the Specific Plan and the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) assume the buildout by 2036.46 The additional development projects in various stages of planning and development are shown in Figure 4-2. Figure 4-2: City of American Canyon Development Projects Project Name Description Location Status Review engineering Watson Ranch standards in small lot North terminus Application submitted, Lots 14 and 15 residential subdivision Summerwood Dr meeting with applicant Preapplication design. South of 3850 Home2Suites A proposed 102 room Broadway Resubmittal Design Permit hotel 2 acres General Plan Amendment and Zoning East side of Oat Hill Oat Hill District amendment to adjacent to Napa Residential City Council Review consider a future Junction Road Designation residential 30 acres development proposal. Circle K and Northeast corner Service station with a Service station Lombard/Napa Comments to applicant Circle K market Preapplication Junction Road Gas station with eight fueling stations, a 4,800 Rotten Robbie square feet 3519 Broadway St. Comments to applicant Preapplication convenience store, a car 3.33 acres Meeting with applicant wash, and three truck- fueling positions. Construct a new 76,268 Am Can Assisted square feet, 70-unit, Southwest corner SR Living Conditional two story assisted 29/Crawford Way Comments to applicant Use Permit living and memory care 4.32 acres facility. Lot line adjustment to Am Can Assisted Southwest corner SR adjust lot lines to Second comments to Living Lot Line 29/Crawford Way coincide with assisted applicant Adjustment 4.32 acres living Phase 1 and 2 Copart 1578 and 1660 Green Vehicle storage and Draft Initial Study Conditional Use Island Road administrative uses resubmitted Permit 20.47 acres Construct a 7,000 Element 7 square foot building for Project status schedule Cannabis Cannabis 1300 Green Island Rd sent to applicant Business Permit manufacturing, distribution and non- 46 First Carbon Solutions, Draft Environmental Impact Report, Broadway District Specific Plan, City of American Canyon, Napa County, California, 2017, p. 2-11. CHAPTER 4: CITY OF AMERICAN CANYON 61 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR Project Name Description Location Status storefront retail (delivery) business. Construct an 82,328 square feet two story Reesan Live, Inc. warehouse for cannabis Project status schedule Cannabis cultivation, 834 Green Island Rd sent to applicant Business Permit manufacturing, distribution and retail delivery. Revise the site plan to Village at Vintage remove seawalls Ranch Minor throughout the site and 100 Toscana Avenue Application approved Modification replace some with benches Construct a 6,000 Napa Junction III 416 Napa Junction Rd square foot single story Application submitted Building 6B 1.06 acres medical office building NWC Silver Oak and Village at Vintage Improvement plans for Improvement plan permit American Canyon Dr Ranch 159 townhome project issued 11.7 acres NWC Silver Oak and Village at Vintage 159 townhome rental Building 4 temporary American Canyon Dr Ranch project occupancy inspections 11.7 acres Construct 7,900 square Holy Family foot church and site 200 Antonina Avenue Improvement Plan issued Church improvements and 1.53 acres parking lot NEC Rio del Rio del Mar 4-lot residential Mar/Carolyn Drive Comments to applicants Subdivision subdivision 1.9 acres Improvement plans, Northeast corner Grading and grading plans, potable Canyon Estates Silver Oak/Newell Dr Improvement Plan water pump station 35 acres Comments to applicant plans Canyon Estates Lot Line adjustment to Northeast corner Lot Line consolidate habitat area Silver Oak/Newell Dr Comments to applicant Adjustment in Napa County 35 acres Grading permit for new customer parking lot 5759 Broadway Pick-n-Pull Grading permit approved and vehicle inventory 9.52 acres yard Will serve application Assisted Living SWC Crawford/SR 29 for an assisted living Comments to applicant Facility 4.32 acres facility SDG 330 New 330,000 square 1005 Commerce Ct BP Issued Warehouse foot warehouse shell 15.24 acres DV Approved Napa Logistics New 702,000 square 400 Boone Drive BP Issued Building 5 foot warehouse shell 37.6 acres CHAPTER 4: CITY OF AMERICAN CANYON 62 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR Project Name Description Location Status Improvement Plans for Napa Logistics 500 Boone Drive Application deposit new 362,880 foot Building 5 24.5 acres received warehouse Building permit for new Napa Logistics 500 Boone Drive 362,880 square foot Comments to applicant Building 5 24.5 acres warehouse Prepare a specific plan, general plan Broadway District amendment, and Properties east and Priority City Council final reading environmental impact west of SR 29 Development approved report in accordance 300 acres Area Specific Plan with MTC guidelines and local input General Plan Amendment, rezoning, Southeast of Paoli Paoli/Watson EIR proposal period and annexation of the Loop/SR 29 Lane Annexation closed Paoli/Watson Lane 80 acres Property Coordination with the Replacement Northeast corner Napa Valley Unified Napa Junction Wetlands Groundbreaking School District on the Elementary Edge/Eucalyptus Dr ceremony new elementary school School 10 acres design Source: City of American Canyon, Active Community Development Projects, January 2020, https://www.cityofamericancanyon.org/home/showdocument?id=18107 The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) projects that the population of American Canyon will grow by about 10 percent from 2020 to 2030. Thus, the average annual population growth in the City is anticipated to be approximately one percent. Based on these projections, the City’s population would increase from 20,629 in 2019 to 22,919 in 2030. Napa LAFCO has developed its own population projections. To project future growth, LAFCO calculated the annual percentage change between 2012 and 2017, based on DOF population estimates for these years.47 The population growth was projected in five-year increments through 2030. According to the LAFCO’s projections, the population of American Canyon in 2025 will be about 21,594 and approximately 22,398 in 2030. 47 The change in population, especially unincorporated area, between 2017-2018 was significant due to the wildfires and loss of homes. Therefore, LAFCO used the timeframe from 2012 to 2017. CHAPTER 4: CITY OF AMERICAN CANYON 63 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR DISADVANTAGED UNINCORPORATED COMMUNITIES LAFCO is required to evaluate disadvantaged unincorporated communities as part of this service review, including the location and characteristics of any such communities. American Canyon is incorporated and does not serve any DUC in the unincorporated area. According to Napa LAFCO’s definition of DUCs, there are currently no disadvantaged unincorporated communities in Napa County. Based on the adopted policy, the Commission annually reviews Census Bureau American Community Survey data to determine if local and/or statewide median household income levels have changed.48 FINANCIAL ABILITY TO PROVIDE SERVICES The City of American Canyon provides water and wastewater services as City enterprises (“business-type” activities). City departments provide administrative and overhead services to the water and wastewater enterprises, which in turn reimburse the City departments for those expenses. The enterprises are supported by rate revenues and charges; no property tax revenue accrues directly to the enterprises, and no General Fund revenues support those enterprises. The City’s CAFR reports City financials which include the financial reports for the American Canyon Fire District, a City-dependent district.49 The CAFR provides financial information separately for the water and wastewater “business-type” activities. The following tables summarize selected financial information for the City of American Canyon’s water and wastewater operations. The agency’s Fiscal Profile in Appendix A provides additional detail and indicators. Figure 4-3: Summary of Selected Financial Information, City of American Canyon Water Operations City of American Canyon Water Operations FY18-19 Water Budget Net $350,000 Operating Revenues $6,350,000 Operating Expenditures (inc. debt) $6,000,000 Ending Fund Balance as % of Operating Revenues 85% Ending Fund Balance $5,420,000 Debt Service as a % of Operating Revenues 4.1% Total Debt Outstanding $931,000 Monthly Rates as a % of Household Income 0.7% Typical Monthly Rate $55 Median Household Income (2017) $91,705 Pension+OPEB Unfunded Liability Pmts % of Revenue 2.8% Pension+OPEB Total Pmts $180,600 Unfunded Pension Liability $1,020,000 Unfunded OPEB Liability $410,000 48 Napa Local Agency Formation Commission, Policy on Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities, 2018. 49 The City Council serves as the board of the fire district. CHAPTER 4: CITY OF AMERICAN CANYON 64 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR Figure 4-4: Summary of Selected Financial Information, City of American Canyon Wastewater Operations City of American Canyon Wastewater Operations FY18-19 Wastewater Budget Net $2,680,000 Operating Revenues $4,560,000 Operating Expenditures (exc. debt) $1,880,000 Ending Fund Balance as % of Operating Revenues 118% Ending Fund Balance $5,390,000 Debt Service as a % of Operating Revenues 16.8% Total Debt Outstanding $3,680,000 Monthly Rates as a % of Household Income 0.7% Typical Monthly Rate $55 Median Household Income (2017) $91,705 Pension+OPEB Unfunded Liability Pmts % of Revenue 5.1% Pension+OPEB Total Payments $230,700 Unfunded Pension Liability $1,290,000 Unfunded OPEB Liability $550,000 Balanced Budget For any agency, recurring operating deficits are a warning sign. In the short-term, reserves can backfill deficits and maintain services. However ongoing deficits eventually will deplete reserves. The City’s water and wastewater operating revenues exceeded operating expenditures for FY16 through FY19 (including debt service).50 The net revenues helped to fund capital projects. Water Services Operating revenues exceed operating expenditures by about $350,000 in FY19; prior years also show operating surpluses,51 increasing fund balances prior to capital expenditures. Operating revenues declined in FY19 and annual operating surpluses declined compared to prior years. Rate increases during the year did not offset the declines. 50 City of American Canyon Annual Budget Fiscal Year 2018 – 2019, Water Operations Summary (pg. 220) and Wastewater Operations Summary (pg. 236). 51 City of American Canyon Annual Budget Fiscal Year 2018 – 2019, Water Operations Summary (pg. 220) and Wastewater Operations Summary (pg. 236). CHAPTER 4: CITY OF AMERICAN CANYON 65 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR Wastewater Services Operating revenues exceed operating expenditures by about $3.4 million in FY19; prior years also show operating surpluses,52 which increased fund balances prior to capital expenditures. Fund Balances, Reserves and Liquidity Fund balances and reserves should include adequate funds for short-term cash flow and liquidity, and sufficient to fund longer-term capital needs. The City of American Canyon has established General Fund Reserves and a Capital Projects Reserve but has not created other (non-capital) reserves specific to its utility operations. The Water and Wastewater Operations Fund Balances, which utilize budget information, provide an indicator of short-term reserves. In the longer term, an Agency’s Unrestricted Net Position can indicate the longer-term availability of funds, which could be greater or less than a Fund Balance. The Net Position reflects net value remaining after including all current and long-term assets such as capital assets and advances to other funds, and current and long-term liabilities such as unfunded pension and OPEB liabilities. Funds restricted to capacity expansion are available for certain capital improvements (see “Capital Assets” below). Water Services The Water Operations’ projected FY19 ending fund balance of $5.4 million53 equals 90 percent of annual expenditures (including debt service), providing a cushion for cash flow needs and short-term contingencies.54 The Water Operations’ liquidity ratio, which is positive (current assets exceed current liabilities), indicates the short-term (less than one year) availability of these funds if needed. Over the longer term (greater than one year) the Water Operations Fund has an unrestricted net balance of only $100,000;55 the balance of its net position (assets exceeding liabilities) is invested in capital assets and/or restricted. Wastewater Services The Wastewater Operation’s projected ending fund balance of $5.4 million56 provides a cushion for cash flow needs and short-term contingencies, representing three times annual expenditures (including debt service).57 The Wastewater Operations’ liquidity ratio, which is positive (current assets exceed current liabilities), indicates the short-term (less than one year) availability of these funds if needed. 52 City of American Canyon Annual Budget Fiscal Year 2018 – 2019, Water Operations Summary (pg. 220) and Wastewater Operations Summary (pg. 236). 53 City of American Canyon Annual Budget Fiscal Year 2018 – 2019, Water Operations Fund #510, pg. 106. 54 See American Canyon Water Operations Financial Profile. 55 City of American Canyon FY18 CAFR, Statement of Net Position, Proprietary Funds, pg. 27. 56 City of American Canyon Annual Budget Fiscal Year 2018 – 2019, Wastewater Operations Fund #540, pg. 108. 57 See American Canyon Wastewater Operations Financial Profile. CHAPTER 4: CITY OF AMERICAN CANYON 66 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR Over the longer term (greater than one year) the Wastewater Operations Fund has an unrestricted net position of $11.5 million58 that is available for capital or other uses. The positive net position depends on the future repayment by the Water Operations Fund of advances from the Wastewater Operations Fund. Net Position An agency’s “Net Position” as reported in its CAFR represents the amount by which assets (e.g., cash, capital assets, other assets) exceed liabilities (e.g., debts, unfunded pension and OPEB liabilities, other liabilities). A positive Net Position provides an indicator of financial soundness over the long-term and ability to fund capital improvements. Water Services The Water Operations Fund has a significant net position of $32.2 million, which represents the value of assets in excess of liabilities. The net position is primarily invested in capital assets; the remaining net position is largely comprised of funds (e.g., accumulated capacity fees) restricted to capital expansion. Unrestricted funds total about $100,000.59 This position includes about $6.1 million of advances from the Wastewater Fund. Wastewater Services The Wastewater Operations Fund has a significant net position of $34.4 million which represents the value of assets in excess of liabilities. The net position is primarily invested in capital assets; the remaining net position is largely comprised of funds (e.g., accumulated capacity fees) restricted to capital expansion. Unrestricted net position totals about $11.5 million; this net position includes about $6.1 million of advances due from the Water Operations Fund.60 Rates and Charges Water and wastewater operations are primarily funded by service charges. Enterprises are allowed to establish charges sufficient to fund their cost of service. Rates typically are expected to not exceed 2-2.5 percent of household income, for each utility.61 American Canyon’s rates for each utility fall below one percent of median household incomes.62 Recent research proposes measures that consider additional factors such as housing and other costs to indicate funds available for utilities and potentially producing a different affordability conclusion. The City collects Capacity Fees63 to mitigate the impacts of new development by paying for additional pipes and upgrades to treatment facilities to meet additional demands from 58 City of American Canyon FY18 CAFR, Statement of Net Position, Proprietary Funds, pg. 27. 59 City of American Canyon FY18 CAFR, Statement of Net Position, pg. 27. 60 City of American Canyon FY18 CAFR, Statement of Net Position, pg. 27. 61 Teodoro, et al, (2018) cite USEPA’s Financial Capability Guidebook (USEPA 1984) as original source for the use of personal income as a measure, although it was not applied to rates in the 1984 document. 62 Based on median household income of $91,705 according to the American Community Survey 2017, DP03, 5-Year estimates. See appendix for detailed estimate of typical household charges. 63 “Capacity Fees” and the term “Connection Charges” are used interchangeably in City documents but refer to the same charge (Response to Request for Information, 2019-10-11). CHAPTER 4: CITY OF AMERICAN CANYON 67 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR new development. The City adjusts these fees annually based on an inflation factor.64 Every five years the City prepares a report to document the amounts collected and the use of those funds for their intended purpose. The last 5-year report was prepared in 2015;65 the City also prepares annual reports.66 Water Services The City of American Canyon prepared a water rate study in 2018 that established rates to fund operations, debt service and capital improvements through FY22.67 The City Council adopted new rates effective January 2019 and are proposed to increase approximately 5.5 percent annually.68 The new variable rate increased approximately 80 percent; the fixed meter charges increased about 6.6 percent.69 The rate differential for service outside the City was eliminated, and the drought surcharge ($2 per billing unit)70 was eliminated. The City’s Water Rate Assistance Program, approximately $600 total per month funded by penalty and interest revenue, is intended to provide a water service discount to eligible single-family residential customers in the City of American Canyon water service area. The Program will provide a credit equal to the amount of the meter charge (fixed-rate) on the monthly Water and Sewer Bill. The Water Rate Assistance Program is a pilot program that was only in effect from January 1, 2019 to December 31, 2019.71 The City’s Water Capacity Fee is $15,048 per single-family unit;72 the City’s fee schedule also lists capacity fees for other land uses. The projected ending balance for FY19 in the Water Capacity Fee Fund is $3 million.73 Wastewater Services Wastewater rates increased three percent in FY19 compared to the prior year. The last wastewater Cost of Service Study was prepared in 2007; no update is currently planned.74 The City’s Wastewater Capacity Fee is $10,358 per single-family unit;75 the City’s fee schedule also lists capacity fees for other land uses. The projected ending balance for FY19 in the Wastewater Capacity Fee Fund is $440,000.76 Long-term Debt Excessive long-term debt incurs interest charges that consume financial resources that could otherwise fund needed services and capital improvements. Studies indicate that a 64 City of American Canyon Resolution 2018-01. 65 AB 1600 Annual Compliance and Five-Year Development Impact Fee Report as of June 30, 2015. 66 AB 1600 Annual Compliance Development Impact Fee Report as of June 30, 2018 (FY19 report pending). 67 City of American Canyon Water Rate Study 2017-18, Bartle Wells Associates, May 10, 2018. 68 Comparison Chart (3-20-18) Proposed Five-Year Water Rate Schedule - Single-Family Residential. 69 City of American Canyon, Water Rate Schedules (eff. Jan. 2018, 2019) for Tier 1 (0-10 units) residential use. 70 A billing unit is 1 ccf (100 cubic feet) equal to 748 gallons. 71 Water Rate Assistance Program Application downloaded from City website 2/4/19. 72 Res. No. 2018-01 effective March 17, 2018, 2018 Water Capacity Fee. 73 City of American Canyon Annual Budget Fiscal Year 2018 – 2019, Water Capacity Fee Fund #520, pg. 107. 74 Water and Wastewater Rate and Fee Study FINAL, November 2007, Bartle Wells Associates; American Canyon Response to Request for Information, 2019-10-11. 75 Res. No. 2018-01 effective March 17, 2018, 2018 Wastewater Capacity Fee. 76 City of American Canyon Annual Budget Fiscal Year 2018 – 2019, Wastewater Capacity Fee Fund #550, pg. 109. CHAPTER 4: CITY OF AMERICAN CANYON 68 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR majority of debt-paying water and wastewater agencies surveyed spent between 10 percent and 30 percent of their total operating revenues on debt service.77 American Canyon water and wastewater services spend less than 20 percent of revenues for debt service, as noted below. Water Services Water Operations’ debt service represents about four percent of operating revenues,78 well below typical levels. As noted above, water operations obtained an internal $6.1 million advance from the Wastewater Operations Fund (not included in summary of total debt); the City is in the process of working out repayment options.79 Wastewater Services Wastewater Operations’ debt service represents about 17 percent of operating revenues, about the middle of a typical range for utilities.80 Pension and OPEB Liabilities Unfunded pension and OPEB liabilities present one of the most serious fiscal challenges facing many cities and districts. However, the potential increases in current American Canyon pension costs do not appear to be a significant adverse factor relative to its total budget. Increasing pension costs could result in increases to water and wastewater rates. The City of American Canyon provides pension benefits to its employees through the City’s CalPERS plans. The City’s pension liabilities are approximately 70 to 75 percent funded.81 City payments in FY18 towards its $14.8 million82 unfunded pension liability plus the “normal” costs for current employees totaled approximately $1.7 million83 in FY18, or about 4.2 percent of the City’s total $40.7 million84 revenues applied to fund program costs. These costs are projected to increase about 30 percent by FY25, primarily due to increases in public safety pension costs.85 Water and wastewater employees participate in the City’s OPEB plan, which is provided through CalPERS California Employers' Retiree Benefit Trust (CERBT) Fund, which is a Section 115 trust fund administered by CalPERS; the City currently offers health benefits to City retirees at the same rate as active employees.86 Benefits to employees hired after June 27, 2017 were substantially reduced.87 The City’s net OPEB liability totals $7 million; the total 77 http://efc.web.unc.edu/2014/02/17/napshot-debt-service-as-percent-of-total-operating-revenues/ 78 Appendix A, City of American Canyon Water Operations Fiscal Profile. 79 American Canyon Response to Request for Information, 2019-10-11. 80 Appendix A, City of American Canyon Wastewater Operations Fiscal Profile. 81 CALPERS Actuarial Valuations – June 30, 2017, Plan’s Funded Status, pg. 5; Fire First Tier Plan (70.4% funded); Misc. Plan (75.6% funded). These two plans represent the majority of the City’s pension obligations. According to City of American Canyon Response to Request for Information, 2019-10-11, the % funded was 75.8% as of June 30, 2017. 82 City of American Canyon, FY18 CAFR, Management’s Discussion and Analysis, City Program Costs, pg. 10. 83 City of American Canyon, FY18 CAFR, Note J – Pension Plan, Contributions – Employer, pg. 59. 84 City of American Canyon FY18 CAFR, management discussion, City Program Costs, pg. 10. 85 CALPERS Actuarial Valuations – June 30, 2017, Projected Employer Contributions, pg. 5, projections to FY25. 86 City of American Canyon, FY18 CAFR, Note K – Other Post-Employment Benefits, pg. 63. 87 City of American Canyon, FY18 CAFR, Note K – Other Post-Employment Benefits, pg. 63. CHAPTER 4: CITY OF AMERICAN CANYON 69 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR OPEB liability is approximately 53 percent funded.88 OPEB payments in FY19 totaled $455,000 or about 1.1 percent of total revenues applied to program costs.89 Water Services Water Operations’ net pension liability ($1,019,000) and net OPEB liability ($411,000) total $1,430,000. Payments towards pension and OPEB expenditures totaled $180,000 in FY19, or about 2.8 percent of total operating revenues, which is less than the City’s total 5.3 percent pension and OPEB payments relative to total revenues for programs. Wastewater Services Wastewater Operations’ net pension liability ($1,285,000) and net OPEB liability ($550,000) total $1,835,000. Payments towards pension and OPEB expenditures totaled $230,000 in FY19, or about 5.0 percent of total operating revenues, which is less than the City’s total 5.3 percent pension and OPEB payments relative to total revenues for programs. Capital Assets Capital assets must be adequately maintained and replaced over time and expanded as needed to accommodate future demand and respond to regulatory and technical changes. Water Services The value of depreciable capital assets declined about 3.6 percent from FY17 to FY18, to about 60 percent of value before depreciation. Annual depreciation of $1.5 million90 was only partially offset by additions to capital value. The City’s Five-Year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) identifies future needs, costs and source of funding, but does not identify the projected funding available or shortfalls in funding, if any. Wastewater Services The value of depreciable capital assets declined about 2.2 percent from FY17 to FY18, to about 72 percent of value before depreciation. Annual depreciation of $1.6 million91 was not offset by additions to capital value. The City’s Five-Year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) identifies future needs, costs and source of funding, but does not identify the projected funding available or shortfalls in funding, if any. Financial Planning and Reporting Achieving transparency and public accountability standards dictates that cities and agencies provide easily accessible and clear documentation of their activities, including financial information. Website – The City’s website includes descriptions of and access to current and past water and wastewater financial documents. 88 American Canyon Response to Request for Information, 2019-10-11. 89 City of American Canyon Annual Budget Fiscal Year 2018 – 2019, City Manager Transmittal, pg. 18. 90 City of American Canyon FY18 CAFR, Statement of Revenues, Expenses and Changes in Fund Net Position, pg. 28. 91 City of American Canyon FY18 CAFR, Statement of Revenues, Expenses and Changes in Fund Net Position, pg. 28. CHAPTER 4: CITY OF AMERICAN CANYON 70 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) -- The City includes its water and wastewater operations in its CAFR which is published in a timely manner within six months of the end of the fiscal year. Capital Improvement Program – The City prepares a 5-year CIP; the report is not updated annually at this time.92 Cost of Service/Rate Study – No wastewater cost of service study or rate study was available on the City’s website. Water Services Financial Forecasts – The City’s Water Rate Study93 forecasts cash flows over a ten-year period from FY17 (estimated actual) through FY26. The City prepares a one-year forecast during its budget preparation process but has no plans for a longer-term forecast until the Rate Study is updated after five years (about FY23). Wastewater Services Financial Forecasts – Other than the annual budget process, the City has not prepared a longer-term forecast for its wastewater operations budget. 92 City of American Canyon Response to Request for Information, 2019-10-11. 93 City of American Canyon Water Rate Study 2017-18, Bartle Wells Associates, May 10, 2018. CHAPTER 4: CITY OF AMERICAN CANYON 71 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR WATER SERVICES The City of American Canyon provides water services to its constituents directly and plans for them in various planning documents, including the Potable Water Master Plan adopted in 2016, Recycled Water Master Plan adopted in 2016, Capital Improvement Plan, and Urban Water Management Plan updated in 2015. The City’s General Plan, which was last updated in 1994, contains a Utility Element. Included in the Element are policies related to: v Establishing and maintaining a secure water supply and treatment, distribution and storage system to serve the land uses proposed in the General Plan through 1) confirming the reliability of North Bay Aqueduct water supply, 2) obtaining additional water supply sources as necessary to supplement the North Bay Aqueduct supply and serve anticipated growth under the proposed land use plan, 3) increasing ability to share water supply with Napa and Vallejo during emergencies and extended periods of restriction of the North Bay Aqueduct supply, and 4) establishing a water management program to promote water conservation and wastewater reuse. v Providing a high-quality water supply to City water users through 1) selecting supplemental water supply sources with water quality as a high priority, and 2) ensuring that the water treatment plant meets applicable drinking water standards. v Developing and maintaining a water treatment and distribution system that meets generally accepted operational criteria for service to provide daily and peak demands, including fire flow requirements, to meet present and future needs in a timely and cost effective manner through 1) expanding water treatment, storage and distribution facilities as necessary to meet increasing water demands, 2) ensuring that the cost of improvements to the water supply, distribution, storage, and treatment system are borne by those who benefit, and 3) providing public funding support for expansion and upgrading of the water supply, distribution, storage, and treatment system when these improvements will benefit the City. The City’s planning efforts are also consistent with the Integrated Regional Water Management Plan. As a part of water conservation efforts in the commercial sector, the City of American Canyon adopted a Zero Water Footprint (ZWF) Policy, the primary goal of which is that there is no loss in reliability or increase in water rates for existing water service customers due to new demand for water within the City’s water service area. According to the policy, developers must minimize their demand for new potable water by using water efficient fixtures and consuming recycled water for non-potable use and ensure that all new developments offset the amount of increased potable water that will be consumed by their project on a one-to-one basis.94 94 https://www.cityofamericancanyon.org/about/community-initiatives/water-rates/zero-water-footprint CHAPTER 4: CITY OF AMERICAN CANYON 72 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR Type and Extent of Services Services Provided The City of American Canyon provides potable and recycled water to residential, commercial, industrial, and agricultural customers within the City and portions of the surrounding area. Potable water is treated at the Water Treatment Plant (WTP) owned and operated by the City.95 American Canyon produces disinfected tertiary treated recycled water at its Water Reclamation Facility (WRF) and supplies it to public schools, public parks, industrial, commercial and agricultural users.96 Service Area The City’s water service area is approximately 30 square miles, as shown in Figure 4-5. It includes three distinct areas:97 v American Canyon city limits that consists of six square miles and includes residential, commercial, industrial, and agricultural users; v The unincorporated commercial and industrial areas in and around the Napa County Airport located north of the City that cover about five square miles; and v The unincorporated largely open space and agricultural areas to the west, east and north of the City boundaries, which include agricultural users and a small number (28 accounts or estimated 70 people in 2015)98 of single-family residential customers who represent “legacy” accounts that were originally connected and served by the American Canyon County Water District, a predecessor to the City. These accounts represent about one percent of the City’s total single-family residential accounts. LAFCO Interpretation A vast majority of the single-family water customers and all multi-family residential customers are located within the city limits. Most of the out-of-city accounts are commercial and industrial users in and around Napa County Airport.99 The City serves an estimated 70 additional residents outside of its boundaries in its water service area.100 The City’s water service area has been defined by LAFCO in a formal resolution whereby the City’s existing out-of-area services were approved and extension of services in the area defined as the Airport Industrial Area is permitted. Any extension of services outside of the Airport Industrial Area, but within the established water service area requires prior written authorization by LAFCO.101 95 Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, 2015 Urban Water Management Plan for City of American Canyon, 2015, p. 3-1. 96 GHD, Recycled Water Master Plan, City of American Canyon, 2016, p. 9. 97 Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, 2015 Urban Water Management Plan for City of American Canyon, 2015, p. 3-1. 98 Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, 2015 Urban Water Management Plan for City of American Canyon, 2015, p. 3-4. 99 Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, 2015 Urban Water Management Plan for City of American Canyon, 2015, p. 3-4. 100 Ibid. 101 LAFCO Resolution No. 07-27. CHAPTER 4: CITY OF AMERICAN CANYON 73 Figure 4-5 City of American Canyon Legend City of American Canyon Jurisdictional Boundary City of American Canyon Sphere of Influence City of Napa Jurisdictional Boundary Airport Industrial Area City of American Canyon Extraterritorial Water Service Area (LAFCO Resolution No. 07-27) £¤ 12 Tower Road Green Island Road Watson Lane Eucalyptus Drive Napa River £¤ 29 Donaldson Way American Canyon Road £¤ 80 0 0.275 0.55Miles Lake Napa Yolo Calistoga October 27, 2020 St. Helena Prepared by LAFCO Staff American Sonoma Canyon Yountville Napa Solano LAFCO of Napa County 1030 Seminary Street, Suite B Napa, California 94559 American Marin Canyon http://www.napa.lafco.ca.gov Figure 4-5a City of American Canyon Legend City of American Canyon City of American Canyon Jurisdictional Boundary Outside Water Connections City of American Canyon City of American Canyon Sphere of Influence Extraterritorial Water Service Area City of Napa (LAFCO Resolution No. 07-27) Jurisdictional Boundary American Canyon Water Service Area Airport Industrial Area (American Canyon General Plan Final EIR Certified November 3, 1994) Tower Road £¤ 12 Green Island Road Watson Lane Solano County Eucalyptus Drive Napa £¤ River 29 Donaldson Way American Canyon Road £¤ 80 0 0.425 0.85Miles Lake Napa Yolo Calistoga October 27, 2020 St. Helena Prepared by LAFCO Staff American Sonoma Canyon Yountville Napa Solano LAFCO of Napa County 1030 Seminary Street, Suite B Napa, California 94559 American Marin Canyon http://www.napa.lafco.ca.gov NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR While the outside services are primarily a remnant of the former American Canyon County Water District, it is important to note that the LAFCO approved extraterritorial area approved in Resolution No. 07-27 is the only defined water service area for the City. As of the merger of the American Canyon County Water District with the City of American Canyon, the water district’s former boundaries are no longer relevant in reference to the City as its “service area,” meaning the City must seek LAFCO approval by application to serve areas outside of the city limits and the previously mentioned Airport Industrial Area per Government Code §56133. City Interpretation The City maintains that the service area of the former American Canyon County Water District as adopted at the City incorporation, analyzed in the Final Environmental Impact Report for the incorporation, is the City “water service area”.102 The City sets forth its position of the water service area in Figure 4-5 by the purple line noted in the legend as “American Canyon Interpretation of Water Service Area.” The City also maintains that there is no other provider capable of serving the City water service area. The City claimed water service area is similar to the City Urban Water Management Plans of 2005, 2010 and 2015. Recycled Water Service Area The City’s current service area for recycled water is the same as for the City’s wastewater services and includes agricultural irrigation at a vineyard. It is shown in Figure 4-19 and discussed further in the Wastewater Services section of this Chapter. Additionally, the City makes recycled water available for hauling at its Residential Recycled Water Filling Station. Users must get a permit prior to use; however, there are no limitations on where the water may be used. Services to Other Agencies The City does not provide any water-related services to other agencies. Contracts for Services The City of American Canyon has contracts to purchase water from the State Water Project through Napa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, and the City of Vallejo. While not a wholesale agency itself, the City of Napa does treat and wheel the City of American Canyon’s SWP contract water.103 These contractual services are further discussed in the Water Supply section below. The City of American Canyon has an agreement with the City of Napa for the purchase of treated (potable) water under emergency conditions or when the NBA system is off-line for maintenance or other reasons. This water source is not included in the reliability assessment since it would be deducted from the City’s SWP “Table A” allotment and is only available during emergencies. Additionally, the City has an interconnection with the City of Vallejo through which it receives purchased water, including Vallejo Permit Water (raw water), and Vallejo Treated Water and Vallejo Emergency Water (raw water). 102 Final Environmental Impact Report American Canyon General Plan Figure WR-1 (Certified November 3, 1994). 103 City of Napa, 2015 Urban Water Management Plan for City of Napa, 2015, p. 2-3. CHAPTER 4: CITY OF AMERICAN CANYON 76 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR Overlapping Service Providers Napa Sanitation District provides recycled water services in the northern portion of the City’s water service area, however, there is not a duplication of services as the City does not provide recycled water services to this area. Collaboration The City meets regularly with other water purveyors. In particular, the City meets at least monthly with its water wholesaler, the Napa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (FCWCD) and with other State Water Project (SWP) member units of the Water Resources Technical Advisory Committee (WATRTAC) who purchase water from the Napa County FCWCD. The active member units include the cities of American Canyon, Napa, and Calistoga. American Canyon also meets with the City of Vallejo for the purchase of Vallejo water.104 The City has considered and will continue to consider opportunities for water exchanges or transfers with water right holders, if opportunities present themselves at the right price and under acceptable terms and conditions. These potential opportunities could include, but would not be limited to, one-time transfers from farmers who chose to fallow fields and auction off their water.105 Staffing The Public Works Department is responsible for management of the City's water supply. Engineering staff are responsible for allocating water to City customers and ensuring that the City meets the needs of everyone in the City’s water service area.106 The Water Distribution Division maintains water mains in the City's water service area. It takes the lead on water conservation efforts, and responds to water leaks, main breaks, water pressure problems, and other service issues. The division also maintains the recycled water distribution system, which was put into service in March 2010.107 The Water Division operates the Water Treatment Plant. Water Supply The City’s potable water supply currently consists entirely of imported water sources, mainly State Water Project (SWP) water purchased from the Napa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District and water purchased from the City of Vallejo108. A summary of the contracted volumes of imported water is shown in Figure 4-5. American Canyon’s allocation of State Water Project water is sufficient to serve the system’s current needs. However, because the SWP allocation is only 62 percent reliable during an average normal year, the City has an agreement with the City of Vallejo to purchase treated water through a connection located on Flosden Road. This connection could provide 104 Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, 2015 Urban Water Management Plan for City of American Canyon, 2015, p. 2-3. 105 Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, 2015 Urban Water Management Plan for City of American Canyon, 2015, p. 6-15. 106https://www.cityofamericancanyon.org/city-departments/public-works/engineering/development- engineering/water-supply-will-serve 107 https://www.cityofamericancanyon.org/city-departments/public-works/water-service/water-distribution 108 Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, 2015 Urban Water Management Plan for City of American Canyon, 2015, p. 3-1. CHAPTER 4: CITY OF AMERICAN CANYON 77 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR up to 56 million gallons per month of supplemental treated water for the City. American Canyon also has a treated water connection with the City of Napa.109 Figure 4-6: Summary of Contracted Imported Water Sources Contracted Imported Water Sources Source Category Source Name Contracted Amount (AFY) SWP "Table A" Water 5,200 Water State Project Article 21 Water Varies by year Vallejo Permit (Raw) Water 500 2,074 (2011-2015) City of Vallejo Vallejo Treated Water 2,640 (2016-2021) 3,206 (2021 onward) Vallejo Emergency (Raw) Water 500* Notes: *Available only in years when the City's "Table A" allotment is curtailed. Source: City of American Canyon 2015 Urban Water Management Plan, p. 6-1, Table 6-1. Although as shown in Figure 4-5 the City’s current “Table A” allotment is 5,200 acre-feet per year, under the “Table A” allocation process (the method used by DWR to allocate water in the SWP system), the actual amount of SWP water available to the City varies from year to year due to hydrologic conditions, water demands of other contractors, SWP facility capacity, and environmental/regulatory requirements.110 In certain years, the City may also receive additional SWP water known as Article 21 water, which is separate from the “Table A” allotment. Article 21 water is water identified in Article 21 of SWP long-term water supply contracts between DWR and each SWP water contractor, and it becomes available on an intermittent basis only when specific conditions111 can be met.112 The water received from the SWP is either treated at the City’s Water Treatment Plant or delivered as raw water to the City’s agricultural (irrigation) customers. Water purchased from the City of Vallejo can be grouped in one of the three categories, including Vallejo Permit Water (raw), Vallejo Treated Water and Vallejo Emergency Water (raw). Permit Water is delivered through SWP but is separate from the SWP “Table A” allotment. Other sources of water available to the City in dry years and in emergencies include the Dry Year Water Purchase Program, Turn-back Water Pool Program, Dry Year Transfer Program, Yuba Accord Dry Year Water, and Treated Water from the City of Napa. These other sources of water are described in more detail in the Emergency Preparedness section. Additionally, the City is a member of the Sites Reservoir Project, which is a potential future water supply source in Colusa County. The City is anticipating that the Site Reservoir will provide up to 4,000 acre-feet per year by 2030. 109 City of American Canyon, Water Quality Report, 2017. 110 Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, 2015 Urban Water Management Plan for City of American Canyon, 2015, p. 6-2. 111 1) Such deliveries do not interfere with SWP Table A allocations and SWP operations; 2)Excess water is available in the Delta; 3) Capacity is not being used for SWP purposes or scheduled SWP deliveries; and 4)Contractors can use the SWP Article 21 water directly or can store it in their own system (i.e., the water cannot be stored in the SWP system). 112 Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, 2015 Urban Water Management Plan for City of American Canyon, 2015, p. 6-2. CHAPTER 4: CITY OF AMERICAN CANYON 78 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR Figure 4-6 shows the amount of water produced by the City from 2014 through 2018. Potable water supply shown in the figure includes water produced from surface water by the City through treatment and treated water purchased from the City of Vallejo and the City of Napa. Figure 4-7: Water Production (2014-2018) Water Produced (million gallons) 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Treated Potable Water 1,043 959 2,652 2,665 2,665 Recycled Water 52 39 196 195 270 Source: Annual Reports to the Drinking Water Program for 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, and 2018. Recycled water The City’s wastewater is collected through gravity pipelines at a series of pump stations and then pumped to the WRF. There are two force mains delivering wastewater to the plant. One comes from the southern end of the City, the Main Basin, and the other comes from the north end of the City, the Industrial Basin. The Industrial Basin wastewater has a much higher salinity level than the Main Basin wastewater, due to its combination of industrial and domestic users. The City’s approach for reclamation is to segregate the Industrial Basin flow from the Main Basin flow, thereby increasing the reuse potential of the effluent. As a result, the wastewater from the two basins is treated separately at the WRF using separate headworks and treatment trains.113 The City currently produces and delivers recycled water to meet demand on an as- needed basis. Water conservation efforts during the most recent drought have resulted in recycled water users voluntarily conserving water.114 Figure 4-7 shows the projected recycled water supply/demand within the City’s recycled water service area. Serving additional recycled water users would require expanding the City’s recycled water pipeline system, which would incur construction costs; the City is reviewing its capital improvement program and potential funding sources to fund the expansion of the recycled water system.115 Recycled water is mostly used for vineyard and landscape irrigation. As of January 2018, the City served recycled water to 56 connections—two multi-family, one commercial, one industrial, 51 landscape irrigation (parks, play fields, and median strips), and one vineyard.116 There are also six other non-consistently active connections, such as fire suppression, street cleaning, line flushing etc. 113 GHD, Recycled Water Master Plan, City of American Canyon, May 2016, p. 39. 114 Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, 2015 Urban Water Management Plan for City of American Canyon, 2015, p. 6-7. 115 Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, 2015 Urban Water Management Plan for City of American Canyon, 2015, p. 6-8. 116 City of American Canyon, Annual Drinking Water Report, 2018, p. 6. CHAPTER 4: CITY OF AMERICAN CANYON 79 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR Figure 4-8: Projected Recycled Water Demand Recycled Water Uses Projections Volume (acre-feet per year) Use Type Use Description Level of Treatment 2015 2018 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 Agricultural Irrigation Vineyard Irrigation Tertiary 13 NP 68 68 173 173 173 Landscape Irrigation (excludes golf courses) Landscape Irrigation Tertiary 107 NP 513 552 552 1,063 1,063 Dust Control at Other Construction Sites Tertiary 25 NP 5 5 5 5 5 Water Used Within the Other City WRF Tertiary 30 NP 30 30 30 30 30 Source: Adapted from 2015 Urban Water Management Plan, p. 6-9, Table 6-4. Note: NP = Not Provided CHAPTER 4: CITY OF AMERICAN CANYON 80 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR Emergency Preparedness There is a number of emergency supply options available to the City that include: v Dry Year Water Purchase Program In 2009, the City (along with other SWP contractors) entered into an agreement with DWR to obtain emergency supplies, if rice farmers in the Sacramento Valley are willing to make their supplies available. v Turn-back Water Pool Program This DWR’s program allows interested SWP contractors the option to sell “Table A” water they will not use to the program and also to purchase water from the program when needed. v Dry-Year Transfer Program During dry years, varying amounts of additional water may be made available to SWP contractors through DWR’s Dry-Year Transfer Program, which allows for transfers through a combination of crop idling, groundwater substitution and changes in reservoir operation. v Yuba Accord Dry-Year Water In 2008, DWR adopted the Lower Yuba River Accord, an agreement to settle issues related to in-stream flows in the Yuba River and fisheries habitat. As part of this agreement, DWR is able to purchase water from the Yuba County Water Agency to, in part, offer to participating SWP contractors as a transfer during dry years. The Flood Control and Water Conservation District (FCWCD) has authorized the execution of the Yuba Accord Dry-Year Water Purchase Agreement, and the City has the option to purchase water through this agreement in dry years. v Treated Water from the City of Napa The City of American Canyon has a contract with the City of Napa for the purchase of treated water under the emergency conditions or when the North Bay Aqueduct (NBA) system is off-line for maintenance or other reasons. It provides operational flexibility to American Canyon, such as the ability to provide water in the event the City’s WTP is off-line for an extended period of time. The City receives treated water from the cities of Vallejo (three interconnections) and Napa (one interconnection) through four interconnections. The Montevino and American Canyon High School interconnections serve domestic and fire flow demands, while the La Vigne and Napa interconnections provide demands during fire flow conditions only.117 Water Demand All of the City’s customers are metered. The 2015, 2016, 2017, and 2018 demand for potable and raw water in the City’s water service area is shown in Figure 4-8. 117 GHD, Potable Water Master Plan, City of American Canyon, May 2016, p. 33. CHAPTER 4: CITY OF AMERICAN CANYON 81 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR Figure 4-9: Demand for Potable and Raw Water by Customer Type (acre-feet) Demand for Potable and Raw Water Level of Treatment When Volume Volume Volume Volume User Type Delivered 2015 2016 2017 2018 Single-Family Residential Drinking Water 1,102 1,100 1,184 1,241 Multi-Family Residential Drinking Water 142 143 146 155 Commercial/Industrial/ Institutional Drinking Water 854 851 904 923 Landscape Drinking Water 175 174 357 329 Agricultural Irrigation Raw Water 56 56 34 32 Other Miscellaneous Drinking Water 16 15 16 61 Losses Drinking Water 631 342 247 138 TOTAL 2,976 2,681 2,888 2,879 Source: Adapted from 2015 Urban Water Management Plan, p. 4-2, Table 4-2 and City of American Canyon Annual Reports to the Drinking Water Program for 2016, 2017, 2018, and as reported by the City of American Canyon. A majority of water is utilized by single-family residential customers, followed by the commercial/industrial/institutional sector. As is clear from Figure 9-10, the City’s demand for potable and raw water decreased from 2005 to 2015. The reduction in demand is attributed to residential uses and is a result of the City’s conservation program and drought emergency measures.118 As shown in Figure 4-9, the demand has slightly increased since 2015—primarily attributable to increases in use by residential, commercial, and landscape uses. As was mentioned before, the conservation measures associated with the drought emergency are likely to have resulted in recycled water users, similar to potable water users, also voluntarily conserving water.119 According to the City’s Recycled Water Master Plan, in 2016, demand for recycled water from existing recycled water customers was approximately 180 acre-feet for landscaping irrigation and 68 acre-feet for agricultural (vineyard) irrigation, which was a lot lower than anticipated.120 118 Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, 2015 Urban Water Management Plan for City of American Canyon, 2015, pp. 4-3 - 4-6. 119 Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, 2015 Urban Water Management Plan for City of American Canyon, 2015, p. 6-7. 120 GHD, Recycled Water Master Plan, City of American Canyon, May 2016, pp. 9, 23. CHAPTER 4: CITY OF AMERICAN CANYON 82 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR Figure 4-10: Demand for Potable and Raw Water Over Time, 2005-2015121 4,000 3,715 3,500 3,000 3,024 2,976 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 0 2005 2010 2015 The City’s detailed demand projections for potable and raw water through 2040 are shown in Figure 4-11 and summarized in Figure 4-12 as compared to the projected water supply during a normal year. Residential demand represents approximately half of the City’s anticipated total water demand. As anticipated, residential demand increased somewhat from 2015 levels, but it is not anticipated that demand will return to the historical high levels. Commercial/industrial/institutional uses represent about one-third of the City’s water demand. There are an additional 811 acres available for future commercial/industrial development, which amounts to a total of 2,401 acres of commercial/industrial properties at build-out. This represents a potential for an increase of up to approximately 50 percent in commercial/industrial development in the future, and it can be expected that water demand from commercial/industrial users may also increase by approximately 50 percent. Potable water demand for landscape irrigation is expected to decline as the City expands its recycled water distribution system.122 Future recycled water demands will come from connecting new customers to the existing recycled water distribution system, from connecting additional customers as the network is expanded, and from conditioning new development for use of recycled water where it is available. Future demands also include conversion of existing vineyards north of 121 Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, 2015 Urban Water Management Plan for City of American Canyon, 2015, pp. 4-1, 4-2. 122 City of American Canyon 2015 Urban Water Management Plan. CHAPTER 4: CITY OF AMERICAN CANYON 83 teef-ercA Demand for Potable and Raw Water 2005-2015 Total Demand for Potable and Raw Water NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR Watson Ranch from raw water provided by the City to recycled water.123 The projected maximum month average day demand at buildout124 is 2.14 mgd or 1,202 acre-feet a year.125 Figure 4-11: Projected Demand for Potable and Raw Water , acre-feet Projected Demand for Potable and Raw Water Use Type 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 Single-Family Residential 1,562 1,712 1,861 2,011 2,171 Multi-Family Residential 174 190 207 223 241 Other- Commercial/Industrial/Institutional 1,087 1,177 1,267 1,357 1,448 Landscape 247 247 247 247 247 Agricultural Irrigation 56 0 0 0 0 Other- Miscellaneous 24 24 24 24 24 Losses 255 272 292 313 335 Total 3,405 3,622 3,898 4,175 4,466 Source: City of American Canyon 2015 Urban Water Management Plan, p. 4-3, Table 4-3. Figure 4-12: Projected Water Supply and Demand During a Normal Year, acre-feet Demand/Supply Projections 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 Potable/Raw Water Demand 3,405 3,622 3,898 4,175 4,466 Recycled Water Demand 1,007 1,146 1,351 1,862 1,862 PROJECTED WATER DEMAND 4,412 4,678 5,249 6,037 6,328 SWP "Table A" Water 3,224 3,224 3,224 3,224 3,224 SWP Article 21 Water 189 189 189 189 189 Vallejo Permit Water 500 500 500 500 500 Vallejo Treated Water 2,640 3,206 3,206 3,206 3,206 Subtotal Purchased/Imported Water 6,553 7,119 7,119 7,119 7,119 City of American Canyon Recycled Water 616 655 760 1,271 1,271 Napa Sanitation District Recycled Water 391 491 591 591 591 Subtotal Recycled Water 1,007 1,146 1,351 1,862 1,862 PROJECTED WATER SUPPLY 7,560 8,265 8,470 8,981 8,981 Source: Adapted from 2015 Urban Water Management Plan, p. 4-3, Table 4-3; p. 6-17, Table 6-10 123 GHD, Recycled Water Master Plan, City of American Canyon, May 2016, p. 17. 124 Buildout conditions assume that current plans for development projects in the planning and approval stages will be completed and that all other undeveloped land will be developed in accordance with the City Zoning Map and County Land Use Map. 125 GHD, Recycled Water Master Plan, City of American Canyon, May 2016, p. 23. CHAPTER 4: CITY OF AMERICAN CANYON 84 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR According to the City’s 2015 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), the City’s combined projected water supplies are sufficient to meet projected demands during normal water year conditions as can be seen from Figure 4-11. Under single-dry water year conditions, the supply is generally sufficient until sometime after 2030 when shortfalls begin to appear. By 2035, the single-dry year shortfall is estimated at approximately six percent. Under multiple-dry year conditions, the supply is sufficient through 2040.126 Water Infrastructure and Facilities The City’s water system served 5,298 municipal connections in 2018.127 The breakdown by customer type is shown in Figure 4-13. Figure 4-13: Water Connections by Customer Type (2018) City of American Canyon Water Connections in Service Area Connection Type Potable Water Recycled Water Single-family Residential 4,836 0 Multi-family Residential 25 2 Commercial/Institutional 357 1 Industrial 5 1 Landscape Irrigation 71 51 Agricultural Irrigation 4 1 Source: City of American Canyon Annual Report to the Drinking Water Program for the Year Ending December 31, 2018 Treatment The City operates one Water Treatment Plant (WTP) with a capacity to produce up to 5.6 million gallons of potable water per day, and presently operates with an average daily demand of approximately 3.0 mgd.128 The plant consists of two separate facilities. The original plant was constructed in 1976, and is a 2.6-mgd conventional treatment plant, consisting of coagulation, flocculation, sedimentation, dual media gravity filtration, chlorination and corrosion control treatment. The City later constructed a 3.0 mgd Zenon ultrafiltration membrane plant, consisting of coagulation, flocculation, membrane filtration, chlorination and corrosion control treatment.129 The characteristics of the WTP are shown in Figure 4-14. It appears that the WTP has sufficient capacity to accommodate current peak day demand and projected peak day demand at buildout. 126 Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, 2015 Urban Water Management Plan for City of American Canyon, 2015, p. 7-9. 127 City of American Canyon, Large Water System Annual Report to the Drinking Water Program for Year Ending December 31, 2017. 128 GHD, Potable Water Master Plan, City of American Canyon, May 2016, p. 33. 129 GHD, Potable Water Master Plan, City of American Canyon, May 2016, p. 34. CHAPTER 4: CITY OF AMERICAN CANYON 85 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR Figure 4-14: American Canyon Water Treatment Plant Characteristics American Canyon Water Treatment Plant Type of Year Facilities Water Sources Location Treatment Built/Acquired Condition State Water Conventional Project "Table A" 250 sedimentation water, City of Kirkland and filtration Original Plant Vallejo Ranch Road treatment 1976 Fair Zenon State Water ultrafiltration Project "Table A" 250 membrane membrane water, City of Kirkland filtration plant Vallejo Ranch Road process 2004 Good Daily Treatment Peak Day Projected Peak % of Capacity Demand % of Actual Day Demand Actual Facilities (designed) (2018) Capacity at Buildout Capacity Original Plant 2.6 mgd 1.9 mgd 73% 2.6 mgd 100% Zenon ultrafiltration membrane plant 3 mgd 2.3 mg 77% 6 mgd 200% Source: GHD, Potable Water Master Plan, City of American Canyon, May 2016, pp. 33-34. City of American Canyon Response to the Request for Information. Storage Treated water from the WTP is delivered by gravity to the 2.5 mg water storage tank located at the plant and flows from the tank to the distribution system.130 Overall, there are three storage tanks within the City’s water system, described in more detail in Figure 4-15. Figure 4-15: American Canyon Storage System Storage System Pressure Zones Year Tank Served constructed/acquired Condition Capacity Composition Zone 1, Zone WTP Tank 3 2002 Good 2.5 mg Welded steel Oat Hill #1 Tank Zone 1 1976 Good 2.0 mg Welded steel Oat Hill #2 Tank Zone 2 1984 Fair 0.2 mg Welded steel 130 GHD, Potable Water Master Plan, City of American Canyon, May 2016, p. 33. CHAPTER 4: CITY OF AMERICAN CANYON 86 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR Zone 1 (Main Zone) has two water storage tanks (the WTP Tank and Oat Hill #1 Tank) allowing flexibility in case one tank is taken off-line temporarily. The WTP Tank serves as the primary source of water for Zone 1, feeding Zone 1 demands by gravity. The Oat Hill #1 Tank is connected to the Zone 1 distribution system off Medeiros Lane. Zone 2 is served only by the Oat Hill #2 Tank, which is fed by the Oat Hill Pump Station. Zone 2 does not have backup storage capacity should the Oat Hill Tank #2 be taken out of service. Additionally, the existing storage tank cannot supply the recommended full fire flow capacity of 420,000 gallons. Zone 3 (5 connections) is served by a direct connection from the WTP with a 4,000- gallon hydropneumatic tank to maintain pressure. The other two higher elevation pressure zones, Zone 4 and Zone 5, do not have dedicated storage capacity. These zones are currently served by the City of Vallejo’s water distribution system and will eventually be served by the City’s high-pressure zone and associated storage.131 According to the City’s 2016 Potable Water Master Plan, there is a current storage shortfall of 4.0 mg. At buildout, the storage shortfall increases to a total of 6.8 mg, with 5.5 mg for the Zone 1 and 1.3 mg for the high-pressure zones, Zones 4 and 5.132 Distribution The potable water distribution system consists of approximately 82 miles of water mains, two booster pump stations, 831 fire hydrants and 2,080 valves. The principal water transmission mains in the distribution system range in size from 14 to 20-inches. The distribution system in the older sections of the City range in size from two to six inches with the newer areas served by pipes eight to 12 inches in diameter. Distribution system pipelines are constructed primarily of PVC (30 percent), asbestos cement (20 percent), cast iron (35 percent), and steel (15 percent).133 The City’s pipelines range from 10 to 45 years in age.134 Parallel transmission mains (one 14-inch welded steel and one 18-inch ductile iron) run along SR 29 to serve the southern portion of Zone 1. The 14-inch steel transmission main is old and in a deteriorated condition.135 The water distribution system currently contains five pressure zones, as was briefly mentioned in the previous section: Main (Zone 1),136 Oat Hill #2 (Zone 2), Kirkland (Zone 3), Montevino (Zone 4), La Vigne and the American Canyon High School (Zone 5). 137 131 GHD, Potable Water Master Plan, City of American Canyon, May 2016, pp. 37-38. 132 GHD, Potable Water Master Plan, City of American Canyon, May 2016, p. 38. 133 City of American Canyon Large Water System Annual Report to the Drinking Water Program for Year Ending December 31, 2018, p 19. 134 City of American Canyon, Large Water System Annual Report to the Drinking Water Program for Year Ending December 31, 2017. 135 GHD, Potable Water Master Plan, City of American Canyon, May 2016, p. 35. 136 Over 94 percent of the current water demand is within the Zone 1 distribution system. 137 GHD, Potable Water Master Plan, City of American Canyon, May 2016, p. 33. CHAPTER 4: CITY OF AMERICAN CANYON 87 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR Figure 4-16: American Canyon Water Distribution System Distribution System Booster Pump Stations Mains Potable Water Pipeline Number/Length 2 102 miles 82 miles Composition: La Vigne Oat Hill PVC, asbestos, Composition: PVC, Pump Pump cement and cast asbestos, cement and Description Station Station iron. cast iron. Year Built/Acquired 2007 1985 1992 1992 Condition Good Poor Fair Fair Source: GHD, Potable Water Master Plan, City of American Canyon, May 2016, pp. 33-38. City of American Canyon Response to Request for Information. As previously mentioned, the City’s water system has four separate connections to neighboring water sources for regular and emergency backup supply, including three interconnections with the City of Vallejo (Montevino Interconnection,138 La Vigne Interconnection139 and American Canyon High School Interconnection140) and a single interconnection with the City of Napa (City of Napa Interconnection141).142 The distribution system currently has two booster pump stations to lift water from a lower zone to a higher pressure zone: 1) La Vigne Pump Station, and 2) Oat Hill Pump Station. Both pump stations are intended to only boost potable water demands and are not sized (nor is storage capacity available in that zone) for fire flows. La Vigne station pumps domestic demands from Zone 1 to Zone 5. The Oat Hill Pump Station pumps water from Zone 1 to the Oat Hill #2 Tank, which serves the Zone 2 (Industrial Park).143 Unaccounted for water loss, specifically the amount of water lost due to system breaks and leaks, as well as illegal connections, is a measure of the water system’s integrity. Water losses can include “real losses”, which are physical losses from the water distribution system 138 The Vallejo Montevino Interconnection consists of an 8-inch pipeline in Condor Court. This interconnection serves domestic and fire flows to approximately 65 residential customers at the higher elevations along Highridge Drive along the southern border of the City, east of Highway 29. The Montevino area is separated from the main distribution system by a normally closed valve in Highridge Drive, just west of Hillcrest Court. Demands are served directly off the Vallejo system, and there are no flow monitoring or flow control facilities at this connection. 139 The Vallejo La Vigne Interconnection consists of a 12-inch diameter pipeline connecting to the Vallejo 14-inch transmission main along Flosden Road near the southern intersection of Via Bellagio. The valve will open when the surrounding area pressure drops below a preset low pressure. A flow meter is installed at the interconnection piping. The area is separated from the main distribution system by normally closed valves in two locations at Via Bellagio and Flosden Road. Flows are monitored at the connection. This interconnection is also referred to as the Vallejo Bypass. 140 The Vallejo American Canyon High School Interconnection consists of a 12-inch diameter pipeline connecting to the Vallejo 14-inch transmission main along Newell Drive at the intersection of Silver Oak Trail. It was installed in 2010 to serve the new high school until the new higher-pressure zone storage tank and pipeline could be put into service by the City. As of the date of this master plan update, the upper zone facilities have not been constructed and the interconnection agreement will continue to remain in place. Flows are monitored at the connection. 141 The City of Napa Interconnection is located at the north end of the water service area, near the airport, and north of the intersection of Devlin Road and Sheehy Court. This interconnection consists of a metered 12-inch diameter pipeline and is operated when a predetermined low-pressure setting is reached at the point of connection. 142 GHD, Potable Water Master Plan, City of American Canyon, May 2016, pp. 34-35. 143 GHD, Potable Water Master Plan, City of American Canyon, May 2016, pp. 37. CHAPTER 4: CITY OF AMERICAN CANYON 88 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR and the supplier’s storage facilities) as well as “apparent losses”, which represent losses due to metering inaccuracies, data handling errors and/or unauthorized consumption. The total of real and apparent losses in 2015 amounted to 631 acre-feet, as shown in Figure 4-17.144 The City reported that it had experienced decreased water loss over the last few years. Most recently, the City reported total losses were 183 acre-feet in 2018 or 6.9 percent of produced/received water. The City attributed this decrease in loss primarily to the replacement of one mile of main. Figure 4-17: Water Loss Summary (2014-2018) Water Loss Summary Year Volume of Water Loss (acre-feet) 2014 NP 2015 631 2016 342 2017 247 2018 183 Note: NP = Not Provided Breaks and leaks in the mains and service connections account for some of the loss experienced in the system. The City experienced 16 main breaks in 2014, 14 in 2015, eight in 2016, two in 2017, and four in 2018, which averages to 8.8 main breaks annually and 10.7 breaks per 100 miles of main. This is lower than the national average of between 21 and 27 breaks per 100 miles of pipe per year.145 Over the five-year period, the City experienced a decline in main breaks, which is reflected in the decrease in water loss over that period. Recycled Water The City owns and operates a complimentary water and wastewater utility infrastructure that includes water reclamation and water reuse within the City limits.146 A summary of the recycled water infrastructure is depicted in Figure 4-18. Figure 4-18: Recycled Water Infrastructure Recycled Water Infrastructure Peak Wet Weather Flow Average Dry Weather Flow Capacity (buildout Capacity (buildout conditions) conditions) WRF 2.5 mgd 5 mgd Total Length Non-operational (2018) Pipelines 13 miles 13,800 lf Location Design Capacity Pump Station at WRF 1,300 gpm Capacity Type Storage Tank 1 mg Welded Steel Source: GHD, Recycled Water Master Plan, City of American Canyon, May 2016 144 Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, 2015 Urban Water Management Plan for City of American Canyon, 2015, p. 4-7. 145 WaterRF, Knowledge Portals, 2017. 146 GHD, Recycled Water Master Plan, City of American Canyon, May 2016, p. 9. CHAPTER 4: CITY OF AMERICAN CANYON 89 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR The WRF is designed to treat a buildout flow rate of 2.5 mgd at average dry weather flow conditions and 5.0 mgd at peak wet weather flow conditions. The WRF process train includes an emergency overflow basin, headworks facilities, anoxic basins, aeration tanks with membrane facilities, metering facilities, and disinfection facilities. In order to meet the projected buildout recycled water demands, the City will need to reuse 100 percent of its treated water during peak demands in the summer months.147 There are two disinfection facilities at the WRF: ultraviolet (UV) disinfection and chlorine contact tank. The UV disinfection facility has the capacity to disinfect all treated wastewater for discharge to the North Slough during the wet season. The chlorine contact tank is sized to treat all of the flow for reclamation using a sodium hypochlorite solution.148 As of 2015, the recycled water distribution system consisted of approximately 10 miles of active water main and one pump station. The principal mains in the system range in size from eight to 16 inches in diameter. The pump station is located at the WRF and a 1.0 mg storage tank located in the hills east of Newell Drive. The pump station has a design capacity of 1,300 gallons per minute (gpm).149 Although there are 10 miles of active main, the total length of the existing system is approximately 13 miles (from four to 20 inches in size). Of the 13 miles of existing pipelines, approximately 13,800 linear feet (lf) or nearly three miles are not currently in operation, because at the time of construction the projected recycled water demand was much higher than existing demand, primarily due to residents’ conservation practices.150 Also, two critical pipeline segments have been planned but not yet constructed, preventing the system from operating at peak capacity—one along SR 29 between North Napa Junction Road and Paoli Loop Road and the second on Main Street through the proposed Watson Ranch development towards Newell Drive. Construction of these two segments will close loops and immediately increase the hydraulic capacity of the system.151 The buildout conditions assume that all of the existing pipelines are active and that the 12-inch transmission main from Newell drive, west on South Napa Junction Road, and north along SR 29 to Paoli Loop Road is complete. The planned buildout distribution system thus consists of approximately 22 miles of pipeline.152 Figure 4-19: Recycled Water Distribution System Existing Operational Existing Non- Not Yet Constructed Total Planned at Operational Buildout 10 miles 3 miles 9 miles 22 miles 54,850 lf 13,792 lf 61,530 lf 116,379 lf 147 GHD, Recycled Water Master Plan, City of American Canyon, May 2016, p. 39. 148 GHD, Recycled Water Master Plan, City of American Canyon, May 2016, p. 40. 149 GHD, Recycled Water Master Plan, City of American Canyon, May 2016, p. 9. 150 GHD, Recycled Water Master Plan, City of American Canyon, May 2016, p. 39. 151 GHD, Recycled Water Master Plan, City of American Canyon, May 2016, p. 39. 152 GHD, Recycled Water Master Plan, City of American Canyon, May 2016, p. 43. CHAPTER 4: CITY OF AMERICAN CANYON 90 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR Shared Facilities American Canyon shares interconnections with the cities of Vallejo and Napa as was previously described. As previously mentioned, the City is a member of the Sites Reservoir Project, which is a potential future water supply source in Colusa County. The City Council unanimously approved spending $240,000 this year to continue participating in the Sites project. Among the few dozen other participants are Los Angeles, Sacramento, San Bernardino, Antelope Valley and Santa Clara. Sites reservoir could be built by 2030 and would hold 1.8 million acre-feet of water. Water would be pumped in during high winter flows from the Sacramento River and its tributaries. Infrastructure Needs The potable water system evaluation identified a number of deficiencies with the current distribution network including insufficient water storage capacity, pipeline deterioration, and pipelines that are undersized for the current conditions and fire flow requirements. Capital improvement projects that would enable the City to address the existing system deficiencies include: 153 v Replacing and upsizing pipelines and mains; v Construction of a new 2.5 mg potable water tank north of American Canyon High School to address water storage capacity shortfall in Zone 1. v Creating a new high pressure zone to serve the American Canyon High School and La Vigne and Montevino subdivisions, and reducing the interconnection from the City of Vallejo to an emergency backup supply. Capital improvement projects needed to serve planned growth include: 154 v Construction of additional pipelines and mains; v Slip lining the existing abandoned water main; v Construction of a new 1.2 mg potable water tank at the WTP to address future storage capacity shortfall in Zone 1. Near-term (up to 10 years) projects were estimated in 2015 to cost $128,130,000. The projects planned to be fulfilled between 11 and 20 years after the estimates were made in the City’s Potable Master Plan are projected to cost $13,590,000.155 The City is expanding the recycled water system to connect as many existing and future customers as practical to fully develop this water supply to supplement the potable water supply. The planned improvement projects are primarily focused on creating potable water offsets from existing potable water customers and meeting the recycled water demands for future customers. Targeted demands include irrigation of existing parks, schools and community spaces throughout the City, dual plumbing and process water supplies for the 153 GHD, Potable Water Master Plan, City of American Canyon, May 2016, p. 47. 154 GHD, Potable Water Master Plan, City of American Canyon, May 2016, p. 48. 155 GHD, Potable Water Master Plan, City of American Canyon, May 2016, pp. 2-3. CHAPTER 4: CITY OF AMERICAN CANYON 91 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR industrial area near Napa County Airport, and irrigation supplies for future planned communities such as the Watson Ranch development.156 To connect existing potable water customers to recycled water for irrigation and other outdoor or process demands, the Recycled Water Master Plan recommends the construction of additional pipelines, while improvements to serve future customers are focused on serving the Watson Ranch development, serving other known development projects such as the industrial customers in the northern portion of the City and residential customers in the southeast, serving future customers at the locations of undeveloped parcels throughout the City, and serving northern vineyards from a future private seasonal storage pond. Other improvements associated with serving future development are aimed at increasing overall system reliability and distribution pressure for the buildout condition. These projects generally include constructing additional pipelines and upgrading the existing WRF pump station. Recycled water projects to be implemented in the near-term (0 to 10 years) were estimated in 2015 to cost $8,480,000. The long-term (11 to 20 years) project have a total implementation cost of $13,340,000 in 2015 dollars.157 Water Quality The State Water Resources Control Board Division of Drinking Water (DDW) implements the Safe Drinking Water Act in California. DDW requires public water systems to perform routine monitoring for regulated contaminants. To meet water quality standards and comply with regulations, a water system with a contaminant exceeding a maximum contaminant limit (MCL) must notify the public and remove the source from service or initiate a process and schedule to install treatment for removing the contaminant. Health violations occur when the contaminant amount exceeds the safety standard (MCL) or when water is not treated properly. In California, compliance is usually determined at the wellhead or the surface water intake. Monitoring violations involve failure to conduct or to report in a timely fashion the results of required monitoring. Source Water The State Water Project water is delivered through the North Bay Aqueduct (NBA). The NBA water is surface water that comes from Barker Slough.158 The source is considered to be vulnerable to sheep and cattle grazing activities in the watershed that are associated with turbidity, total organic carbon, and coliform bacteria detected in the raw water supply. Although the water source is considered vulnerable to sheep and cattle grazing activities, it is important to note that there are multiple barriers for physical removal of contaminants, and the water is disinfected at the water treatment plant.159 The source water may contain microbial contaminants, inorganic contaminants, pesticides and herbicides, organic chemical contaminants, radioactive contaminants, arsenic, and cryptosporidium/giardia. 156 GHD, Recycled Water Master Plan, City of American Canyon, May 2016, p. 47. 157 GHD, Recycled Water Master Plan, City of American Canyon, May 2016, pp. 47-49, 6. 158 City of American Canyon, Water Quality Report, 2017. 159 City of American Canyon, Water Quality Report, 2017. CHAPTER 4: CITY OF AMERICAN CANYON 92 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR The cost of treatment can be impacted by source water quality issues. For example, elevated levels of turbidity and Total Organic Carbon (TOC) can occur during storm events, which can increase the operational cost of the WTP. In addition, low pumping rates at Barker Slough during the winter result in an extended period of turbidity and TOC into the NBA. In order to reduce potential contaminations sources, the agencies receiving NBA water have been working with Napa County FCWCD and the Solano County Water Agency to evaluate watershed management practices that could improve water quality.160 Treated Water Quality of treated water can be evaluated according to several measures. For the purposes of this report, the following indicators are used: the number of violations as reported by the EPA since 2008 and the number of days in full compliance with Primary Drinking Water Regulations in 2018. The EPA documents health and monitoring violations for each public water system in the U.S. Since 2008, the City has had three health violations: two for trihalomethanes (2017 and 2013) and one for treatment technique (2010). There was also one monitoring violation in 2014 for coliform. This equates to approximately 0.75 violations per 1,000 connections served. In 2018, the City was in compliance with drinking water regulations 100 percent of the time, with no violations. By comparison, the industry standard for compliance with Primary Drinking Water Regulations is 99 percent (361 days) of the year. Of note, is that the City has struggled with water color complaints. In 2017, there were over 100 such complaints registered. Water discoloration is caused by elevated organic activity, algae growth and the presence of soluble minerals in the vicinity of a water body. The color issues were caused by high turbidity in the water during that period. This issue was not addressed in the City’s Drinking Water Quality Report.161 Recycled Water The City’s WRF produces “disinfected tertiary” treated recycled water. 160 Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, 2015 Urban Water Management Plan for City of American Canyon, 2015, pp. 7-8. 161 Napa Grand Jury, Grand Jury Report, 2019, p. 14. CHAPTER 4: CITY OF AMERICAN CANYON 93 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR WASTEWATER SERVICES In its Utilities Element of the General Plan the City adopted a goal to establish and maintain adequate planning, construction, maintenance, and funding for wastewater collection and treatment facilities to support land uses, upgrading existing deficient systems, and expanding where necessary in the City’s service area. There are a number of corresponding objectives and policies in the General Plan that were designed to support and implement this established goal.162 The City has conducted planning and evaluation of the sewer collection system since its incorporation in 1992. In 1996, the City completed the Wastewater Collection System Master Plan, for the purpose of establishing capital improvement projects that would eliminate existing system deficiencies and accommodate the growth projected in the City’s General Plan. In 2001, the City completed the Sanitary Sewer System Survey, which focused primarily on evaluating the system’s ability to accommodate a 20-year, 24-hour design storm event as required in the City’s 2000 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for the WRF. Guidelines developed in these studies are updated as necessary for alignment with current industry norms. The City’s Public Works Department Engineering Standard Plans and Specifications for Public Improvements, dated May 2005, includes current minimum design standards for sewer facilities, primarily for new development.163 Type and Extent of Services Services Provided The City of American Canyon provides collection and treatment of wastewater from residential, commercial, industrial, and institutional customers within its service area. Wastewater is treated at the city-owned and operated WRF. Wastewater Service Area The City’s wastewater service area extends northwards outside of its boundaries and was inherited by the City from the previous service provider—the American Canyon County Water District (ACCWD)—upon incorporation in 1992 and merger with the water district. The JPA dissolution agreement from 1994 between Napa Sanitation District (NapaSan) and the City of American Canyon identifies the centerline of Fagan Creek as a general dividing line between NapaSan and the City's respective sewer service areas. According to the agreement, Napa County Airport and Chardonnay Golf Course are to be served by NapaSan. Additionally, on October 15, 2007, Napa LAFCO adopted a resolution 07-27 where it described the City’s extra-territorial water and sewer service areas. On the map included in the resolution, Chardonnay Golf Course and Napa County Airport are erroneously shown in the City’s service area. To correct this error, LAFCO met with the City and NapaSan to garner agreement regarding an accurate map for the adopted resolution and a new map was created by Napa LAFCO in 2019, which is included in this MSR as Figure 6-20. The map shows the correct adopted service areas for both NapaSan and the City of American Canyon with Napa County Airport and Chardonnay Golf Course included in the NapaSan service area. 162 City of American Canyon, General Plan, Utilities Element, 1994. 163 GHD, City of American Canyon, Sewer Master Plan, 2016, p. 23. CHAPTER 4: CITY OF AMERICAN CANYON 94 Figure 4-20 City of American Canyon Legend City of American Canyon Jurisdictional Boundary City of American Canyon Sphere of Influence City of Napa Jurisdictional Boundary Airport Industrial Area City of American Canyon Extraterritorial Wastewater Service Area (LAFCO Resolution No. 07-27) £¤ 12 Tower Road Green Island Road Watson Lane Eucalyptus Drive Napa River £¤ 29 Donaldson Way American Canyon Road £¤ 80 0 0.275 0.55Miles Lake Napa Yolo Calistoga October 27, 2020 St. Helena Prepared by LAFCO Staff American Sonoma Canyon Yountville Napa Solano LAFCO of Napa County 1030 Seminary Street, Suite B Napa, California 94559 American Marin Canyon http://www.napa.lafco.ca.gov NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR According to Napa LAFCO Resolution 07-27, the City may not provide new or extended water and sewer services within its adopted service areas without LAFCO authorization. The Airport Industrial Zone, however, is exempt from this requirement. Similar to the City’s water service area, the wastewater outside services are primarily a remnant of the former American Canyon County Water District; however, it is important to note that the LAFCO- approved outside service area is the only defined wastewater service area for the City. As of the merger of the American Canyon County Water District with the City, the District’s former boundaries are no longer relevant in reference to the City as its approved service area, meaning the City must apply and gain approval from LAFCO in order to extend services outside of its city limits and the Airport Industrial Zone per Government Code §56133. Services to Other Agencies The City does not provide any wastewater related services to other agencies. Contracts for Services Recology provides solids handling for the WRF through its franchise agreement. The City does not contract for services from any other agencies for wastewater services. Overlapping Service Providers There are no wastewater service providers that overlap with the City’s sewer service area. Collaboration Although the sewer service areas of American Canyon and NapaSan are adjacent, the two systems are operated separately. The two agencies have historically closely worked with each other, and still continue the collaboration and exchange of information. Staffing The Department of Public Works is responsible for the management and operations of wastewater services for the City of American Canyon. The sewer collection crew maintains sewer mains and responds to reports of sewer spills and backups and monitors compliance with environmental and water quality regulation. The Wastewater Operations Division is in charge of the wastewater treatment plant operations. Wastewater Flow The City’s sewer collection system serves residential, commercial, and industrial customers.164 Average dry weather flows (ADWF) for the last five complete years and the buildout conditions are shown in Figure 4-21. 164 GHD, City of American Canyon, Sewer Master Plan, 2016, p. 9. CHAPTER 4: CITY OF AMERICAN CANYON 96 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR Figure 4-21: Average Dry Weather Flows 2014-2018 and Buildout Conditions (mgd) American Canyon Sewer Flows 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Buildout NP 1.263 1.377 1.406 1.403 1.89 Source: City of American Canyon response to the request for information, 2019. Note: NP = Not Provided Approximately 40 percent of the total sewer collection system infiltration and inflow (I/I) is found in the Main Basin, or 80 percent when including wet weather overflow into the Main Basin from Sunset Meadows 1 Basin. The ratio of peak wet weather flow (PWWF) to average day weather flow (ADWF), or wet weather peaking factor, is highest in Sunset Meadows 1 Basin, which makes that basin a high priority for identifying potential capacity deficiencies and I/I rehabilitation projects.165 Wastewater Infrastructure and Facilities Wastewater Treatment Plant The City’s Water Reclamation Facility (WRF) is located at the western edge of the sewer service area adjacent to the Napa River. The WRF treats the wastewater to Title 22 standards and discharges to either the Napa River, via wetlands, or to the City’s recycled water distribution system.166 The plant has an average dry weather flow permitted capacity of 2.5 mgd, a peak dry weather capacity of 4.0 mgd, and peak wet weather capacity of 5.0 mgd. The plant has additional facilities for handling peak wet weather flows that include a 5.0 mg capacity earthen basin to store wastewater during instantaneous peak periods greater than the plant capacity during emergency conditions. The plant has been designed for at least a 100-year storm event.167 Figure 4-22: American Canyon Water Reclamation Facility American Canyon Wastewater Treatment Plant Flow Types Level of Treatment Treatment Type Date built/acquired Membrane bioreactor Municipal sewage, (MBR) and UV industrial wastewater Secondary/Tertiary disinfection 2001 Average Dry Weather Peak Dry Weather Peak Wet Weather Capacity Flow (2019) Flow (2019) Flow (2019) 2.5 mgd ADWF 1.4 mgd 1.8 mgd 8.0 mgd Source: Suez, American Canyon Wastewater Treatment Plant, 2008, Case Study. City of American Canyon, Water Reclamation, https://www.cityofamericancanyon.org/city-departments/public-works/water- reclamation Note: NP = Not Provided 165 GHD, City of American Canyon, Sewer Master Plan, 2016, p. 29. 166 GHD, City of American Canyon, Sewer Master Plan, 2016, p. 10. 167 California Regional Water Quality Control Board San Francisco Region, Waste Discharge Requirements for the City of American Canyon, Napa County, NPDES Permit No. CA0038768, 2000. CHAPTER 4: CITY OF AMERICAN CANYON 97 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR The American Canyon MBR facility treats two distinct feed sources, municipal sewage, and industrial wastewater. The sewage flows through the headworks, which consists of 0.1 inch (3 mm) fine screens and a grit removal tank, to the anoxic zone by gravity. There are four process trains, each consisting of an anoxic zone and an aerobic zone that also contains the membranes. Three process trains treat the municipal sewage, while the fourth treats either municipal or industrial wastewater. Effluent is drawn through the membrane fibers via a low-pressure suction created by permeate pumps. The effluent from the plant is either treated with sodium hypochlorite for bacteria re-growth control and stored in a 1.5 million- gallon reuse tank, or treated with an ultraviolet (UV) polishing step and discharged to the Napa River.168 Information regarding the condition and infrastructure needs of the Water Reclamation Facility was not provided by the City. Collection System The City’s sewer collection system is divided into three primary sewer basins and consists of approximately 53 miles of sewer mains, five pump stations, and five miles of sewer force main shown in Figure 4-23. Figure 4-23: City of American Canyon Wastewater Collection System Collection System Customer Types Sewer Basins Pump Stations Residential Main Basin Commercial Sunset Meadows Industrial Industrial Area Five Sewer Mains Pipeline Size Pipeline Composition 53 miles of sewer mains Gravity pipeline: 4-24 inches PVC, vitrified clay, asbestos 5 miles of sewer force main Force mains: 4-18 inches cement The three primary sewer basins of the City’s collection system are as follows:169 v Main Basin: Encompasses the southern portion of the City service area and conveys primarily residential flows to the Main Basin Pump Station (Building E); v Sunset Meadows: Encompasses the middle portion of the City service area and conveys a combination of residential and commercial flows to the Sunset Meadows Pump Station; and v Industrial Area: Encompasses the northern portion of the City service area and conveys industrial flows to the Tower Road and Green Island Pump Stations. Flows from the sewer collection system are conveyed to five pump stations, consisting of the main basin pump station, sunset meadows pump station, green island pump station, tower road pump station, and Kimberly pump station. Pump stations convey flows to the 168 Suez, American Canyon Wastewater Treatment Plant, 2008, Case Study. 169 GHD, City of American Canyon, Sewer Master Plan, 2016, p. 9. CHAPTER 4: CITY OF AMERICAN CANYON 98 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR WRF where they are treated and either discharged to the Napa River via wetlands or conveyed to the City’s recycled water distribution system. Wet weather has the greatest influence on peak flows within the Main Basins 1 and 3, and in the Sunset Meadows Basin, particularly in the Rio Del Mar area. Pipelines in the Rio Del Mar area are some of the oldest pipelines in the collection system and were installed at a time with lesser performance standards for water tightness compared to today’s industry standards. Addressing infiltration and inflow (I/I) in this basin would reduce peak capacity requirements in local sewers, as well as all downstream conveyance infrastructure. Other sewer basins having lower I/I rates do not have the same potential for eliminating capacity upgrades because removal of I/I can be a difficult and expensive undertaking, and there is a point of diminishing returns where capacity upgrades become the more cost-effective option.170 In general, the velocities in a majority of the existing pipelines are below the recommended minimum of two feet per second (fps) for the peak day weather flow (PDWF) scenario, which is primarily the result of minimal pipe slopes throughout the system. This may contribute to additional City effort for cleaning pipelines to clear blockages and reduce odors.171 The hydraulic evaluation identified a number of deficiencies with the current sewer collection system including pipelines and pump stations with insufficient hydraulic capacity to convey peak flows for existing and/or future conditions. All of the existing capacity deficiencies are related to I/I entering the system in that pipes have adequate capacity to handle peak dry weather flows, but not peak wet weather flows.172 To provide more details regarding the integrity of the City’s sewer system and adequacy of its services, this report includes analysis of sanitary sewer overflows and regulatory compliance data. All wastewater agencies are required to report sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs) to SWRCB. Sewer overflows are discharges from sewer pipes, pumps and manholes. Overflows reflect the capacity and condition of collection system piping and the effectiveness of routine maintenance. The sewer overflow rate is calculated as the number of overflows per 100 miles of collection piping per year. Over the last six years (2014-2019) there were eight SSO events, including four in 2014, three in 2018 and one (up to March 31, 2019) in 2019. In 2018, American Canyon’s SSO rate was about six spills per 100 miles of sewer mains. Averaged over the five-year period (there was no data for the complete 2019 as of the drafting of this report), the City’s SSO rate was about three spills per 100 miles of mains. By comparison, other wastewater agencies in California average 4.73 SSOs per 100 miles per year.173 None of the sewage spilled in the last six years reached surface waters. RWQCB2 enforces the Clean Water Act, permit conditions and other requirements of wastewater providers. Violations of State requirements for wastewater providers and treatment facilities are recorded by SWRCB. It may levy fines or order the provider to take specific actions to comply with water quality regulations. The City has both a permit for 170 GHD, City of American Canyon, Sewer Master Plan, 2016, p. 1. 171 GHD, City of American Canyon, Sewer Master Plan, 2016, p. 43. 172 GHD, City of American Canyon, Sewer Master Plan, 2016, p. 47. 173 SWRCB, Sanitary Sewer Overflow Reduction Program Annual Compliance Report, March 26, 2015, p 16. CHAPTER 4: CITY OF AMERICAN CANYON 99 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR treatment and discharge at the WRP (NPDES Permit No. CA0038768) and a general permit for its collection system. The City received one violation in 2016 for failing to timely certify an SSO. There have been no collection system violations since then. However, there were four enforcement actions. In regard to the WRF, since 2009 there have been nine regulatory measures, two violations and four enforcement actions. The two violations occurred in 2015 and 2016 and involved errors in effluent and turbidity analysis. There have been no priority violations associated with the WRF for at least the last 10 years. Infrastructure Needs The primary goal of having adequate conveyance capacity in the collection system is to minimize the chance of having sanitary sewer overflows (SSO) during peak flow events. This can be achieved using two approaches: 1) minimize I/I entering the collection system; and 2) eliminating flow restrictions by replacing undersized pipes and pumps with larger facilities that can handle the peak flows. The projects recommended in the Sewer Master Plan addressing hydraulic deficiencies are a combination of both approaches. The projects to address existing deficiencies were estimated to cost $35.5 million in 2015.174 One of the primary recommended projects includes I/I reduction in the Rio Del Mar basin by rehabilitating existing sewer mains, manholes and laterals to create a more watertight collection system. The project is budgeted to rehabilitate 50 percent of the sewers, manholes and laterals in the basin. The other four projects are aimed to increase capacity by replacing sewers that are currently leaking, some level of I/I reduction would occur. Depending on the results of further investigation and analysis, potentially also addressing I/I issues at the same time may result in cost savings over the capacity update approach and further reduce peak flows.175 In general, the wastewater industry does not have a clear manual of practice for addressing I/I. Reported results vary. For these reasons the recommended CIP projects are budgeted around capacity upgrade costs rather than I/I reduction, with the exception of the project in the Rio Del Mar neighborhood as was mentioned before.176 The 2016 Sewer Master Plan suggested the following capital improvement projects to increase capacity and address I/I:177 v I/I rehabilitation project within the Rio Del Mar area, including approximately 2.1 miles of gravity sewers, 60 manholes and 230 sewer laterals. v Upgrading the firm capacity for the Green Island Road Pump Station. v Upgrading the firm capacity for the Main Basin Pump Station. v Pipeline upsizing and relaying of sewers to alleviate hydraulic conditions related to the sewers located downstream of the flow split at the intersection of Rio Del Mar and Rio Grande, including the Sunset Meadows Pump Station. 174 GHD, City of American Canyon, Sewer Master Plan, 2016, p. 1-2. 175 GHD, City of American Canyon, Sewer Master Plan, 2016, p. 2. 176 GHD, City of American Canyon, Sewer Master Plan, 2016, p. 48. 177 GHD, City of American Canyon, Sewer Master Plan, 2016, p. 48. CHAPTER 4: CITY OF AMERICAN CANYON 100 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR v Multiple other pipeline and gravity sewer upsizings and relocations in various areas. The recommended improvements for planned growth in 2015 were estimated to cost $15.7 million. One of the four projects is to upgrade capacity to meet peak flows and serve Watson Ranch. The other three projects are all capacity upgrade projects that replace existing sewers with larger diameter pipelines.178 These projects are:179 v Various improvements to serve future developments southeast of the Napa County Airport, including upgrading the firm capacity for the Green Island Road Pump Station, construction of gravity sewer in between the Tower Road Pump Station and Green Island Road Pump Station and abandonment of the Tower Road Pump Station and force main between the Tower Road Pump Station and Green Island Road Pump Station. v Pipeline upsizing of the existing gravity sewer in Broadway between Donaldson Way East and American Canyon Road. v Upgrading the firm capacity for the Main Basin Pump Station. Shared Facilities The City does not practice facility sharing with regard to wastewater services. No opportunities were identified for future wastewater facility sharing. 178 GHD, City of American Canyon, Sewer Master Plan, 2016, p. 3. 179 GHD, City of American Canyon, Sewer Master Plan, 2016, p. 49. CHAPTER 4: CITY OF AMERICAN CANYON 101 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE OPTIONS Over the course of this review, several governance structure options were identified with respect to the City of American Canyon and its water and wastewater services, consisting of possible service structure modifications. The feasibility of these options is generally assessed in this report; however, more in-depth review would be required to refine specifics of process and structure should the affected agencies or LAFCO choose to move forward. Countywide Water Agency There are several challenges to water and wastewater services around the County that could be potentially addressed by alternative governance structures: v Some County water resources not being used to the fullest extent possible, v A need for greater oversight of all jurisdictions providing water services in the County, v A need for support buying on the spot market, v Certain redundancies with several smaller systems around the County, which could be eliminated, v A need for occasional technical expertise and support, and v A lack of economies of scale in the smaller water and wastewater systems. Given these challenges, there may be a need for a single agency to conduct water supply management on a regional or countywide level, such as a county water agency and/or an agency to provide management and operational support to the smaller utility systems that could benefit from the consolidation of certain services (i.e., lab testing) or from fully transitioning to operations by a regional agency, such as a county water district or a sanitation district. As these options may affect all of the water and wastewater service providers reviewed here, these governance structure options are discussed and assessed in further detail in the Overview chapter (Chapter 3) of this report. RECOMMENDATIONS During the process of this review, the following recommendations are made to the City of American Canyon regarding its water and wastewater service delivery. 1) Given the differing positions of LAFCO and the City of American Canyon regarding the water service area for the City, there is a need for resolution of this matter to prevent any future misunderstandings. During a meeting between LAFCO and the City, an MOU, comprised of LAFCO, the City and the County, was proposed as a potential resolution to this issue. . 2) The City of American Canyon struggled to provide comprehensive service area information, such as the exact number and location of outside water and wastewater service connections. It is recommended that the City improve tracking of information regarding actual out of area services provided, particularly for wastewater services and map the location of all of its connections outside of the city limits. CHAPTER 4: CITY OF AMERICAN CANYON 102 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR 3) Occasionally, non-residents acquire recycled water in trucks from a station at the City’s Wastewater Treatment Plant. There is no limit as to the quantity of recycled water that can be purchased and trucked as long as the purchaser obtains a prior permit. In order to ensure that trucked water does not promote development and growth in unincorporated areas where water supply is not sustainable and which may adversely affect agricultural uses, it is recommended that approved uses for trucking of water be defined in the City’s municipal code. The intent of this code is to supplement the equivalent recommended specificity in County code as the land use authority in unincorporated areas. 4) It has been Napa LAFCO’s practice to not include city-owned property within a city’s SOI pursuant to Government Code §56742, which is specific to noncontiguous territories. LAFCO may wish to consider including the noncontiguous city-owned properties in the City of American Canyon’s SOI during its next update, or if LAFCO wishes to continue the practice of excluding these properties from the City’s SOI, then it may consider clarifying its intent in its policies. CHAPTER 4: CITY OF AMERICAN CANYON 103 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR CITY OF AMERICAN CANYON DETERMINATIONS Growth and Population Projections v The City of American Canyon’s population, as of 2019, was approximately 20,629. v American Canyon’s population increased by approximately 10 percent in the last 10 years. v Future development in the City is limited by the Urban Limit Line (ULL). Additionally, growth is constrained by the airport’s flyover zones to the north, City of Vallejo to the south, foothills of the Sulphur Springs Mountain Range to the east, and the Napa River to the west. Most of the undeveloped area in the ULL has been built out. v Napa County LAFCO anticipates that the City will grow by about 0.78 percent a year through 2030 with an anticipated population of 22,398 in 2030. The Location and Characteristics of Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities Within or Contiguous to the Agency’s SOI v According to Napa LAFCO’s definition of disadvantaged unincorporated communities (DUCs), there are currently no DUCs in Napa County. Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities and Adequacy of Public Services, Including Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies v The City of American Canyon purchases water from the State Water Project and the City of Vallejo. Water supply is considered to be adequate to meet American Canyon’s current needs. v The City supplements its water supply with recycled water. Recycled water is mostly used for vineyard and landscape irrigation. Potable water demand for landscape irrigation is expected to decline as the City expands its recycled water distribution system. In order to meet the projected buildout recycled water demands, the City will need to reuse 100 percent of its treated water during peak demands in the summer months. v The City’s combined projected water supplies are sufficient to meet projected demands during normal water year conditions. Under single-dry water year conditions, the supply is generally sufficient until sometime after 2030 when shortfalls begin to appear. By 2035, the single-dry year shortfall is estimated at approximately six percent. Under multiple-dry year conditions, the supply is sufficient through 2040. v There City’s Water Treatment Plant (WTP) has sufficient capacity to accommodate current peak day demand and projected peak day demand at buildout. v There is a current storage shortfall of 4.0 mg. At buildout, the storage shortfall increases to a total of 6.8 mg. CHAPTER 4: CITY OF AMERICAN CANYON 104 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR v The City’s water distribution infrastructure was reported to be in fair condition. However, over the five-year period, the City experienced a decline in main breaks, which is reflected in the decrease in water loss experienced over that same time period. v The City appropriately plans for its infrastructure needs in the Capital Improvement Plan. The main planned capital improvement projects address insufficient water storage capacity, pipeline deterioration, and pipelines that are undersized for the current conditions and fire flow requirements. The City is also expanding the recycled water system. v American Canyon has adequate capacity to accommodate existing and projected demand at its wastewater treatment plant. v The hydraulic evaluation identified a number of deficiencies with the current sewer collection system including pipelines and pump stations with insufficient hydraulic capacity to convey peak flows for existing and/or future conditions. All of the existing capacity deficiencies are related to I/I entering the system in that pipes have adequate capacity to handle peak dry weather flows, but not peak wet weather flows. The City has planned a number of capital improvement projects to address the I/I concerns. v The level of wastewater services offered by the City was found to be adequate based on integrity of the wastewater collection system and regulatory compliance. The City’s sanitary sewer overflow rate is lower on average than of other wastewater agencies in California. The City didn’t experience any violations in the last three years; and there have been no priority violations in at least last 10 years. Financial Ability of Agencies to Provide Services v American Canyon has the ability to continue providing water and wastewater services. Combined utility reserves appear to be adequate for ongoing operations of water and wastewater, however, the Water Operations Fund unrestricted net position is only $100,000 which is low compared to annual operating expenditures. v From FY17 to FY18 the value of capital assets declined, indicating that investments were not keeping pace with depreciation. The City’s Five-Year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) identifies future needs, costs and source of funding, but does not identify the projected funding available or shortfalls in funding, if any. v The City recently adopted rate increases beginning in FY18 anticipated to improve balances and help to maintain investments in capital assets. v The City evaluates its cost of service as needed to revise its rates and help fund its 5- year CIP. The CIP is not updated annually. Status of, and Opportunities for, Shared Facilities v American Canyon shares interconnections with the cities of Vallejo and Napa. v The City is a member of the Sites Reservoir Project, which is a potential future water supply source in Colusa County. Among the few dozen other participants are Los Angeles, Sacramento, San Bernardino, Antelope Valley and Santa Clara. CHAPTER 4: CITY OF AMERICAN CANYON 105 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR v The City has considered and will continue to consider opportunities for water exchanges or transfers with water right holders, if opportunities present themselves at the right price and under acceptable terms and conditions. v American Canyon closely collaborates and exchanges information with Napa Sanitation District. Accountability for Community Service Needs, Including Governmental Structure and Operational Efficiencies v The City Council holds regular appropriately noticed meetings. v American Canyon makes available most documents on its website, including minutes, agendas, and financial and planning reports. The website also provides a means to solicit comments and complaints from customers. The City is compliant with the agenda-posting requirements outlined in AB 2257. Relationship with Regional Growth Goals and Policies v The City of American Canyon has adopted an Urban Limit Line (ULL) to manage its growth. The ULL represents an agreement with Napa County and is consistent with the County’s General Plan and agricultural protection ordinances. v The City of American Canyon and four other municipalities of Napa County participate in the Napa Valley Transportation Authority (NVTA), which functions as the region’s Congestion Management Agency and provides input to the Bay Area-wide Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s (MTC) 20-year Regional Transportation Plan. Plans applicable to American Canyon include Napa Countywide Pedestrian Plan, Vision 2040 Moving Napa Forward – A Countywide Transportation Plan, Countywide Bicycle Plan, SR 29 Gateway Corridor Implementation Plan, and Plan Bay Area. v Napa LAFCO has adopted a resolution defining the City’s water and wastewater service areas. According to the resolution, the City may not provide new or extended water and sewer services within its adopted service areas without prior written LAFCO authorization, with the exception of the Airport Industrial Zone, which is outside of the City boundaries but is exempt from this requirement. This policy is consistent with the California Code §56133 on out-of-area services. v The City’s boundaries include three non-contiguous parcels that are outside of its Sphere of Influence (SOI), which are owned by the City and used for municipal purposes. Typically, this would indicate LAFCO’s anticipation that these areas be detached from the City; however, it has been Napa LAFCO’s practice to not include city-owned property within a city’s SOI pursuant to Government Code §56742, which is specific to noncontiguous territories. LAFCO may wish to consider including the noncontiguous city-owned properties in the City of American Canyon’s SOI during its next update, or if LAFCO wishes to continue the practice of excluding these properties from the City’s SOI, then it may consider clarifying its intent in its policies. CHAPTER 4: CITY OF AMERICAN CANYON 106 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR 5. CI TY O F CA L I STO GA AGENCY OVERVIEW City of Calistoga Profile Contact Information Mike Kirn, City Manager Contact: 1232 Washington Street, http://www.ci.calistoga.ca.us/ho Address: Calistoga, CA 94515 Website: m e Phone: 707-942-2806 Email: mkirn@ci.calistoga.ca.us Formation Information Date of Incorporated: 1886 General Law Incorporation: City type: Governing Body 5 Council Members including the City Council Governing Body: Members: Mayor and Vice Mayor Manner of Length of Election at large 4 years Selection: term: Calistoga Community Meetings Location: Meeting date: First and third Tuesday at 6 p.m. Center 1307 Washington St. Mapping and Population Population GIS Date: December 2019 5,453 (2019): Purpose Enabling Empowered California Constitution XI All municipal services Legislation: Services: Municipal Services Law enforcement, fire protection and emergency medical, water, sewer, storm Provided (directly drainage, streets, community recreation, cemetery, solid waste (Upper Valley or by contract) Disposal & Recycling) Area Served 2.60 square miles (1,651 Size: Location: North-Western Napa County acres) 4.61 square miles (2,957 Most recent Current SOI: 2016 acres) SOI update: Municipal Service Reviews 2016 Municipal Service Review and Sphere of Influence Update: City of Calistoga 2008 City of Calistoga Municipal Service Review Past MSRs: 2005 Comprehensive Sanitation and Wastewater Treatment Study 2004 Comprehensive Water Service Study CHAPTER 5: CITY OF CALISTOGA 107 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR Boundaries The City of Calistoga is located in the northern part of the Napa Valley. The boundaries encompass 2.6 square miles, as shown in Figure 5-1. There have been no city boundary reorganizations since 2010. Sphere of Influence The City’s sphere of influence (SOI) was last updated in 2016 with no changes. Calistoga’s current SOI is slightly larger than its boundary area and includes an unincorporated five- acre area along Washington Street. This area is owned by the City and used as a part of its wastewater system. Currently, the City does not have any plans to annex this territory. Calistoga considers its current SOI appropriate. CHAPTER 5: CITY OF CALISTOGA 108 City of Calistoga Figure 5-1 Legend O ld L City of Calistoga a w le Jurisdictional Boundary y T City of Calistoga o ll R Sphere of Influence o a d £¤ 29 Bennett Lane e n L a n ue T u b b s woo d Ave n Gree e u n e v A a o r d M a o R ett G k F oothill B rant Street Rosedale Road Pi c ou levard e n u e Silverado Trail v A Li n c ol n Washington Street d a o R n e o n y a n L K o rt u m C a mond Mountain Road £¤ 29 D u n a w e al Dia 0 0.175 0.35Miles Calistoga Lake Yolo Angwin Calistoga December 11, 2019 St. Helena Prepared by LAFCO Staff Sonoma St. Helena Yountville Sonoma Napa Solano LAFCO of Napa County 1030 Seminary Street, Suite B Napa, California 94559 American Marin Canyon http://www.napa.lafco.ca.gov NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR ACCOUNTABILITY AND GOVERNANCE The City of Calistoga is governed by a five-member Council, including a Mayor and a Vice Mayor, all elected at large to staggered four-year terms.180 The Council meets on the first and third Tuesdays of every month at 6:00 p.m. at the Calistoga Community Center.181 Agendas and minutes are posted on the website.182 In 2016, the State Legislature enacted Assembly Bill 2257 (Government Code §54954.2) to update the Brown Act with new requirements governing the location, platform and methods by which an agenda must be accessible on the agency’s website for all meetings occurring on or after January 1, 2019. The City of Calistoga complies with agenda posting requirement by maintaining a dedicated webpage with the required agenda information with the direct link to this webpage posted on its homepage.183 Calistoga accepts water quality complaints through phone calls to a Department of Public Works assistant. A summary report is prepared and, if warranted, an action request is issued to a city employee for follow-up. A majority of the complaints received are related to taste and odor (T&O).184 The City demonstrated accountability and transparency in its disclosure of information and cooperation with Napa LAFCO. The City responded to the questionnaires and cooperated with the document requests. GROWTH AND POPULATION PROJECTIONS According to the California Department of Finance (DOF), the City’s population as of 2019 was about 5,453. Calistoga’s population increased by approximately six percent in the last 10 years. Residential uses occupy nearly half of the land within the city limits. Agricultural land comprises approximately one-fifth. Parks and public space are also major existing uses within the city limits in terms of area. Commercial development constitutes only two percent of land area.185 Currently, about 400 acres of land within the city boundaries are vacant or used for agriculture. These sites are significant because their development could have a profound impact on the appearance and function of the community.186 The City is generally surrounded by agricultural lands that are protected by the County’s Measures J and P.187 The City has been a relatively slow growing community. This is partially because limitations in the availability of water and wastewater treatment capacity restricted growth throughout the 1990s. Calistoga’s Resource Management System (RMS), which limits the amount of residential development allowed each year, was instituted in 1990. Partly as a result of the RMS, both population growth and construction occurred at rates much lower 180 http://www.ci.calistoga.ca.us/city-hall/city-council 181 http://www.ci.calistoga.ca.us/city-hall/city-council 182 http://www.ci.calistoga.ca.us/city-hall/city-council/agendas-minutes 183 http://www.ci.calistoga.ca.us/city-hall/city-council/agendas-minutes/-toggle-next30days 184 Napa County Grand Jury Report, Napa County Water Quality: It’s a Matter of Taste, June 14, 2019. 185 City of Calistoga, General Plan, Land Use Element, 2015, p. LU-1. 186 City of Calistoga, General Plan, Land Use Element, 2015, p. LU-7. 187 City of Calistoga, General Plan, Land Use Element, 2015, p. LU-7. CHAPTER 5: CITY OF CALISTOGA 110 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR than was the case elsewhere in the region. While Calistoga’s population grew by 15 percent between 1990 and 2010, Napa County’s total population (including all cities and the unincorporated area) grew by 25 percent during this same time period. The purchase of water supply from Kern County and the expansion of the wastewater treatment system have largely put an end to the necessity for the RMS. However, the City continues to manage its growth to maintain its small-town character.188 In 2005, the City Council established a Growth Management System to regulate the rate of development within the city boundaries. The System provides a program for allocating 20 acre-feet (af) of water per year in accordance with the City’s Resource Management System, with 60 percent (12 af) available for residential uses and eight acre-feet for non-residential uses. The Growth Management System establishes five-year cycles within which annual allocations are granted and measured. During a cycle, water awarded to new development cannot result in an annual population growth that exceeds 1.35 percent.189 Projects that are exempt from the allocation requirement include (but are not limited to) accessory dwelling units, units on lots existing prior to 2005 or in new small subdivisions, and development projects subject to a development agreement. However, exempt residential units are still subject to the population cap and are counted towards the City’s total water and wastewater capacities under the RMS.190 Residential water allocations for 34 dwellings were granted for building permits issued between 2015 and December 2019. Permits for an additional 39 units were exempt from the allocation requirement. The construction of these 65 units is not expected to cause the annual growth rate to exceed the maximum 1.35 percent during the current five-year program cycle (2015-2019). The average household size for the 30 senior apartments and three accessory dwelling units will be considerably lower than the 2.56 persons per household average that the State estimates per dwelling unit citywide. Additionally, several of the 20 homes at Silver Rose will likely not be occupied by permanent residents.191 Since the beginning of 2015, water allocations totaling 4.076 acre-feet have been granted to five non-residential projects. Permits for an additional 23.13 acre-feet were exempt from the allocation requirement (i.e., the Boys & Girls Club and Silver Rose projects).192 Therefore, 17.153 acre-feet of water can still be allocated through the remainder of the cycle (i.e., through 2019).193 Approved projects that may be issued building permits during the remainder of the cycle, and their associated water usage and wastewater generation, currently include the following: 188 City of Calistoga, General Plan, Land Use Element, 2015, LU-6. 189 City of Calistoga, Periodic Report on Growth Management System and Water/ Wastewater Availability, 2018. 190 City of Calistoga, Periodic Report on Growth Management System and Water/ Wastewater Availability, 2018. 191 City of Calistoga, Periodic Report on Growth Management System and Water/ Wastewater Availability, 2018. 192 City of Calistoga, Periodic Report on Growth Management System and Water/ Wastewater Availability, 2018. 193 City of Calistoga, Periodic Report on Growth Management System and Water/ Wastewater Availability, 2018. CHAPTER 5: CITY OF CALISTOGA 111 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR Figure 5-2: Approved Projects (2015-2019), acre-feet Project Name Water Usage Wastewater Generation Craftsman Inn 1.360 1.2 Expansion Calistoga Vista 7.448 4.382 Highland Court – 5 Single Family Dwellings 2.140 1.120 (SFD) 1320 Fair Way – 0.747 0.438 2 duplexes Source: City Council Staff Report: Growth Management System Report, 2018. The following entitlement applications are currently being reviewed for potential approval during the current Growth Management System cycle: Figure 5-3: Projects in Progress (2015-2019), acre-feet Project Name Water Usage Wastewater Generation The Veranda – 24 21.6 expansion of resort Gas station, store, 2.017 1.657 restaurant, car wash 2 SFD (TBD) 0.856 0.448 Source: City Council Staff Report: Growth Management System Report, 2018. As part of the 2014 Development Impact Fee Study, City staff estimated the types and amounts of development that might occur over the following 20 years. Water usage and wastewater generation associated with potential development through 2034 is summarized in Figure 5-4. It should be noted that the figures below include approximately 90 percent of the projected water usage and 78 percent of the projected wastewater generation assumed for the pending Veranda project listed in Figure 5-3.194 Water supply availability and wastewater system capacity will be discussed in more detail later in this chapter. Figure 5-4: Potential Development through 2034, acre-feet Potential Development through 2034 Water Usage Wastewater Generation 71 SFD 30.39 15.90 118 multi-family dwellings (MFD) (split between 1 and 2 22.01 12.92 bedroom units) 222 guest rooms 37.74 33.30 240,000 square feet of 26.40 23.76 commercial development 3,000 restaurant square feet 1.74 1.57 Totals 118.28 87.45 % of available supply/capacity 26.2-53.8% 71% Source: City Council Staff Report: Growth Management System Report, 2018. 194 City of Calistoga, Periodic Report on Growth Management System and Water/ Wastewater Availability, 2018. CHAPTER 5: CITY OF CALISTOGA 112 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) projects that the total growth within the City between 2020 and 2030 will be 3.8 percent or about 0.4 percent a year on average. Based on these projections, the City’s population would increase from 5,453 in 2019 to approximately 5,683 in 2030. Napa LAFCO has developed its own population projections. To project future growth, LAFCO calculated the annual percentage change between 2012 and 2017 based on the DOF population estimates for these years.195 Population growth was then projected in five-year increments through 2030. According to LAFCO’s projections, the population of Calistoga in 2025 is anticipated to be about 5,652 and approximately 5,818 in 2030. LAFCO projects that Calistoga will grow by 0.61 percent a year through 2030. DISADVANTAGED UNINCORPORATED COMMUNITIES LAFCO is required to evaluate disadvantaged unincorporated communities as part of this service review, including the location and characteristics of any such communities. Calistoga is incorporated and does not serve any communities that meet the LAFCO definition of a DUC in the unincorporated area. According to Napa LAFCO’s definition of DUCs, there are currently no disadvantaged unincorporated communities in Napa County. Based on the adopted policy, the Commission annually reviews Census Bureau American Community Survey data to determine if local and/or statewide median household income levels have changed.196 195 The change in population, especially unincorporated area, between 2017-2018 was significant due to the wildfires and loss of homes. Therefore, LAFCO used the timeframe from 2012 to 2017. 196 Napa Local Agency Formation Commission, Policy on Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities, 2018. CHAPTER 5: CITY OF CALISTOGA 113 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR FINANCIAL ABILITY TO PROVIDE SERVICES The City of Calistoga provides water and wastewater services as City enterprise (“business-type” activities). City departments provide administrative and overhead services to the water and wastewater enterprises, which in turn reimburse the City departments for “Central Services Overhead” expenses. The enterprises are supported by rate revenues and charges; no property tax revenue accrues directly to the enterprises. The FY19 budget shows a $20,000 “General Fund Subsidy” to the Water Operations Fund which is less than prior years (e.g., the subsidy was about $80,000 annually in FY14 through FY16). The City reported a $250,000 rates stabilization transfer from the General Fund to the Water Fund at the start of FY20, of which about half had been refunded by the end of the first quarter of FY20; the Wastewater Fund required no transfer.197 The City’s CAFR198 reports City financials. The CAFR provides financial information separately for the water and wastewater “business-type” activities. The City’s annual budget reports revenues and expenses separately for water and wastewater enterprises. Figure 5-5: Summary of Selected Financial Information, City of Calistoga Water Operations City of Calistoga Water Operations FY18-19 Water Budget Net $630,000 Operating Revenues $4,000,000 Operating Expenditures (exc. debt) $3,370,000 Ending Fund Balance as % of Operating Revenues 26% Ending Fund Balance $1,050,000 Debt Service as a % of Operating Revenues 11.1% Total Debt Outstanding $7,510,000 Monthly Water Rates as a % of Household Income 2.1% Typical Monthly Rate $102 Median Household Income (2017) $58,533 Pension Payments % of Revenues 3.4% Pension+OPEB Total Payments $140,000 Unfunded Pension Liability $1,360,000 2019-10-01 197 City of Calistoga Response to Financial Data Request, rec’d 10/07/19. 198 City of Calistoga FY18 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR). CHAPTER 5: CITY OF CALISTOGA 114 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR Figure 5-6: Summary of Selected Financial Information, City of Calistoga Wastewater Operations City of Calistoga Wastewater Operations FY18-19 Wastewater Budget Net $380,000 Operating Revenues $2,820,000 Operating Expenditures (exc. debt) $2,440,000 Ending Fund Balance as % of Operating Revenues 19% Ending Fund Balance $540,000 Debt Service as a % of Operating Revenues 23.6% Total Debt Outstanding $2,918,000 Monthly Rates as a % of Household Income 2.7% Typical Monthly Rate $132 Median Household Income (2017) $58,533 Pension Payments % of Revenues 6.0% Pension Payments $170,000 Unfunded Pension Liability $1,520,000 2019-10-01 Balanced Budget For any agency, recurring operating deficits are a warning sign. In the short-term, reserves can backfill deficits and maintain services. However, ongoing deficits eventually will deplete reserves and/or require General Fund subsidies. The City’s utility operations’ operating revenues have covered operating expenses (excluding depreciation) in recent years’ FY17 through the proposed FY19 budget (before funding debt service and capital improvements). As described below, the FY19 Water Fund indicates a positive net surplus after debt and capital, while the Wastewater Fund shows shortfalls in recent years including FY19. The City anticipates that recently adopted utility rate increases will help provide sustainable enterprise operations.199 Water Services Operating revenues covered operating expenditures (excluding depreciation) FY17 through FY19. However, FY17 and FY18 show net operating revenues insufficient to fully fund debt service. FY19 is projected to end with a net surplus after debt service, but no capital improvements were funded in FY19 from net operating revenues. The FY19 net surplus is partly the result of a General Fund subsidy of $20,000 which helped to maintain fund levels required to meet debt service coverage requirements.200 199 City of Calistoga Budget Fiscal Year 2018-19 Operating & Capital Improvement Budgets, Transmittal Letter, pg. 1. 200 City of Calistoga Budget Fiscal Year 2018-19 Operating & Capital Improvement Budgets, pg. 131 (FY17 actual, FY18 revised, and FY19 proposed budgets). CHAPTER 5: CITY OF CALISTOGA 115 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR Wastewater Services Operating revenues covered operating expenditures (excluding debt service and depreciation) FY17 through FY19. However, FY18 and FY19 both show net deficits after debt service; in FY19 the projected ending deficit, after debt service and a contribution to the Capital Fund, totals a shortfall of $476,000.201 As noted previously, the City indicates that recent rate adjustments will eliminate shortfalls.202 Fund Balances, Reserves and Liquidity Fund balances and reserves should include adequate funds for cash flow and liquidity, in addition to funds to address longer-term needs. The City Council’s goal for utility operating reserves is 20 percent of operating expenditures,203 a goal met by both utilities in FY19 based on allocations shown for ending fund balances. This goal exceeds a “warning” minimum 8 percent.204 In the longer term, an Agency’s Unrestricted Net Position can indicate the longer-term availability of funds, which could be greater or less than a Fund Balance. The Net Position reflects net value remaining after including all current and long-term assets such as capital assets and advances to other funds, and current and long-term liabilities such as unfunded pension and OPEB liabilities. Water Services The Water Operations Fund projected ending FY19 balance of $1,050,864 represents about 36 percent of operating expenditures (excluding depreciation). This balance is allocated to operating reserves (about 20% of expenditures), required debt service reserves of $94,000, operating contingency (3% of expenditures), and a capital reserve of $300,000. The Water Operations liquidity ratio at the end of FY18 was 0.7, which falls below a standard of 1.0. Although the Water Operations Fund projects an ending FY19 balance over $1 million, those funds are offset by current liabilities. Wastewater Services The Wastewater Operations Fund projected ending FY19 balance of $541,263 represents about 22 percent of operating expenditures (excluding depreciation). This balance is allocated to operating reserves (about 20% of expenditures), required debt service reserves of $103,800, a negative capital reserve of $49,861 and no operating and capital contingency.205 The Wastewater Operations Fund liquidity ratio significantly exceeds 1.0, indicating that current assets exceed current liabilities by a factor of four. This positive ratio is based on the FY18 CAFR and the FY18 budget that included $1.2 million of WWTP CIP. The current 201 City of Calistoga Budget Fiscal Year 2018-19 Operating & Capital Improvement Budgets, pg. 143 (FY17 actual, FY18 revised, and FY19 proposed budgets). 202 City of Calistoga Response to Financial Data Request, rec’d 10/07/19. 203 City of Calistoga Budget Fiscal Year 2018-19 Operating & Capital Improvement Budgets, Transmittal Letter, pg. 1. “Operating Expenditures” for this purpose appear to exclude depreciation shown in the operating budgets. 204 The California Municipal Financial Health Diagnostic: Financial Health Indicators, League of California Cities, 2014. 205 City of Calistoga Budget Fiscal Year 2018-19 Wastewater Operations Fund, pg. 143. CHAPTER 5: CITY OF CALISTOGA 116 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR liquidity ratio should decline correspondingly with the use of the CIP funds that occurred in FY19 for collection and treatment improvements.206 Net Position An agency’s “Net Position” as reported in its CAFR represents the amount by which assets (e.g., cash, capital assets, other assets) exceed liabilities (e.g., debts, unfunded pension and OPEB liabilities, other liabilities). A positive Net Position provides an indicator of financial soundness over the long-term. Water Services The Water Operations Fund’s unrestricted net position was a negative $880,000 at the end of FY18.207 This position indicates that total liabilities exceed non-capital assets. This negative position is generally consistent and partially the outcome of the zero cash shown in the FY18 CAFR and liquidity ratio less than 1.0 noted previously. Wastewater Services The Wastewater Operations Fund’s unrestricted net position was $1.8 million at the end of FY18.208 Rates and Charges Water and wastewater operations are primarily funded by service charges. Enterprises are allowed to establish charges sufficient to fund their cost of service. Rates typically are expected to not exceed 2-2.5 percent of household income, for each utility;209 Calistoga’s rates for water equal 2.1 percent of median household incomes, and typical wastewater rates equal 2.7 percent of median household incomes.210 The combined 4.8 percent rates are near the maximum 4 to 5 percent measure. The City collects water and wastewater connection impact fees to pay for system improvements required to serve new development.211 The City offers a low-income water rate program providing 20 percent reductions in water service charges for ratepayers experiencing financial hardship.212 Water Services In 2018 the City adopted updated water rates and a schedule of increases213 based on recommendations of a water rate study.214 The initial rate increase of 15 percent in 2018 206 City of Calistoga Budget Fiscal Year 2018-19 Operating & Capital Improvement Budgets, Wastewater CIP Fund, pg. 144. 207 City of Calistoga FY18 CAFR, Statement of Net Position Proprietary Funds, pg. 20. 208 City of Calistoga FY18 CAFR, Statement of Net Position Proprietary Funds, pg. 20. 209 Teodoro, et al, (2018) cite USEPA’s Financial Capability Guidebook (USEPA 1984) as original source for the use of personal income as a measure, although it was not applied to rates in the 1984 document. 210 Based on median household income of $58,533 according to the American Community Survey 2017, DP03, 5-Year estimates. See appendix for detailed estimate of typical household charges. 211 See the City of Calistoga Development Fee Schedule. 212 City of Calistoga website 1/8/19 http://www.ci.calistoga.ca.us/city-hall/departments-services/utility-billing-services/low-income-rate-adjustment-lira 213 Ordinance 734 adopted March 6, 2018. 214 City of Calistoga Water Rate Study Final Report, Bartle Wells Associates, 2/20/2018. CHAPTER 5: CITY OF CALISTOGA 117 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR declines to 14 percent in 2019 and 10 percent the following years through 2022. The City’s goal is to address prior year operating deficits and “…the significant cost of water and capital improvements to repair aging infrastructure.”215 The City anticipates that planned rate increases will reduce or eliminate the need for General Fund transfers to maintain required debt reserve levels.216 Wastewater Services In 2018 the City adopted updated wastewater rates and a schedule of increases217 based on recommendations of a wastewater rate study.218 The initial rate increase of 15 percent in 2018 declines to 13 percent in 2019 and 10 percent the following years and 3 percent in 2022. The City’s goal is to address prior year operating deficits and the “…Cease and Desist Order placed on the City and stringent RWQCB2 Permit conditions.”219 Long-term Debt Excessive long-term debt incurs interest charges that consume financial resources that could otherwise fund needed services and capital improvements. Studies indicate that a majority of debt-paying water and wastewater agencies surveyed spent between 10 percent and 30 percent of their total operating revenues on debt service.220 The water and wastewater funds currently are meeting required debt service coverages of 20 percent221 However, the City reported a $250,000 rates stabilization transfer from the General Fund to the Water Fund at the start of FY20, of which about half had been refunded by the end of the first quarter of FY20; the Wastewater Fund required no transfer.222 The City’s Insured Rating: S&P is “AA” and Underlying Rating: S&P is “A-“ per April 2018 statement.223 Water Services The City’s water services debt outstanding totals $7.5 million at the end of FY19. The debt includes three Certificates of Participation.224 Water services spend about 13 percent of expenditures (including debt) for debt service.225 To meet debt service coverage requirements, the City’s General Fund transferred $250,000 of which about half has been refunded to the General Fund.226 215 City of Calistoga website 1/8/19 http://www.ci.calistoga.ca.us/city-hall/departments-services/utility-billing-services/water-wastewater-rates 216 City of Calistoga Response to Financial Data Request, rec’d 10/07/19. 217 Ordinance 735 adopted March 6, 2018. 218 City of Calistoga Wastewater Rate Study Final Report, Bartle Wells Associates, 2/20/2018. 219 City of Calistoga website 1/8/19 http://www.ci.calistoga.ca.us/city-hall/departments-services/utility-billing-services/water-wastewater-rates 220 http://efc.web.unc.edu/2014/02/17/napshot-debt-service-as-percent-of-total-operating-revenues/ 221 City of Calistoga Response to Financial Data Request, rec’d 10/07/19. (City of Calistoga) 222 City of Calistoga Response to Financial Data Request, rec’d 10/07/19. 223 Correspondence from D. Rayner, City of Calistoga, 1/16/2020. 224 City of Calistoga Budget Fiscal Year 2018-19 Operating & Capital, Debt Schedule, pg. 203. 225 Appendix A, City of Calistoga Water Operations Fiscal Profile. 226 City of Calistoga Response to Financial Data Request, rec’d 10/07/19. CHAPTER 5: CITY OF CALISTOGA 118 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR Wastewater Services The City’s wastewater services debt outstanding totals $5.4 million at the end of FY19, including one State revolving loan fund obligation.227 Calistoga wastewater services spend about 27 percent of expenditures (including debt) for debt service.228 Pension and OPEB Liabilities Unfunded pension and OPEB liabilities present one of the most serious fiscal challenges facing many cities and districts. However, current costs and potential increases in Calistoga pension and OPEB costs do not appear to be a significant adverse factor relative to its total budget. The City’s total unfunded liability for all plans and employees is $10.5 million; 229 CalPERS projects the City’s largest plan’s required contributions towards its unfunded liability to increase by about 50 percent through 2025, or about an additional $200,000.230 The City’s total unfunded OPEB liability was estimated to be $2.3 million at the end of FY18. The City is on a “pay as you go” plan and the net liability is equal to the total liability. Water Services Unfunded pension liabilities allocated to the water system total $1.4 million; payments toward these liabilities total about 3.4 percent of total revenues.231 Wastewater Services Unfunded pension liabilities allocated to the wastewater system total $1.5 million; payments toward these liabilities total about 6 percent of total revenues.232 Capital Assets Capital assets must be adequately maintained and replaced over time and expanded as needed to accommodate future demand and respond to regulatory and technical changes. The City’s 5-Year CIP Summary shows major water and wastewater capital improvements through FY23.233 The City’s budget displays system improvements for the past five years.234 227 City of Calistoga Budget Fiscal Year 2018-19 Operating & Capital, Debt Schedule, pg. 203. 228 Appendix A, City of Calistoga Wastewater Operations Fiscal Profile. 229 City of Calistoga FY18 CAFR, Note D Pension Plans, pg. 50. 230 CalPERS Actuarial Valuation as of June 30, 2017 for the City of Calistoga, Misc. Plan, Projected Employer Contributions, pg. 5. 231 City of Calistoga FY18 CAFR, Statement of Net Position Proprietary Funds, pg. 20. See also Town of Calistoga Fiscal Profile, Appendix A-5. 232 ibid, City of Calistoga FY18 CAFR. 233 City of Calistoga Budget Fiscal Year 2018-19 Operating & Capital, Major Capital Projects, pg. 197-200. 234 City of Calistoga Budget Fiscal Year 2018-19 Operating & Capital, pg. 133 (water system capital improvements) and pg. 145 (wastewater system capital improvements). CHAPTER 5: CITY OF CALISTOGA 119 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR Water Services Years prior to FY17 indicate capital expenditures averaging an amount similar to budgeted depreciation of $400,000.235 The value of depreciable capital assets increased by about 1.6 percent from FY17 to FY18; capital additions more than offset reduced value due to depreciation.236 The City’s proposed FY19 budget shows $3.1 million of capital improvements, and the CIP indicates $1.8 million and $1.4 million of expenditures in FY20 and FY21, respectively.237 Wastewater Services Years prior to FY17 indicate capital expenditures averaging an amount nearly equal to budgeted depreciation of $660,000.238 The value of depreciable capital assets increased about 3.8 percent from FY17 to FY18; additions more than offset value reductions due to depreciation.239 The City’s proposed FY19 budget shows $2.4 million of capital improvements in FY19, and the CIP indicates $1.3 million and $250,000 of expenditures in FY20 and FY21, respectively.240 Financial Planning and Reporting Achieving transparency and public accountability standards dictates that cities and agencies provide easily accessible and clear documentation of their activities, including financial information. Website – The City’s website includes descriptions of and access to current and past water and wastewater financial documents. Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) -- The City includes its water and wastewater operations in its CAFR which is published in a timely manner within six months of the end of the fiscal year. The document is a scan of a printed page and not easily searched electronically. Capital Improvement Program – The City creates a 5-Year CIP and updates the CIP for each budget year as a part of its annual budget process.241 235 City of Calistoga Budget Fiscal Year 2018-19 Operating & Capital, pg. 133 (water system capital improvements); see Water Operations Fund Sources and Uses, pg. 131 for depreciation budget item. 236 City of Calistoga CAFR FY18, Note D Capital Assets Business-Type Activity, pg. 38. Excludes water rights. 237 City of Calistoga Budget Fiscal Year 2018-19 Operating & Capital, Major Capital Projects Summary of Proposed Projects FY19-FY23, pg. 200. 238 City of Calistoga Budget Fiscal Year 2018-19 Operating & Capital, pg. 145 (wastewater system capital improvements). see Wastewater Operations Fund Sources and Uses, pg. 143 for depreciation budget item. 239 City of Calistoga CAFR FY18, Note D Capital Assets Business-Type Activity, pg. 38. 240 City of Calistoga Budget Fiscal Year 2018-19 Operating & Capital, Major Capital Projects Summary of Proposed Projects FY19-FY23, pg. 200. 241 City of Calistoga Budget Fiscal Year 2018-19 Capital Improvement Program, p. 193. CHAPTER 5: CITY OF CALISTOGA 120 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR Water Services Cost of Service/Rate Study – The City updated its rates based on a Rate Study and created a 5-year schedule of rate increases which took effect beginning FY18. 242 Financial Forecasts – The Town’s 2018 Rate Study included a 5-year financial forecast. Wastewater Services Cost of Service/Rate Study – The Town updated its rates and created a 5-year schedule of rate increases which took effect beginning FY18.243 Financial Forecasts – The Town’s 2018 Rate Study included a 5-year financial forecast. 242 City of Calistoga Water Rate Study Final Report, Bartle Wells Associates, 2/20/2018. 243 City of Calistoga Wastewater Rate Study Final Report, Bartle Wells Associates, 2/20/2018. CHAPTER 5: CITY OF CALISTOGA 121 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR WATER SERVICES The City of Calistoga conducts planning for its water services in its General Plan. The Infrastructure Element that provides information and policy guidance related to community infrastructure, including water facilities and services was last updated in 2020. As of the drafting of this report, the City was in the process of updating this element. The 2020 Infrastructure Element lists the following objectives and associated policies for the City’s water services: Objective I-1.1 Plan, manage and develop the public water conveyance and distribution systems in logical, timely and appropriate manner. v P1.1-1 The City shall base water capacity and supply plans and projections on the “below normal year” but will also look for ways to decrease the impacts of a “dry year.” v P1.1-2 The City shall not extend water infrastructure to new areas until existing infrastructure is brought to adequate standards or unless such extensions contribute to infrastructure improvements. v P1.1-3 Potable water should generally be available to the City’s residents and businesses. v P1.1-4 Properties which utilize an on-site well where treated water is generally available may connect to the City’s water system provided that there are sufficient resources. Where resources are limited, priority for treated water should be given to vacant parcels and existing developed parcels proposing an expansion of use. Objective I-1.2 Maintain water storage, conveyance and treatment infrastructure in good condition. Objective I-1.3 Encourage coordination between land use planning and water facilities and service. v P1.3-1 The approval of new development shall be conditional on the availability of sufficient water for the project. v P1.3-2 The City shall ensure a fair and equitable distribution of costs for water service expansion. v P1.3-3 Structures with plumbing that are located within city limits shall connect to the water system, unless topography, distance from the public water system, or other factors indicate a need for an exemption. v P1.3-4 Extension of water service beyond the current service area shall be prohibited. v P1.3-5 Needed water supply and pressure for fire suppression shall be maintained. v P1.3-6 Users of the cold-water aquifer shall meet all City and governmental requirements. v P1.3-7 If and when 95 percent of the capacity of existing water storage, supply and/or distribution systems has been reached, further development in Calistoga will be prohibited until the City has provided sufficient new capacity to accommodate new development. CHAPTER 5: CITY OF CALISTOGA 122 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR Objective I-1.4 Promote water conservation. v P1.4-1 Voluntary reductions by existing users in per capita water use shall be encouraged. v P1.4-2 Water conservation shall be a required component of the Water Supply Plan. This element of the Plan shall quantify the targeted minimum reduction in water use for each user category. No new water purchase by the City shall be pursued until these minimum conservation targets have been achieved. v P1.4-3 Projects using the City's cold-water aquifer shall be required to use reclaimed wastewater for landscaping. v P1.4-4 The City shall adopt a series of Best Management Practices for water conservation measures that will be mandatory in new development and strongly encouraged in existing development, to achieve the 32 percent reduction in water use consistent with the American Water Works Association study. Objectives and policies for water reclamation services include: Objective I-3.1 Plan, manage and develop the water reclamation system in a logical, timely and appropriate manner. Objective I-3.2 Maintain water reclamation infrastructure in good condition. Objective I-3.3 Encourage coordination between land use planning and water reclamation. v P3.3-1 The approval of large new development projects shall be conditional on the use of reclaimed water for irrigation unless the subject project is unable to use reclaimed water with high boron concentrations. v P3.3-2 The use of graywater for public and private landscaping irrigation shall be encouraged. v P3.3-3 The City shall ensure a fair and equitable distribution of costs for reclaimed water service expansion. Additionally, the City plans for its water services in the Capital Improvement Program contained in annual budgets. Calistoga does not adopt any other planning documents pertaining to water services. Type and Extent of Services Services Provided The City of Calistoga provides potable and recycled water services to residential, commercial, institutional, industrial, and landscape irrigation customers within its service area. A majority of the customers are residential. Service Area Calistoga provides water services within its boundaries as well as to 78 connections outside of its boundaries. Given a lack of records regarding timing of connection, exact dates of connection are unknown; however, the City reported that most likely all of the outside CHAPTER 5: CITY OF CALISTOGA 123 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR properties were connected before 2001 and therefore did not require LAFCO prior approval. The City has since adopted code that prohibits new connections to the water system by properties outside of the city limits after 2005. Water customers residing outside of the city boundaries pay a 115 percent surcharge on the volumetric rate which recovers costs associated with operating and maintaining the infrastructure required to serve these customers.244 With regard to recycled water services, the City serves 15 customers. Recycled water services are exempt from requiring LAFCO approval prior to extension of services beyond an agency’s boundaries under Government Code §56133. Occasionally, residents from outside of the city boundaries acquire recycled water in trucks from a station at the City’s Wastewater Treatment Plant (WTP). There is no limit as to the quantity of recycled water that can be trucked as long as the customer obtains a prior permit through the City’s WWTP.245 Potable and recycle water out-of-area service connections are shown in Figure 5-7. Services to Other Agencies The City does not provide any water-related services to other agencies. Contracts for Services Calistoga maintains an agreement with City of Napa, wherein the City of Napa treats the State Water Project (SWP) water at the Jamison Canyon WTP or the Hennessey WTP to drinking water standards and conveys the water up the Napa Valley to the location of Calistoga’s wholesale water meter. The SWP water supplied is purchased and treated by the City of Napa prior to delivery to Calistoga at an annual cost to Calistoga of approximately $1 million. The agreement does not have an expiration date. Calistoga contracts with the independent Alpha Analytical Laboratory and Caltest Analytical Laboratory for water testing and State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) reporting. Overlapping Service Providers There are no overlapping water service providers within the City of Calistoga. Collaboration The City participates in the Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (IRWMP). The City also has a collaborative relationship with the City of Napa, which transports and treats a portion of Calistoga’s water supply. The City additionally is participating in a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) among Napa County municipal water purveyors to develop a drought contingency plan. As part of this collaboration, participating agencies are evaluating opportunities for supplemental water supply and constraints of their current utility systems.246 244 City of Calistoga, Water Rate Study, 2018, p. 11. 245 Interview with the City of Calistoga, Michael Kirn and Derek Rayner, 10/7/19. 246 Interview with the City of Calistoga, Michael Kirn and Derek Rayner, 10/7/19. CHAPTER 5: CITY OF CALISTOGA 124 City of Calistoga Figure 5-7 Legend City of Calistoga Jurisdictional Boundary City of Calistoga Sphere of Influence City of Calistoga Outside Water Connections Bennett Lane £¤ 29 £¤ ue n 128 Ave d woo e L a n e Gree n A v e n u b s r a d b o a T u F oothill B oulevard G rant M Street u e Silv R er o a s d e o d a T l r e a R il oad Pi c k ett R o n e c ol n A v Washington Street n Li £¤ 29 d a o R n o y n a C m u ort K 0 0.2 0.4Miles Calistoga Lake Yolo Angwin Calistoga December 30, 2019 St. Helena Prepared by LAFCO Staff Sonoma St. Helena Yountville Sonoma Napa Solano LAFCO of Napa County 1030 Seminary Street, Suite B Napa, California 94559 American Marin Canyon http://www.napa.lafco.ca.gov NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR Staffing The City’s Department of Public Works is responsible for operations and maintenance of Calistoga’s water treatment and distribution infrastructure. The Water Distribution Division responds to water leaks, after-hours service calls, and reads water meters every other month for billing purposes. Water Supply Calistoga’s water is supplied by two sources—Kimball Reservoir (about 40 percent of the City’s supply) and water transported by the City of Napa (about 60 percent of Calistoga’s supply).247 In 2018, the City supplied about 25 percent of potable water from Kimball Reservoir and 75 percent from SWP.248 Water supply from Kimball Reservoir was negatively affected when the City of Calistoga started bypassing more water around the dam to protect fish populations. The supply from the reservoir was reduced by 41 afy from 328 afy to 287 afy.249 Water lost due to the bypass was replaced by the water delivered by the City of Napa. Calistoga contracts with the City of Napa to treat and deliver its SWP entitlement through an interconnection between the two agencies' transmission lines. SWP water delivered from the City of Napa comes from the Sacramento Delta via the North Bay Aqueduct (NBA) and is treated and wheeled by the City of Napa from its Jamison Water Treatment Plant; alternatively, water may also be provided by the City of Napa from its Hennessey WTP or Milliken WTP.250 Water from the SWP is secured through a contract with the Napa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (Agreement No. 1926) and currently allocates Calistoga an annual entitlement of 1,925 acre-feet. The agreement was extended through 2085.251 The North Bay Aqueduct sources include 500 afy of original SWP entitlement, 925 afy of Kern County water, and 500 afy of American Canyon-purchased water for a total of 1,925 afy. A firm yield of 52 percent delivery reportedly can be expected, which equals a firm yield of 1,001 afy.252 However, recent year allocations have fallen below the firm yield. The average NBA water allocation from the State Water Project for the past 10 years has been 52 percent (982 afy). The average NBA water allocation from the State Water Project between 2013 and 2017 was 48 percent (924 afy). The 2018 allocation was 50 percent (770 afy).253 In 2013 the NCFCWCD, on behalf of the member cities, succeeded in establishing access to an additional 5,659 acre-feet of “back-up” water per year, up to a cumulative 21,900 acre- feet of water, based on an Area of Origin Settlement Agreement (the “2013 Settlement Agreement”) with the State. The back-up water, referred to as “Advanced Table A Water,” can be accessed only after all other available carryover and Table A water is consumed. In 247 City of Calistoga, Response to Grand Jury Report on Napa County Water Quality: It’s a Matter of Taste, 2019. 248 City of Calistoga, Large Water System Annual Report to the Drinking Water Program, 2018. 249 City of Calistoga, Periodic Report on Growth Management System and Water/ Wastewater Availability, 2018. 250 City of Calistoga, Periodic Report on Growth Management System and Water/ Wastewater Availability, 2018. 251 City of Calistoga Resolution No. 2014-094. 252 City of Calistoga, Periodic Report on Growth Management System and Water/ Wastewater Availability, 2018. 253 City of Calistoga, Periodic Report on Growth Management System and Water/ Wastewater Availability, 2018. CHAPTER 5: CITY OF CALISTOGA 126 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR addition to Advanced Table A Water, each year a north of delta allocation is calculated and applied to the parties of the 2013 Settlement Agreement.254 The City estimates that after all the current demand needs are satisfied from the available supply, there are between 220 and 451 AFY of available water supply left for future development based on a firm water yield supply of 90 percent reliability, considering no other supplemental sources of water are acquired. Estimates also show that by 2034, the City will be using between 26 and 54 percent of this excess availability, as is explained in more detail in the Water Demand section.255 The City’s water sources with the allotted amounts are shown in Figure 5-8. Figure 5-8: City of Calistoga Water Sources, acre-feet Potable Water Supply by Source Source Normal Year Supply Dry Year Supply Kimball Reservoir 287 180 State Water Project 1,925 1,001 TOTAL 2,212 1,181 Source: City of Calistoga, Periodic Report on Growth Management System and Water/ Wastewater Availability, 2018. In 2005, the City, in conjunction with other Napa Valley agencies, completed the 2050 Napa Valley Water Resources Study to determine water supply and demand projections through 2050. Based on the City’s existing local reservoir and the State Water project supply, the City does not expect to experience any reductions in water supply during minor drought conditions and expects to experience only minor reductions in water supply during severe droughts.256 During the most recent four-year drought, Calistoga was able to maintain two years of water storage between State Water Project entitlements and local storage.257 To protect against potential shortfalls in dry years, the City explored the possibility of groundwater supply opportunities and concluded that it was not a feasible source due to a lack of quality and quantity.258 Opportunities to address potential shortfalls in the dry years is to be addressed as a part of the Drought Contingency Plan that is underway. Figure 5-9 shows the amount of water produced by the City from 2014 through 2018. Potable water supply shown in the figure includes water produced from surface water by the City through treatment and treated water delivered by the City of Napa. Figure 5-9: Water Production (2014-2018), acre-feet Water Produced 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Treated Potable Water 655.90 597.65 674.42 734.87 722.88 Recycled Water 359.02 373.68 291.64 460.57 541.03 Source: Annual Reports to the Drinking Water Program for 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, and 2018. 254 City of Calistoga, 2018 Water and Wastewater Certificates of Participation Statement, 2018, p. 24. 255 City of Calistoga, Periodic Report on Growth Management System and Water/ Wastewater Availability, 2018. 256 City of Calistoga, 2018 Water and Wastewater Certificates of Participation Statement, 2018, p. 24. 257 City of Calistoga, 2018 Water and Wastewater Certificates of Participation Statement, 2018, p. 24. 258 Interview with the City of Calistoga, Michael Kirn and Derek Rayner, 10/7/19. CHAPTER 5: CITY OF CALISTOGA 127 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR Recycled water The City of Calistoga’s Dunaweal Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) produces recycled water. After tertiary treatment, effluent may be discharged to the Napa River from November 1 through June 15 or, during the remainder of the year, distributed for recycled use and spray irrigation, or stored at any time for future use in effluent storage ponds.259 The City distributes its recycled water from the WWTP to 15260 customers through recycled water infrastructure described later in the Water Infrastructure and Facilities section. The City’s recycled water is also trucked to customers outside of the City’s boundaries. Individual owners of tanker trucks, as well as truck operators, must have a permit from the City to fill up with recycled water at the WWTP station. Typically, upwards of 100 million gallons (around 300 acre-feet) of reclaimed water are distributed for irrigation each year, including spray field irrigation.261 In 2018, the City produced 541.03 af of recycled water.262 Emergency Preparedness During the 2012-2015 California drought years, the City maintained solid supplies including over two years of future storage throughout the period. During 2013-14, when the SWP allocation was at an unprecedented low of five percent, the City had 980 af of SWP supplies (including carryover water) available, along with local supplies of 328 af in the Kimball Reservoir. Total supplies were 1,330 af, and customers consumed 640 af during that same period. In addition, if all SWP supplies were consumed (including carryover water), the City could call on Advanced Table A supplies in accordance with the 2013 Settlement Agreement. The City maintains about two years of water storage between SWP entitlements and local storage; this has been the case throughout the recent four-year drought.263 Depending on availability, Calistoga is able to purchase additional water from the City of Napa in emergencies. During power outages, all systems which move water into Calistoga are shut down, meaning the City must rely on local water storage until power can be restored. The City’s three water storage facilities provide almost 4.5 days of water based on average daily demand, which does not account for conservation efforts. Water Demand As of 2019, the City had 1,594 water service connections, including 78 out-of-area service connections.264 There were 1,194 single-family residential, 133 multi-family residential, 237 commercial, five industrial, and 25 landscape irrigation. 259 http://www.ci.calistoga.ca.us/city-hall/departments-services/public-works-department/water-wastewater- treatment/dunaweal-wastewater-treatment-plant 260 City of Calistoga, Large Water System Annual Report to the Drinking Water Program, 2018. 261 City of Calistoga, Budget, FY 19-20. 262 City of Calistoga, Large Water System Annual Report to the Drinking Water Program, 2018. 263 City of Calistoga, 2018 Water and Wastewater Certificates of Participation Statement, 2018, p. 25. 264 City of Calistoga, Budget, FY 2019-2020. CHAPTER 5: CITY OF CALISTOGA 128 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR Calistoga’s average annual water demand between 2013 and 2017 as measured by the Napa and Kimball meters amounted to 681 AFY.265 The 2015, 2016, 2017, and 2018 demand for potable and recycled water in the City’s water service area is shown in Figure 5-10. Figure 5-10: Demand for Potable and Recycled Water by Customer Type (acre-feet) Demand for Potable and Recycled Water User Type 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Single-Family Residential 307.88 286.19 289 319.71 260.77 Multi-Family Residential 75.84 85.04 87.93 90.75 158.71 Commercial/Institutional 188.64 181.34 175.09 177.36 177.08 Industrial 6.98 7.23 5.87 5.29 5.25 Landscape Irrigation 0 0 0 0 12.64 TOTAL POTABLE 579.34 559.8 557.89 593.11 614.45 Recycled Water 233 206 195 251 315 Source: Annual Reports to the Drinking Water Program for 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, and 2018. Figure 5-11 shows the daily average demand in comparison to the daily maximum supply from 2009 to 2018. As can be seen in Figures 5-9, 5-10 and 5-11, there appears to be sufficient water supply to accommodate current demand. Figure 5-11: Daily Demand vs. Supply (gallons) User Type 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Daily Average Gallons Produced 679,930 670,449 670,449 632,903 642,000 600,000 633,360 534,360 641,349 618,000 Estimated Maximum Daily Available 1,872,000 1,872,000 1,872,000 1,864,393 1,864,393 1,864,393 1,864,400 1,864,400 1,864,400 1,864,400 Supply/Demand Difference 1,192,070 1,201,551 1,201,551 1,231,490 1,222,393 1,264,393 1,231,040 1,330,040 1,223,051 1,246,400 Source: City of Calistoga, Budget, FY 2019-2020. As was previously discussed in the Growth and Population section, the City has a Resource Management System and a Growth Management System according to which Calistoga allocates 20 af of water per year for new construction. There are certain development projects that are exempt from the allocation requirement, as was also described earlier. The City makes a semi-annual assessment of all the granted allocations.266 The City estimates that potential development through 2034 will add about 118 af in water demand, which amounts to between 26 and 54 percent of the available water supply left (220 to 451 afy) after all the current demands are satisfied.267 Due to the Growth Management System and the Resource Management System, the City is projected to grow at a fairly predictable pace, and the current available water supply will be able to accommodate future needs, at least through 2034. 265 City of Calistoga, Periodic Report on Growth Management System and Water/ Wastewater Availability, 2018. 266 City of Calistoga, Periodic Report on Growth Management System and Water/ Wastewater Availability, 2018. 267 City of Calistoga, Periodic Report on Growth Management System and Water/ Wastewater Availability, 2018. CHAPTER 5: CITY OF CALISTOGA 129 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR The Town’s projected demand for potable and recycled water is depicted in Figure 5-12. Figure 5-12: Projected Demand for Potable and Recycled Water (acre-feet) Projected Demand for Potable and Recycled Water Use Type 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 Single-Family Residential 294 303 305 307 311 Multi-Family Residential 181 188 188 190 190 Commercial/Institutional 202 207 209 212 215 Industrial 8 7 8 8 8 Landscape Irrigation 15 15 15 15 16 TOTAL POTABLE 700 720 725 732 740 Recycled Water 243 285 326 326 326 Source: As reported by the City of Calistoga. As was mentioned before, the City provides recycled water services to 15 connections, including two single-family residential, two multi-family residential, seven commercial, one industrial, and three landscape irrigation.268 The recycled water customers currently include Little League Field, La Pradera Apartments, Stevenson Manor Inn, Calistoga Mineral Water, Calistoga Grove Inn, Calistoga Elementary School, Logvy Community Park, Napa County Fairgrounds, Indian Springs Resort, Solage, two residences, Boys and Girls Club, and Calistoga High School. Additionally, as mentioned, the City allows permitted haulers to pump and truck recycled water for construction and irrigation. In 2018, the total volume of recycled water pumped and trucked was 7.6 af. During the same year, the total volume of recycled water produced was 315 af. Water Infrastructure and Facilities The City of Calistoga’s water system has grown from a small municipal reservoir in Feige Canyon in the first half of the century to include a municipal reservoir in Kimball Canyon, drinking water production from wells in Feige Canyon and the construction of the 12.3-mile North Bay Aqueduct (NBA) connection to the City of Napa’s water system completed in 1984. In 2013, the City also constructed a new 1.5 million gallon storage facility. Since the Feige wells are currently inactive, all public water in Calistoga is currently provided by the Kimball Reservoir and NBA sources.269 Key components of the water system include the Kimball Reservoir and Water Treatment Plant, storage tanks with a capacity of 2.5 million gallons, and 25 miles of distribution and 15 miles of transmission mains. Twenty percent of the City’s water system is over 50 years old, and in five years the percentage will increase to almost 50 according to the City’s Water Rate Study (2018).270 268 City of Calistoga, Large Water System Annual Report to the Drinking Water Program, 2018. 269 City of Calistoga, General Plan, Infrastructure Element, 2003, p. I-1. 270 City of Calistoga, Water Rate Study, 2018, p. 6. CHAPTER 5: CITY OF CALISTOGA 130 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR Water Reservoir Kimball Reservoir has a surface drainage area of approximately 3.4 square miles. The City owns a portion of the surrounding watershed with the remainder owned by the State Parks Department and a private landowner.271 Kimball Canyon Dam was constructed in 1939 by the City and was subsequently raised in 1948 to increase the storage capacity of the reservoir. The dam is an earthfill structure approximately 300 feet long, 200 feet wide at the base, and about 75 feet high. The spillway crest elevation is 575 feet above mean sea level. The original storage capacity of the reservoir measured in a 1954 survey at the spillway crest was approximately 345 af and 409 af at the top of the flashboards (elevation 579 feet). The accumulation of sediment in the reservoir has since reduced the storage capacity to 328 af at the flashboard elevation according to a 2013 reservoir bathymetric survey. Much of the sediment accumulation has been attributed to wet weather runoff that followed a 1982 fire which burned a large portion of the surrounding watershed.272 The dam (National ID No. CA00310) is under the jurisdiction of the State of California. Annual inspections of the reservoir are conducted by the State Division of Dam Safety to ensure the structure is satisfactory for continued use.273 The dam is certified and considered to be in satisfactory condition by the State. The dam is considered a high-risk dam, as the downstream hazard is categorized as high, and is continuously being watched for leakage. Between 2017 and 2019, the City made some improvements with Measure A funds to the reservoir to address concerns of aging infrastructure. However, the reservoir still requires the new intake tower and a drain valve. The City is seeking additional grant funds to complete the construction. Calistoga anticipates finishing the work by summer/fall of 2021. After these planned improvements the reservoir will be in good condition, with the exception of sediment buildup and the anticipated water loss of two af annually. In addition, the City is responsible for the Feige Dam on Cyrus Creek—a pre-1914 with a bypass and little flow. The City reported that there are no structural concerns on the dam. Water Treatment Plant Kimball Surface Water Treatment Plant (WTP) features the standard operating design with a maximum capacity of 350,000 gallons per day (gpd). Average water generation at the plant is 269,000 gpd,274 which indicates sufficient capacity to accommodate current demand. The treatment processes at the WTP include chemical coagulation, flocculation and sedimentation in a circular clarifier, chlorination, filtration and storage in a 100,000-gallon clearwell.275 Three finished water pumps supply water from the clearwell to the distribution 271 http://www.ci.calistoga.ca.us/city-hall/departments-services/public-works-department/water-wastewater- treatment/kimball-dam-water-reservoir 272http://www.ci.calistoga.ca.us/city-hall/departments-services/public-works-department/water-wastewater- treatment/kimball-dam-water-reservoir 273http://www.ci.calistoga.ca.us/city-hall/departments-services/public-works-department/water-wastewater- treatment/kimball-dam-water-reservoir 274 Napa County Grand Jury, Napa County Water Quality: It’s a Matter of Taste, June 14, 2019. 275 http://www.ci.calistoga.ca.us/city-hall/departments-services/public-works-department/water-wastewater- treatment/kimball-surface-water-treatment-plant CHAPTER 5: CITY OF CALISTOGA 131 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR system. These pumps are responsible for maintaining the level in the Feige one-mg storage tank and the distribution system pressure.276 Measure A funds also funded improvements at the WTP in 2009. Further upgrades totaling $1 million are planned for FYs 23-24 and possibly another $6 million through FY 27- 28. The plant is generally considered to be in good condition. Water Distribution The water distribution system consists of 25 miles of distribution and 15 miles of transmission mains, 404 valves, and 202 fire hydrants. The City owns and maintains 5.9 miles of recycled water distribution pipeline with two booster stations.277 Unaccounted for water loss, specifically the amount of water lost due to system breaks and leaks, flushing, as well as illegal connections, is a measure of the water system’s integrity. Water losses can include “real losses”, which are physical losses from the water distribution system and the supplier’s storage facilities as well as “apparent losses”, which represent losses due to metering inaccuracies, data handling errors and/or unauthorized consumption. The City-reported total losses in 2018 of 108 af or 15 percent of the water produced in that year. Breaks and leaks in the mains and service connections account for some of the loss experienced in the system. In 2018, Calistoga distribution system experienced 13 service connection breaks or leaks and six main breaks or leaks. The City averaged about 3.5 water main breaks per year between 2015 and 2018, which averages to about seven breaks per 100 miles of main per year. This is significantly lower than the national average of between 21 and 27 breaks per 100 miles of pipe per year.278 The City addresses water loss through metering and monitoring pressures in the system. Any water leaks or breaks are repaired as quickly as possible to reduce these losses. Additionally, included in the losses are hydrant flush water that the City completes annually for about 184 fire hydrants to maintain good drinking water quality in the distribution system. Storage Facilities There is a total of three storage tanks with a combined storage capacity of 2.75 million gallons. The storage tanks are described in detail in Figure 5-13. Figure 5-13: City of Calistoga Storage Tanks Storage Capacity Material Year Installed Condition Glass fused steel 2018 Fiege Tank 1 mg Excellent High Street Tank 20,000 g Concrete 1993 Fair Concrete 2013 Mt. Washington 1.5 mg Excellent Source: Annual Reports to the Drinking Water Program for 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, and 2018. The new Feige Tank with one-mg capacity has been operational since December 2018. The tank sits on a large concrete base and is weighted with seismic anchors. The anchors 276 http://www.ci.calistoga.ca.us/city-hall/departments-services/public-works-department/water-wastewater- treatment/kimball-surface-water-treatment-plant 277 City of Calistoga, Water Rate Study, 2018, p. 8. 278 WaterRF, Knowledge Portals, 2017. CHAPTER 5: CITY OF CALISTOGA 132 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR keep the tank from overturning during a seismic episode. The tank has sufficient capacity to accommodate current and projected demand. The new tank’s technology includes a computer system that monitors the water level inside the tank, how much water is going in or out, and how much chlorine is in the water. It also includes mixers and a THM (trihalomethanes) removal system, and automated chlorination. Because this tank is glass-lined it will not have to be periodically recoated like steel tanks. Maintenance for the Feige tank includes vacuuming the tank every five years to keep it clean of any sediment. Shared Facilities Calistoga shares an interconnection with the City of Napa through which the City of Calistoga receives potable treated water from the City of Napa on a regular basis and in case of emergencies. In conjunction with the cities of Napa and St. Helena, Calistoga is looking for grant funding to make improvements to the Dwyer booster pump station in order to ensure reliable and adequate pressure for fire protection purposes. Given the separation of municipal systems, further opportunities for facility sharing are limited. Infrastructure Needs Calistoga’s water infrastructure needs are discussed in the Capital Improvement Program updated annually as part of the City’s budget. Projects for FY 19-20 include 1) continue designs to replace water mains with street improvement projects, 2) continue to install additional automatic read meters and finish upgrade hardware and software for meter reading, 3) complete THM water quality study, 4) complete Kimball inundation mapping and emergency plan, and 5) pursue grant projects. The goal is to establish a water fund reserve at a minimum of 20 percent within the next two fiscal years and increase the CIP reserves to meet anticipated needs over the next three fiscal years. The City is reviewing options and is planning long-term capital projects to upgrade the Kimball WTP to include additional treatment capacity and processes to reduce taste, odor and color issues. The City is planning to build a new water transmission pump station to replace Dunaweal and Pope Street stations. The project is anticipated to cost $6.7 million and will include treatment to reduce disinfection byproducts and provide improved hydraulic protection to the transmission main. The City is also going to replace the drain valve and install a new intake at Kimball Reservoir which is anticipated to cost $2.2 million. The project is mandated by Division of Safety of Dams. Water Quality The State Water Resources Control Board Division of Drinking Water (DDW) implements the Safe Drinking Water Act in California. DDW requires public water systems to perform CHAPTER 5: CITY OF CALISTOGA 133 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR routine monitoring for regulated contaminants. To meet water quality standards and comply with regulations, a water system with a contaminant exceeding a maximum contaminant limit (MCL) must notify the public and remove the source from service or initiate a process and schedule to install treatment for removing the contaminant. Health violations occur when the contaminant amount exceeds the safety standard (MCL) or when water is not treated properly. In California, compliance is usually determined at the wellhead or the surface water intake. Monitoring violations involve failure to conduct or to report in a timely fashion the results of required monitoring. Source Water The City reports that due to the nature of its surface water sources and the length of the transmission main from the City of Napa, taste, odor and color issues occur. Raw water is influenced by what happens in the watershed, runoff intensity temperature, soil conditions, algal growth and many other variables. As was previously mentioned, the City is planning to upgrade the Kimball WTP to reduce taste, odor and color issues. The City of Napa is also undertaking infrastructure upgrades that benefit Calistoga’s water supply.279 The most significant potential sources of contaminants in Kimball Reservoir are wild animals, geological hazards and fires. The City of Napa’s sources are affected by the following hazards: 1) Lake Hennessey by the Pacific Union College Wastewater Treatment Plant, vineyards, fires, invasive species, potential hazardous material spills due to traffic accidents on SR 128, septic tank systems, and grazing and wild animals; 2) Lake Milliken by fires, vineyards and grazing and wild animals; and 3) Sacramento Delta by recreational use, urban and agricultural runoff, grazing animals, herbicide application, and seawater intrusion.280 Treated Water Quality of treated water can be evaluated according to several measures. For the purposes of this report, the following indicators are used: the number of violations as reported by the EPA since 2008 and the number of days in full compliance with Primary Drinking Water Regulations in 2018. According to the EPA report, the City had nine health-based violations between 2008 and 2018, two of which occurred in 2018. Violations that occurred between 2016 and 2018 were for exceeding Total Haloacetic Acids (HAA5), while prior violations were related to exceeding TTHMs. Calistoga reported that the violations in both the Kimball Reservoir and City of Napa sources were primarily related to disinfection byproducts.281 The water treatment process at the Kimball WTP is SCADA monitored and lab tested daily. Calistoga contracts with the independent Alpha Analytical Laboratory and Caltest Analytical Laboratory for SWRCB reporting. To address the problem of violations the City of Calistoga 1) installed a new sprinkler system and a mixer in the Mt. Washington storage tank, 2) implemented a State approved pre-oxidant at the Kimball WTP to improve the removal of organic carbon prior to disinfection, and 3) resumed a water system flushing program, which 279 City of Calistoga, Response to Grand Jury Report on Napa County Water Quality: It’s a Matter of Taste, 2019. 280 City of Calistoga, 2017 Consumer Confidence Report, June 1, 2018. 281 Interview with the City of Calistoga, Michael Kirn and Derek Rayner, 10/7/19. CHAPTER 5: CITY OF CALISTOGA 134 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR had been suspended during the drought.282 The City of Napa also changed the disinfection method to ozone at the Jamieson Canyon WTP and installed new mixers. Reportedly, these corrective actions from both cities resulted in water quality improvements.283 The City reported that it had contracted with a consultant to help reduce the concentration of THMs/HAAs in its drinking water system and THMs in wastewater effluent discharge. In 2018, the City was in compliance with primary drinking water regulations 100 percent of the time, with no violations. By comparison, the industry standard for compliance with Primary Drinking Water Regulations is 99 percent (361 days) of the year. Recycled Water The City currently provides Tertiary Title 22 unrestricted reclaimed water for irrigation and landscaping uses through recycled water distribution infrastructure and via trucking. In 2018, the City reused 60 percent of its wastewater flows. 282 Napa County Grand Jury, Napa County Water Quality: It’s a Matter of Taste, June 14, 2019. 283 Interview with the City of Calistoga, Michael Kirn and Derek Rayner, 10/7/19. CHAPTER 5: CITY OF CALISTOGA 135 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR WASTEWATER SERVICES The City of Calistoga conducts planning for its wastewater services in its General Plan. The Infrastructure Element that provides information and policy guidance related to community infrastructure, including wastewater facilities and services was last updated in 2020. The 2020 Infrastructure Element lists the following objectives and associated policies for the City’s wastewater services: Objective I-2.1 Plan, manage and develop wastewater conveyance, treatment and disposal systems in a logical, timely and appropriate manner. v P1.2-1 The City shall not extend wastewater infrastructure to new areas until existing wastewater infrastructure is brought to adequate standards or unless such extensions contribute to city-wide wastewater infrastructure improvements or correct septic problems. v P1.2-2 Municipal sewer treatment should generally be available to the City’s residents and businesses. Objective I-2.2 Maintain wastewater infrastructure in good condition. Objective I-2.3 Promote coordination between land use planning and wastewater treatment and conveyance. v P2.3-1 Extension of sewer service beyond the current service area shall be prohibited. v P2.3-2 The approval of new development shall be conditioned on the availability of sufficient capacity in the wastewater treatment system to serve the project. v P2.3-3 The City shall ensure a fair and equitable distribution of costs for sewer service expansion. v P2.3-4 Structures with plumbing that are located within city limits shall connect to the public wastewater collection system, unless topography, distance from the public water system or other factors indicate a need for an exemption. v P2.3-5 If and when wastewater flows to the Wastewater Treatment Plant reach 95 percent of the plant’s design capacity of 0.84 MGD, development in Calistoga will be halted until the City provides additional treatment capacity sufficient to accommodate new development. Objective I-2.4 Enforce City wastewater regulations. v P2.4-1 Restaurants and others that discharge grease into the wastewater treatment system shall be required to reduce impacts through individual or collective pretreatment facilities that retain wastewater long enough to permit solids to settle and oil and grease to separate. v P2.4-2 Regulations related to the discharge of mud and silt into the wastewater treatment system shall be enforced. Objective I-2.5 Promote innovation in the treatment of wastewater. CHAPTER 5: CITY OF CALISTOGA 136 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR Additionally, the City plans for its wastewater services in the Capital Improvement Program contained in annual budgets. Calistoga also adopts a Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP), which was last updated in 2018. Type and Extent of Services Services Provided The City of Calistoga provides wastewater collection and treatment services within its boundary area. Similar to the water system, most of the wastewater customers are residential. Service Area All sewer connections are located within the city boundaries, with no out-of-agency sewer services provided. Services to Other Agencies The City does not provide wastewater related services to any other agencies. Contracts for Services Calistoga does not receive contract services related to wastewater from other agencies. Overlapping Service Providers No other agencies provide services that overlap with the City of Calistoga. However, approximately 25 percent of the properties within the city limits rely on private septic systems. Private septic systems have the potential to generate problems due to failure and discharge of contaminants into the environment. The City’s Municipal Code requires all structures with plumbing which are on properties within two hundred feet of a wastewater sewer to connect to the public system. This measure has not always been enforced in the past; however, the City reported that it is now fully enforced284 Collaboration At present, there is not a collaborative relationship amongst the Napa agencies regarding wastewater services, as the service areas are distant and distinct from one another. Staffing Wastewater services in Calistoga are provided by the Public Works Department via the Sewer Collection Division and the Wastewater Treatment Division.285 The Public Works Department goals include the proper management, operation, and maintenance of all parts of the wastewater collection system, maintaining adequate capacity to convey peak flows, minimizing the frequency and volume of Sanitary Sewer Overflows (SSOs), and mitigating the impact of SSOs. The Sewer Collection Division maintains four 284 City of Calistoga, General Plan Infrastructure Element, 2003, p. 1-9. 285 City of Calistoga, Sewer System Management Plan, 2018, p. 1-1. CHAPTER 5: CITY OF CALISTOGA 137 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR sewer lift stations in the City and all of the City’s existing sewer mains and recycled water mains, making repairs and replacements when necessary and installing new sewer mains and recycled water mains when required. The Wastewater Treatment Division operates and maintains the Dunaweal Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) and disposal system.286 Wastewater Flow The City provides sewer service to approximately 1,370 connections,287 of which 1,027 are single-family residential, 110 are multi-family residential and 233 are commercial/industrial. Inputs to the sewer include residences, hotels, and geothermal spas. There are also several restaurants, a micro-brewery, and two mineral water bottling companies that discharge to the sanitary sewer system.288 The City’s wastewater flows over time are depicted in Figure 5-14. The table shows the actual recycled water used for irrigation purposes as a percentage of total effluent produced by the WWTP. The percentages shown in the figure do not include spray field irrigation. Figure 5-14: Average Dry Weather Flows 2014-2018 and Buildout Conditions (mgd) City of Calistoga Sewer Flows Year 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Buildout ADWF (mgd) 0.43 0.39 0.49 0.45 0.46 0.84 % Recycled 37% 47% 38% 37% 61% NA Source: City of Calistoga MSR Request for Information. In 2017, the third wettest year on record, the City’s system experienced a peaking factor (peak wet weather flow/average dry weather flow) of approximately 4.9, which is indicative of a high level of I/I. The Peak Wet Weather Flow (PWWF) design for the Calistoga WWTP is 4.0mgd. Although the plant exceeded PWWF for one day in 2017 (third wettest year on record) during a heavy storm event, it was below the Peak Maximum Wet Weather Flow (PMWWF) of 7.0 mgd that the plant is designed for. The plant is well below its ADWF capacity and only averaging about 50 percent of the design capacity. Wastewater Infrastructure and Facilities The City is responsible for the operation and maintenance of the 18 miles of underground sewer collection system and a wastewater treatment plant. The City of Calistoga’s sanitary sewer collection system conveys wastewater for the area within the city limits to the Dunaweal Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP). Wastewater Treatment Plant Dunaweal Wastewater Treatment Plant is a 0.84 million gallon per day (mgd) average dry weather flow activated sludge tertiary treatment plant. The plant can treat up to 4.0 mgd 286 City of Calistoga, Sewer System Management Plan, 2018, p. 1-1. 287 City of Calistoga, Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, 2018. 288 City of Calistoga, Sewer System Management Plan, 2018, p. i. CHAPTER 5: CITY OF CALISTOGA 138 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR during wet weather flow events.289 Although the treatment plant is capable of treating a peak wet weather flow of four mgd, the headworks structure is designed for flows up to seven mgd.290 Figure 5-15 depicts average dry weather flows at the WWTP over the period of 10 years. It appears that the plant has sufficient capacity to accommodate current demand. The City estimates that based on the permitted treatment plant capacity of 0.84 mgd and current average dry weather flow of about 0.5 mgd along with other allocations and obligations (including current development agreements and building permits), the excess available treatment capacity available for future development amounts to about 0.1 mgd or 123.2 afy. It is estimated that 71 percent of this available capacity will be allocated by 2034.291 Figure 5-15: Wastewater Flows at the WWTP Wastewater Treatment Plant Flows User Type 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Average Dry Weather Flow (Gallons) 490,000 490,000 490,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 396,000 502,000 440,000 Maximum Daily Permit Dry Weather Flow (Gallons) 840,000 840,000 840,000 840,000 840,000 840,000 840,000 840,000 840,000 840,000 Source: City of Calistoga, Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, 2018. The WWTP was last upgraded in 2002 converting the plant to tertiary treatment capability to provide Title 22 recycled water.292 The treatment processes consists of primary treatment by coarse bar screening at the headworks structure, secondary treatment by aeration and clarification, tertiary treatment by coagulation, filtration and disinfection. After tertiary treatment, effluent may be discharged to the Napa River from November 1 through June 15.293 During the remainder of the year, effluent is distributed for recycled water use or stored for future use in effluent storage ponds.294 Collection System The City’s wastewater collection system includes 18 miles of sewer collection piping, 321 manholes, four pump stations, and 48 MG of storage ponds. The wastewater collection system includes all residential and commercial customers in the City limits. All sewage from the City drains by gravity either to one of the four pump stations or to the WWTP directly. The system also includes recycled water distribution infrastructure described in the Water Infrastructure and Facilities section.295 To investigate the extent of the infiltration and inflow (I/I) issues in its collection system, the City performed a smoke test, which uncovered a need for repairs to reduce the I/I. The 289 City of Calistoga, Sewer System Management Plan, 2018, p. i. 290 http://www.ci.calistoga.ca.us/city-hall/departments-services/public-works-department/water-wastewater- treatment/dunaweal-wastewater-treatment-plant 291 City of Calistoga, Periodic Report on Growth Management System and Water/ Wastewater Availability, 2018. 292 City of Calistoga, Water Rate Study, 2018, p. 8. 293 NPDES Permit No. CA0037966, Order No. R2-2006-0066. 294 http://www.ci.calistoga.ca.us/city-hall/departments-services/public-works-department/water-wastewater- treatment/dunaweal-wastewater-treatment-plant 295 City of Calistoga, Water Rate Study, 2018, p. 8. CHAPTER 5: CITY OF CALISTOGA 139 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR City replaced some mains, capped several connections, replaced the Pine Street lift station, replaced the trunk main from Lincoln Avenue to the WWTP, and sealed about 12 manholes. However, reportedly, there is still a lot of old infrastructure which causes high I/I. Calistoga is in the process of designing a project that would replace a section of infrastructure on Cedar Street that is very old.296 To provide more details regarding the integrity of the City’s sewer system and adequacy of its services this report includes the analysis of sanitary sewer overflow information and regulatory compliance data. All wastewater agencies are required to report sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs) to SWRCB. Sewer overflows are discharges from sewer pipes, pumps and manholes. Overflows reflect the capacity and condition of collection system piping and the effectiveness of routine maintenance. The sewer overflow rate is calculated as the number of overflows per 100 miles of collection piping per year. The City reported that it typically has one to two small (less than 150 gallons) collection system overflows per year. The number of overflows is decreasing as older pipelines are replaced and repairs are made.297 The City schedules regular maintenance of certain sewer lines that are known to have problems with oil and grease on a quarterly and semi-annual basis. Once a week, the Maintenance Technicians also make observations at manholes, inspect the lift stations, time the pumps, and test the emergency power systems.298 Over the last six years (2014-2019) there were three SSO events consisting of one in 2014 and two in 2016. All the spills were Category 3, and no sewage reached surface waters. Averaged over the five-year period between 2014 and 2018 (there was no data for the entirety of 2019 as of the drafting of this report), the City’s SSO rate was about three spills per 100 miles of mains. By comparison, other wastewater agencies in California average 4.73 SSOs per 100 miles per year.299 RWQCB2 enforces the Clean Water Act, permit conditions and other requirements of wastewater providers. Violations of State requirements for wastewater providers and treatment facilities are recorded by SWRCB. The Board may levy fines or order the provider to take specific actions to comply with water quality regulations. The City has both a permit for treatment and discharge at the WWTP and a general permit for its collection system. For its collection system the City encountered one regulatory measure in 2006; there have been no violations. Calistoga received one enforcement action in 2004. With regard to the WWTP, there were 11 regulatory measures, four of which occurred in the last 10 years and were related to the NPDES permit requirements. Two of these four regulatory measures (from 2013 and 2016) are still active. Additionally, there is an active regulatory measure from 2005 related to water reclamation requirements (WRR). There was a total of 10 violations at the WWTP, none of which were priority violations. Most of the violations (including the most recent in 2017 and 2018) were for exceeding the dichlorobromomethane limit. Other issues included exceeding allowed Biochemical Oxygen 296 Interview with the City of Calistoga, Michael Kirn and Derek Rayner, 10/7/19. 297 City of Calistoga, Sewer System Management Plan, 2018, p. i. 298 City of Calistoga, Sewer System Management Plan, 2018, p. 4-1. 299 SWRCB, Sanitary Sewer Overflow Reduction Program Annual Compliance Report, March 26, 2015, p 16. CHAPTER 5: CITY OF CALISTOGA 140 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR Demand (BOD) levels. Calistoga reported that the City had contracted with a consultant to help reduce the concentration of THMs/HAAs in its drinking water system and THMs in wastewater effluent discharge. The City implemented chloramine disinfection on the wastewater treatment system in place of chlorine and has not had a THM violation since. The City’s WWTP encountered 15 enforcement actions, two of which are still active. Both active enforcement actions, from 2010 and 2014, are cease and desist orders. The 2014 cease and desist order is related to resolving effluent discharge requirements because of inadequate dilution to the Napa River and non-compliance with antimony, dichlorobro- momethane, chlorobromomethane, and BOD limits. The City reported that as of 2019 these issues had been addressed. Infrastructure Needs The City identifies the current Cease and Desist Order (CDO) and strict RWQCB2 Permit Conditions imposed with the 2016 renewal of the City’s permit to operate a WWTP as the basis of its main infrastructure needs and costs.300 The CDO and permit conditions require the City to make system enhancements including the expansion of the reclaimed water storage facilities, relocation or lining of the Riverside Ponds, pipeline improvements, flow measurement of significant geothermal dischargers, identification of point sources of antimony and boron, reduction in disinfection by-products, and reduction of infiltration.301 The City’s Wastewater Capital Improvement Plan addresses aging infrastructure and Cease and Desist Order requirements.302 Projects planned for FY 19-20 include rehabilitation of the Palisades Lift Station, replacement of sewer mains in anticipation of street improvement projects, installation of geothermal meters at Roman Spa and Wilkinson’s Spa, rehabilitation or replacement of manholes to reduce groundwater infiltration, replacement of main pump station for improved recycled water delivery, improvement at the WWTP headworks, and THM water quality compliance and emergency generator improvements. The City aims to achieve a minimum of 20 percent in wastewater fund reserve in the next two fiscal years and increase the CIP reserves to meet the anticipated needs over the next three fiscal years.303 Shared Facilities The City does not share wastewater infrastructure with other agencies. Due to the distance between the municipal systems, no opportunities for further facility sharing were identified. 300 City of Calistoga, Water Rate Study, 2018, p. 8. 301 City of Calistoga, Water Rate Study, 2018, p. 9. 302 City of Calistoga, Water Rate Study, 2018, p. 13. 303 City of Calistoga, Budget, FY 2019-2020. CHAPTER 5: CITY OF CALISTOGA 141 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE OPTIONS Over the course of this review, some governance structure options were identified with respect to the City of Calistoga and its water and wastewater services, including possible service structure modifications and reorganizations with other agencies. The feasibility of each of these options is generally assessed in this report; however, more in-depth review would be required to refine specifics of process and structure should the affected agencies or LAFCO choose to move forward. Countywide Water Agency There are several challenges to water and wastewater services around the County that could be potentially addressed by alternative governance structures: v Some County water resources not being used to the fullest extent possible, v A need for greater oversight of all jurisdictions providing water services in the County, v A need for support buying on the spot market, v Certain redundancies with several smaller systems around the County, which could be eliminated, v A need for occasional technical expertise and support, and v A lack of economies of scale in the smaller water and wastewater systems. Given these challenges, there may be a need for a single agency to conduct water supply management on a regional or countywide level, such as a county water agency and/or an agency to provide management and operational support to the smaller utility systems that could benefit from the consolidation of certain services (i.e., lab testing) or from fully transitioning to operations by a regional agency, such as a county water district or a sanitation district. As these options may affect all of the water and wastewater service providers reviewed here, these governance structure options are discussed and assessed in further detail in the Overview chapter (Chapter 3) of this report. While the City of Calistoga has indicated that these options might not be preferred for its municipality, it is interested in continued regional collaboration such as the existing MOU for the Napa Valley Drought Contingency Plan. RECOMMENDATIONS During the process of this review, the following recommendations are made to the City of Calistoga regarding its water and wastewater service delivery. 1) The City of Calistoga relies on its General Plan and Capital Improvement Plan as planning documents for its water system, neither of which give a comprehensive assessment of the City’s water system and operations. It is recommended that the City develop a water master plan or some other comprehensive water planning document. 2) Occasionally, residents from outside of the city boundaries acquire recycled water in trucks from a station at Calistoga’s Wastewater Treatment Plant. There is no limit as CHAPTER 5: CITY OF CALISTOGA 142 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR to the quantity of recycled water that can be trucked as long as the purchaser obtains a prior permit through the City’s WWTP. The City reported that a majority of the trucked water is used for construction and dust control, with only approximately one percent used for irrigation due to the high concentration of boron making it not useful for agricultural purposes. In order to ensure that trucked water does not promote development and growth in unincorporated areas where water supply is not sustainable and which may adversely affect agricultural uses, it is recommended that approved uses for trucking of water be defined in the City’s municipal code. The intent of this code is to supplement the equivalent recommended specificity in County code as the land use authority in unincorporated areas. CHAPTER 5: CITY OF CALISTOGA 143 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR CITY OF CALISTOGA DETERMINATIONS Growth and Population Projections v The City of Calistoga’s population, as of 2019, was approximately 5,453. v Calistoga’s population increased by about six percent in the last 10 years. v The City manages its growth to maintain its small-town character through the Resource Management System and the Growth Management System. v Napa County LAFCO anticipates that the City will grow by about 0.61 percent a year through 2030 with an anticipated population of 5,818 in 2030. The Location and Characteristics of Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities Within or Contiguous to the Agency’s SOI v According to Napa LAFCO’s definition of disadvantaged unincorporated communities (DUCs), there are currently no DUCs in Napa County. Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities and Adequacy of Public Services, Including Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies v Although water supply from Kimball Reservoir declined, Calistoga was able to replace the lost supply with the water delivered by the City of Napa. Depending on the availability, Calistoga is able to purchase additional water from the City of Napa in emergencies. Water supply is considered to be adequate to meet Calistoga’s current needs. v Based on the City’s existing local reservoir and the State Water project supply, the City does not expect to experience any reductions in water supply during minor drought conditions and expects to experience only minor reductions in water supply during severe droughts. v Calistoga currently has excess water supply available for future development. Estimates show that by 2034, the City will be using between 26 and 54 percent of this excess availability. Due to the Growth Management System and the Resource Management System, the City is projected to grow at a fairly predictable pace, and the current available water supply will be able to accommodate future needs, at least through 2034. v The City currently reuses about 60 percent of its wastewater flows. Recycled water from the WWTP is distributed to 15 customers through recycled water infrastructure. v The City appropriately plans for its infrastructure needs in the Capital Improvement Plan. The most significant long-term planned infrastructure project is the upgrade of the Kimball Water Treatment Plant. No unplanned for water infrastructure needs were identified. CHAPTER 5: CITY OF CALISTOGA 144 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR v Calistoga has adequate capacity to accommodate existing and projected demand at its wastewater treatment plant. It is estimated that 71 percent of the plant’s excess capacity will be allocated by 2034. v The level of wastewater services offered by the City were found to be marginally adequate based on the integrity of the wastewater collection system and regulatory compliance. v The City’s Wastewater Treatment Plant encountered multiple violations and enforcement actions in recent years, most of which were related to dichlorobromomethane limits. The City reported that this issue had been addressed as of 2019. v The City identifies the current Cease and Desist Order (CDO) and strict Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) Permit Conditions imposed with the 2016 renewal of the City’s permit to operate a WWTP as the basis of its main infrastructure needs and costs related to wastewater services. v The City’s sanitary sewer overflow rate is lower on average than of other wastewater agencies in California. Although there is still a lot of old infrastructure that causes high infiltration and inflow, Calistoga continues to repair and replace old pipelines and other infrastructure thus further reducing I/I and overflows. Financial Ability of Agencies to Provide Services v The City of Calistoga has the ability to continue providing water and wastewater services. Water and wastewater revenues were insufficient to cover operations and debt service in FY18, however FY19 was anticipated to end with a slight surplus after debt as rates were updated and increased in FY18 to address shortfalls. v Utilities met and exceeded their reserve goal of 20 percent reserves. Wastewater operations liquidity exceeded a minimum 1.0 ratio of current assets to current liabilities, and its net position was positive. v Current water operations assets, however, were exceeded by current liabilities, reducing water operations liquidity to less than a 1.0 ratio; the water operation’s net position was negative at the end of FY18, reflecting liabilities exceeding net capital assets. v Combined utility rates approach a maximum of 5 percent of median household incomes and may exceed the measure with future rate increases, depending on growth in household incomes. v During FY19 the City’s General Fund transferred $250,000 to assure that debt service coverage requirements were met; a portion of that transfer has since been repaid. v Investments in utility capital assets equaled or exceeded annual depreciation, indicating that the City is generally keeping pace with depreciation of facilities. v The City reviews and updates its rates regularly based on cost of service studies and CIP forecasts. CHAPTER 5: CITY OF CALISTOGA 145 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR Status of, and Opportunities for, Shared Facilities v The City participates in the Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (IRWMP). The City additionally is participating in a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) among Napa County municipal water purveyors to develop a drought contingency plan. v Calistoga shares an interconnection with the City of Napa through which the City of Calistoga receives potable treated water from the City of Napa on a regular basis and in case of emergencies. v The City does not share wastewater infrastructure with other agencies. Due to the distance between the municipal systems, no opportunities for facility sharing were identified. Accountability for Community Service Needs, Including Governmental Structure and Operational Efficiencies v The City Council holds regular appropriately noticed meetings. v Calistoga makes available most documents on its website, including minutes, agendas, and financial and planning reports. The website also provides a means to solicit comments and complaints from customers. The City is compliant with the agenda-posting requirements outlined in AB 2257. Relationship with Regional Growth Goals and Policies v Calistoga has adopted the Resource Management System and the Growth Management System to manage growth within the City and maintain its small-town character. This objective protects agriculture within and surrounding the municipality, which align with the County’s Agricultural Preserve policies. v The City of Calistoga and four other municipalities of Napa County participate in the Napa Valley Transportation Authority (NVTA), which functions as the region’s Congestion Management Agency and provides input to the Bay Area-wide Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s (MTC) 20-year Regional Transportation Plan. Plans applicable to Calistoga include Napa Countywide Pedestrian Plan, Vision 2040 Moving Napa Forward – A Countywide Transportation Plan, Countywide Bicycle Plan, SR 29 Gateway Corridor Implementation Plan, and Plan Bay Area. v The City participates in the Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (IRWMP) that aims to coordinate and improve water supply reliability, protect water quality, manage flood protection, maintain public health standards, protect habitat and watershed resources, and enhance the overall health of the San Francisco Bay. v The City of Calistoga provides water services to 78 connections outside of its boundary area. Although the exact dates of connection are unknown, most likely water service to these unincorporated properties was established prior to G.C. §56133 and is specifically exempt given that the service was extended prior to January 1, 2001. New water connections to parcels outside the City’s jurisdictional CHAPTER 5: CITY OF CALISTOGA 146 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR boundary have been prohibited by the municipal code since 2005, which aligns with State legislation and LAFCO policy. v The City provides recycled water services to 15 customers. Recycled water services are exempt from requiring LAFCO approval prior to extension of services beyond an agency’s boundaries under Government Code §56133. v The City makes its recycled water available for trucking through a filling station at the City’s Wastewater Treatment Plant. There is no limit as to the quantity of recycled water that can be trucked as long as the purchaser obtains a prior permit through the City’s WWTP. While the City indicated that the trucked water is inappropriate to support development due to its boron levels, in order to ensure that trucked water does not promote development and growth in unincorporated areas where water supply is not sustainable and which may adversely affect agricultural uses, it is recommended that approved uses for trucking of water be defined in the City’s municipal code. The intent of this code is to supplement the equivalent recommended County code as the land use authority in unincorporated areas. CHAPTER 5: CITY OF CALISTOGA 147 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR 6. CI TY O F NA PA AGENCY OVERVIEW City of Napa Profile Contact Information Contact: Phil Brun, Utilities Director 1700 Second Street Suite 100 Address: Napa, CA 94559 Website: https://www.cityofnapa.org/ Phone: 707-257-9521 Email: pbrun@cityofnapa.org Formation Information Date of Incorporation: 1872 City type: Charter-Law City Governing Body Governing Body: City Council Members: 4 Council Members and 1 Mayor Election by district (Council Members) Length of Manner of Selection: Election at large (Mayor) term: 4 years Council Chambers Meetings Location: 955 School Street Meeting date: First and third Tuesday of each Napa, CA 94559 month at 3:30 and 6:30 p.m. Mapping and Population Population GIS Date: December 2019 (2019): 79,490 (87,134 Served Water) Purpose Enabling Empowered Legislation: California Constitution XI Services: All municipal services Municipal Services Water, fire protection and emergency medical, police, parks and recreation, street Provided (directly maintenance and traffic, stormwater, solid waste (franchise agreement), cable or by contract) television (franchise agreement), natural gas and electricity (franchise agreement) Area Served Size: 18.4 square miles Location: Central Napa County Most recent Current SOI: 20.0 square miles SOI update: 2014 Municipal Service Reviews Past MSRs: 2014 Central County Region Municipal Service Review 2005 Comprehensive Study of the City of Napa 2004 Comprehensive Water Service Study CHAPTER 6: CITY OF NAPA 148 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR Boundaries The City of Napa is located in south central Napa County near the base of the Napa Valley. The City is bisected by the Napa River and is bounded to the west by the Mayacamas Mountains and to the east by the Howell Mountains. Agricultural and open-space uses characterize unincorporated areas to the north and southwest of the City. Unincorporated areas to the northeast and south of the City are characterized by rural residential and industrial uses, respectively. The City’s boundaries are approximately 18.4 square miles in area. In 1999, the City of Napa established a Rural Urban Limit Line (RUL) as a part of its Charter304 to demark the allowable growth for the City. In 2014, voters approved an expansion to the RUL to include the 154-acre Napa Pipe Property. Since the adoption of the RUL, all annexations to the City of Napa that have been approved by LAFCO were consistent with the RUL boundaries. Since 2010, the City has had 12 changes to its boundaries as outlined in Figure 6-1. Figure 6-1: City of Napa Annexations Since 2010 City of Napa Annexations Reorganization Name Acres Date of Approval 2/1/10 Trancas Crossing Park Reorg 33 1/7/13 Grandview Drive #1 Reorg. 1.1 2/4/13 Forest Drive #2 Reorg. 6 4/1/13 2012 Imola Avenue 1.9 10/7/13 Levitin Way #1 19 10/6/14 West Pueblo Avenue #1 3.34 10/6/14 Wyatt Avenue #1 15.15 12/1/14 Easum Drive #2 Reorg. 3.14 12/1/14 Mallard Court #1 0.2 9/22/15 Napa Pipe Reorg. 109.1 8/7/17 Penny Lane #4 Reorg 0.9 8/6/18 Silverado Trail/Saratoga Drive #2 Reorg. 4.2 Sphere of Influence Napa’s SOI was established by the Commission in 1972 and was most recently updated in 2014. Since then, the City has had two amendments to its SOI to include the County Jail (2014)305 and the Napa Pipe project area (2015).306 The City’s SOI presently encompasses 20.0 square miles. A thorough documentation of the history of the City’s SOI and the reasoning for LAFCO’s decisions can be found in LAFCO’s 2014 Municipal Service Review on the Central County Region. The City’s boundaries and SOI are shown in Figure 6-2. 304 City of Napa, Charter of the City of Napa, Section 180. 305 Napa LAFCO, Resolution 2014-02. 306 Napa LAFCO, Resolution 2015-11. CHAPTER 6: CITY OF NAPA 149 City of Napa Figure 6-2 £¤ 29 B ig R a n c D r y C r e h R o a d S ilv e r e a k R d o R o a T e d d r a w il o o d R o Trancas Street Hagen Road a d Partrick Road o c s o S Lincoln Avenue e v A l Browns Valley Road e u n Coombsville Road Old Sonoma Road Imola Avenue H e n r y a d R o R o a d a m o n o S d Ol £¤ 12 C L u o s C ttin a r n e g s W £¤ 221 r h o a s A v r f R e n o a u d £¤ e 29 Legend C Ju i r ty is d o i f c N tio a n p a a l Boundary Napa River City of Napa £¤ Sphere of Influence 12 0 0.425 0.85Miles Lake Yolo Napa Calistoga December 11, 2019 St. Helena Prepared by LAFCO Staff Sonoma Yountville Sonoma A Ca m n e y r o ic n an Napa Solano 103 L 0 A S F e C m O in a o r f y N St a re p e a t , C S o u u it n e t B y Napa, California 94559 American Marin Canyon http://www.napa.lafco.ca.gov City of Napa Figure 6-3 £¤ 29 B ig R a n c D r y C r e h R o a d S ilv e r e a k R d o R o a T e d d r a w il o o d R o Trancas Street Hagen Road a d Partrick Road o c s o S Lincoln Avenue e v A l Browns Valley Road e u n Coombsville Road Old Sonoma Road Imola Avenue H e n r y a d R o R o a d a m o n o S d Ol £¤ 12 C u ttin g s £¤ W 221 h a r f R Legend o a d £¤ 29 City of Napa Jurisdictional Boundary C Sp it h y e o re f o N f a I p n a fluence Napa River City of Napa £¤ Rural Urban Limit 12 0 0.425 0.85Miles Lake Yolo Napa Calistoga December 17, 2019 St. Helena Prepared by LAFCO Staff Sonoma Yountville American Napa Solano LAFCO of Napa County Sonoma Canyon 1030 Seminary Street, Suite B Napa, California 94559 American Marin Canyon http://www.napa.lafco.ca.gov NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR Two territories are within the City’s boundaries but outside of its SOI—city-owned Alston Park and Trancas Crossing Park. Typically, this would indicate LAFCO’s anticipation that these areas be detached from the City; however, it has been Napa LAFCO’s practice to not include city-owned property within a city’s SOI pursuant to Government Code §56742, which is specific to noncontiguous territories. LAFCO may wish to consider including the noncontiguous city-owned properties in the City of Napa’s SOI during its next update, or if LAFCO wishes to continue the practice of excluding these properties from the City’s SOI, then it may consider clarifying its intent in its policies. ACCOUNTABILITY AND GOVERNANCE The City of Napa is governed by a four-member Council and one Mayor, all elected to staggered four-year terms. Regular meetings of the City Council take place on the first and third Tuesday of every month at 3:30 and 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers. The meetings are broadcast live on the City’s website. Agendas and minutes are posted on the website, along with other information pertaining to city services and operations. In 2016, the State Legislature enacted Assembly Bill 2257 (Government Code §54954.2) to update the Brown Act with new requirements governing the location, platform and methods by which an agenda must be accessible on the agency’s website for all meetings occurring on or after January 1, 2019. The City of Napa has a designated web page for City Council and Commission meetings accessible from the homepage, which appears to meet the AB 2257 legislative requirements; however, the City needs to ensure that it complies with the new agenda posting requisites. The City demonstrated accountability and transparency in its disclosure of information and cooperation with Napa LAFCO. The City responded to the questionnaires and cooperated with document requests. GROWTH AND POPULATION PROJECTIONS According to the California Department of Finance (DOF), the City’s population as of 2019 is approximately 79,490. Based on the California Department of Finance (DOF) estimates, the City’s population increased from 76,090 in 2009 to 79,490 in 2019, or by about 4.5 percent over the 10-year period. The City Council adopted the current General Plan in 1998. The General Plan outlines policies, standards, and programs to guide day-to-day decisions concerning Napa’s development through the year 2020. The 1998 General Plan contemplates a total buildout population for Napa of 90,000 by 2020, which has not been realized. Given that the General Plan was adopted over 20 years ago, the City is in the process of developing an updated General Plan intended to “take into account Napa’s cherished past and vibrant present to build an even more livable, sustainable, and inclusive future.” It will outline the City’s plan for land use, housing, transportation, community facilities, parks and recreation, historic resources, health and safety, economic development, and more through the year 2040. The updated General Plan will plan for land within Napa city limits, unincorporated land within the City’s Sphere of Influence, and some areas outside of city/sphere limits where the City provides public services. At present the City is in the process of developing its vision and CHAPTER 6: CITY OF NAPA 151 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR guiding principles. The General Plan Update is anticipated to be adopted in the spring of 2021. Future development is limited by the RUL. Figure 6-3 shows the RUL as compared to the city limits and SOI. Most of the undeveloped area in the RUL has been built out. There are 24 territories that are within the RUL that have not yet been annexed into the City. Of the property available for development in the RUL, only a portion is considered suitable for development due to environmental constraints.307 The majority of the unincorporated lands inside the SOI lie within the islands that are either entirely or substantially surrounded by Napa. In the 2005 MSR, it was noted that Napa should be more proactive in working to eliminate the 20 islands within its sphere of influence. The 2014 MSR reported that there continued to be 20 islands of unincorporated territory. As of the drafting of this report there were still 18 areas that met Napa LAFCO’s definition of an island within the City. The City has divided the entirety of General Plan planning area into 12 sub-planning areas, as follows: 1. Linda Vista 7. Westwood 2. Vintage 8. Central Napa 3. Browns Valley 9. Soscol 4. Pueblo 10. Terrace/Shurtleff 5. Beard 11. River East 6. Alta Heights 12. Stanly Ranch 307 City of Napa, General Plan 2020, 1998, p. 1-4. CHAPTER 6: CITY OF NAPA 152 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR Figure 6-3: City of Napa Rural Urban Limit Line City of Napa Jurisdictional Boundary and RUL Not to Scale City of Napa Lake August 8, 2018 Boundary Yolo Prepared by BF City of Napa Calistoga St. Helena Sphere of Influence Sonoma Yountville City of Napa Napa Solano LAFCO of Napa County Rural Urban Limit 1030 Seminary Street, Suite B American Napa, California 94559 Canyon http://www.napa.lafco.ca.gov CHAPTER 6: CITY OF NAPA 153 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR The City of Napa has three large development projects that it is considering or recently considered. The proposed Napa Oaks II project was to be located at 3095 Old Sonoma Road on the south side of Old Sonoma Road between Casswall Street and Congress Valley Road inside the city limits. The Project consisted of the subdivision of the 80.63-acre hillside property into 51 single family residential lots and associated roadways, a 0.5-acre neighborhood park, and 49.43 acres of open space. The Final EIR was completed in 2017; however, on June 20, 2018, rezoning of the property was denied by the City Council. There are no indications whether the developer will continue to try to develop the area. Members of the public indicated concerns about development of this area based on lack of infrastructure, potential increase in runoff, potential flooding from the holding pond, high groundwater levels, presence of mature oak trees, presence of an earthquake fault, limited ingress and egress, proposal of a roundabout, and lack of inclusion of affordable housing.308The Valle Verde and Heritage House Housing Project is proposed on a 2.9-acre project site located at 3700, 3710, and 3720 Valle Verde Drive, just north of the intersection of Firefly Drive and Valle Verde Drive inside the city limits. The project proposes to rehabilitate the vacant Sunrise Napa Assisted Living Facility with 58-unit single-room occupancy units of permanent supportive housing with on- site supportive services and eight one-bedroom accessible units (Heritage House) facility. The project would also include construction of a new three-story multi-family apartment building with 24-unit apartment complex (Valle Verde). The Final EIR was certified and Use and Design Review Permits were approved by the City Council in February 2020. The Napa Pipe Project site is located at 1025 Kaiser Road about three miles south of downtown Napa, on the east side of the Napa River, and northwest of the intersection of State Routes 29 and 221. The owner of the 154-acre property has proposed a high-density residential neighborhood with open space, neighborhood-serving retail, restaurants and a hotel on the western portion of the site, and a Costco on the eastern portion of the site. The project is projected to have a buildout residential population of 2,304.309 The proposed project site was approved for annexation into City of Napa by LAFCO at its November 18, 2019 meeting. The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) projects that the population of the City of Napa will grow by about 5.45 percent from 2020 to 2030. Thus, the average annual population growth in the City is anticipated to be approximately 0.52 percent between 2020 and 2025 and increase slightly to 0.55 percent between 2025 and 2030. Based on these projections, the City’s population would increase from 79,490 in 2019 to 84,256 in 2030. Napa LAFCO has developed its own population projections. To project future growth, LAFCO calculated the annual percentage change between 2012 and 2017, based on DOF population estimates for these years.310 The population growth was projected in five-year increments through 2030. According to LAFCO’s projections, the population of the City of Napa in 2025 will be about 82,230 and approximately 84,513 in 2030, which equates to 6.3 percent growth in the 10-year period. 308 Bruce and Carol Barge, Comment Letter on Public Review Draft MSR, July 17, 2020. 309 City of Napa, Urban Water Management Plan, 2015, p. 3-7 310 The change in population, especially unincorporated area, between 2017-2018 was significant due to the wildfires and loss of homes. Therefore, LAFCO used the timeframe from 2012 to 2017. CHAPTER 6: CITY OF NAPA 154 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR DISADVANTAGED UNINCORPORATED COMMUNITIES LAFCO is required to evaluate disadvantaged unincorporated communities as part of this service review, including the location and characteristics of any such communities. The City of Napa is incorporated and does not serve any DUC in the unincorporated area. According to Napa LAFCO’s definition of DUCs, there are currently no disadvantaged unincorporated communities in Napa County. Based on the adopted policy, the Commission annually reviews Census Bureau American Community Survey data to determine if local and/or statewide median household income levels have changed.311 FINANCIAL ABILITY TO PROVIDE SERVICES The City of Napa provides water services as a City enterprise (“business-type” activity). City departments provide administrative and overhead services to the water enterprise, which in turn reimburses the City departments for those expenses. The water enterprise is supported by rate revenues and charges; no property tax revenue accrues directly to the enterprise, and no General Fund revenues support the enterprise. The City’s CAFR reports City financials and separately reports financial information for the water “business-type” activity. The following table summarizes selected financial information for the City of Napa’s water operations. The agency’s Fiscal Profile in Appendix A provides additional detail and indicators. Figure 6-4: Summary of Selected Financial Information, City of Napa Water Operations City of Napa Water Operations FY18-19 Water Budget Net $2,820,000 Operating Revenues $30,430,000 Operating Expenditures (inc. debt) $27,610,000 Ending Fund Balance as % of Operating Revenues 41% Ending Fund Balance $12,450,000 Debt Service as a % of Operating Revenues 11.2% Total Debt Outstanding $42,196,000 Monthly Water Rates as a % of Household Income 0.8% Typical Monthly Rate $52 Median Household Income (2017) $82,361 Pension+OPEB Total Payments % of Revenues 7.1% Pension+OPEB Total Payments $2,150,000 Unfunded Pension Liability $14,550,000 Unfunded OPEB Liability $0 311 Napa Local Agency Formation Commission, Policy on Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities, 2018. CHAPTER 6: CITY OF NAPA 155 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR Balanced Budget For any agency, recurring operating deficits are a warning sign. In the short-term, reserves can backfill deficits and maintain services. However ongoing deficits eventually will deplete reserves. The City’s budget projected operating shortfalls FY17 through FY19 for its water operations.312 However, rate increases adopted by the City Council effective December 2017 generated an additional $4.8 million of revenue that enabled the City’s mid-cycle budget update to show a positive operating budget for FY19.313 Fund Balances, Reserves and Liquidity Fund balances and reserves should include adequate funds for cash flow and liquidity, in addition to funds to address longer-term needs. After accounting for capital expenditures, the Water Fund’s projected balance declined about $1.2 million from FY18 to FY19, to an ending balance of $12.4 million,314 or about 41 percent of operating revenues. According to the City’s 2016 Cost of Service report, the Water Division has six reserves designated for various activities, in unreserved/undesignated fund balances. The reserves consist of the following (as of June 28, 2019):315 Operating Reserve $2.55 mill. CIP Reserve $4.55 mill. Renewal and Replacement (R&R) Reserve $0.40 mill. Emergency Reserve $1.10 mill. Long Term Water Supply Reserve $1.13 mill. Rate Stabilization Reserve $2.59 mill. The Water Operations’ projected FY19 ending fund balance of $12.4 million316 provides a cushion for cash flow needs and short-term contingencies, representing 41% of annual revenues.317 The Water Operations’ liquidity ratio, which is positive (current assets exceed current liabilities), indicates the short-term (less than one year) availability of these funds if needed. Over the longer term (greater than one year) the Water Operations Fund has an unrestricted net position of $21.5 million available;318 the balance of its net position (assets exceeding liabilities) is invested in capital assets. 312 City of Napa Adopted Budget Fiscal Years 2017/2018 and 2018/2019, Program Summary Water Utility Summary (pg. 192). 313 City of Napa Mid-Cycle Budget FY 2018/19, Adopted June 5, 2018, Water Fund, pg. 14. 314 City of Napa Mid-Cycle Budget FY 2018/19, Adopted June 5, 2018, Water Fund, pg. 14. 315 City of Napa GL 5003: Budget to Actual with Encumbrances by Fund, Key, Object, as of June 28, 2019. 316 City of Napa Mid-Cycle Budget FY 2018/19, Adopted June 5, 2018, Water Fund, pg. 14. 317 See City of Napa Water Operations Financial Profile. 318 City of Napa FY18 CAFR, Statement of Net Position, Proprietary Funds, Water Utility, pg. 41. CHAPTER 6: CITY OF NAPA 156 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR Net Position An agency’s “Net Position” as reported in its CAFR represents the amount by which assets (e.g., cash, capital assets, other assets) exceed liabilities (e.g., debts, unfunded pension and OPEB liabilities, other liabilities). A positive Net Position provides an indicator of financial soundness over the long-term. The Water Operations Fund has a significant net position of $75.6 million which represents the value of assets in excess of liabilities. The net position is primarily invested in $54 million of net capital assets. Unrestricted funds (including reserves) total about $21.5 million, which include about $7.2 million of current and noncurrent receivables.319 Rates and Charges Water and wastewater operations are primarily funded by service charges. Enterprises are allowed to establish charges sufficient to fund their cost of service. Rates typically are expected to not exceed 2-2.5 percent of household income, for each utility.320 Based on a 2017 cost of service study,321 the City adopted a 5-year schedule of water rates and increases that took effect December 1, 2017; the increases average 2 to 3 percent annually. Rates for customers outside of the City are about 44% higher than rates for customers in the City.322 The City of Napa offers a water bill discount to assist customers “who may be struggling to meet their basic needs”; the ‘RateShare’ program, adopted by the City Council on April 17, 2012, currently offers a $25 discount on bi-monthly bills.323 The City collects Water Capacity Fees from new development;324 the current balance is approximately $800,000.325 Long-term Debt Excessive long-term debt incurs interest charges that consume financial resources that could otherwise fund needed services and capital improvements. Studies indicate that a majority of debt-paying water and wastewater agencies surveyed spent between 10% and 30% of their total operating revenues on debt service.326 In February 2016 the City refunded the Series 2007 Water Revenue Bonds and paid off other debt obligations of the Water Enterprise, through the issue of the Series 2016 Water Revenue Bonds for the principal amount of $43.5 million.327 As a result, the City of Napa’s 319 City of Napa FY18 CAFR, Statement of Net Position, Proprietary Funds, Water Utility, pg. 41. 320 Teodoro, et al, (2018) cite USEPA’s Financial Capability Guidebook (USEPA 1984) as original source for the use of personal income as a measure, although it was not applied to rates in the 1984 document. 321 Water Cost of Service Rate Study, Black and Veatch, Prepared for the City of Napa Water Division, Sept. 20, 2017. 322 City of Napa Rate Schedules, Adopted Nov. 7, 2017. 323 City of Napa RateShare Program (downloaded from City website). 324 City of Napa Water Service Fees, FY2018-19. 325 City of Napa Response to Financial Questions 2019-06-25. 326 http://efc.web.unc.edu/2014/02/17/napshot-debt-service-as-percent-of-total-operating-revenues/ 327 City of Napa FY18 CAFR, Note 7D Water Fund Obligations, pg. 73. CHAPTER 6: CITY OF NAPA 157 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR water operations spend about 11 percent of operating revenues for debt service, on the lower end of the scale for water and wastewater agencies.328 In FY 2016, the City established a Rate Stabilization Reserve Fund of $1.6M to meet debt service ratio requirements.329 Due to revenue collection falling short of the bond covenant requirement of 1.20 times debt service, the City set aside funds to maintain the Water Enterprise Fund’s AA- (double A minus) Bond Rating. This rating is important for the City to have the ability to secure funding for long-term projects that exceed the capacity of rate- payers to support on a pay-go basis. The City’s bond rating was raised to AA in 2019.330 Pension and OPEB Liabilities Unfunded pension and OPEB liabilities present one of the most serious fiscal challenges facing many cities and districts. The potential increases in current City of Napa pension costs do not appear to be a significant adverse factor relative to its total budget; however, increasing pension costs could result in increases to water rates. The City of Napa provides pension benefits to its employees through the City’s CalPERS plans. The City’s Water Enterprise’s unfunded pension liability is approximately $14.6 million.331 The City’s total pension liabilities are approximately 64 percent funded as of the end of FY17.332 The City participates in the California Employer's Retiree Benefit Fund (CERBT), which provides post-retirement benefits to retired employees. A retiree is generally eligible for a fixed monthly payment. The City’s net OPEB liability for all City employees is $6.8 million.333 The City’s CAFR does not allocate OPEB liabilities to the Water Utility. The combined water operation total pension payments (normal and unfunded liabilities) plus its estimated proportional share of OPEB payments is about $2.2 million annually, or 7.1 percent of operating revenues.334 Capital Assets Capital assets must be adequately maintained and replaced over time and expanded as needed to accommodate future demand and respond to regulatory and technical changes. The City’s financial reports show that the value of depreciable water capital assets increased by about 3.7 percent from FY17 to FY18 indicating that capital expenditures exceeded depreciation losses.335 328 Appendix A-6, City of Napa Fiscal Profile. 329 Water Cost of Service Rate Study, Black and Veatch, Prepared for the City of Napa Water Division, Sept. 20, 2017, pg. 20. 330 S&P Global Ratings, Napa City, California, Outstanding Water Revenue Bonds, Series 2016, letter to the City, May21, 2019. 331 City of Napa FY18 CAFR, Proprietary Funds Statement of Net Position, pg. 41. 332 City of Napa FY18 CAFR, Note 10 – Employee Retirement System (Misc. Plan), pg. 84. 333 City of Napa FY18 CAFR, Proprietary Funds Statement of Net Position, p. 41) 334 Appendix A-6, City of Napa Fiscal Profile. 335 City of Napa FY18 CAFR, Note 6 (pg. 71) – Transmission and Distribution. CHAPTER 6: CITY OF NAPA 158 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR According to the City’s Cost of Service Study, the City funds its Capital Improvement Program (CIP) through a combination of debt service, capacity fees and rate-generated revenue.336 Financial Planning and Reporting Achieving transparency and public accountability standards dictates that cities and agencies provide easily accessible and clear documentation of their activities, including financial information. Website – The City’s website includes descriptions of and access to current and past water planning and financial documents. Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) -- The City includes its water and operations in its CAFR which is published in a timely manner within six months of the end of the fiscal year. Capital Improvement Program – The City’s annual CIP includes water facilities and is updated each year as part of the budget process. The Water Division developed a 20-year Master Plan in 2010337 to identify system needs including routine testing, inspections, maintenance, and renewal and replacement requirements which provided the basis for establishing rates. Asset Management Plan – The City is in the process of implementing the Lucity Workorder Asset Management Plan initially focusing on the distribution network; the routine preventative maintenance program for treatment plan assets and pump stations is being migrated into the system.338 Financial Forecasts – The City’s Water Rate Study339 forecasts cash flows over a five-year period. The City plans to perform the next long- term financial plan in 2021 in anticipation of a bond issuance or funding mechanism for major capital improvements of the Hennessey Treatment plant and increased investment including lining and replacement of aging pipes.340 336 Water Cost of Service Rate Study, Black and Veatch, Prepared for the City of Napa Water Division, Sept. 20, 2017, pg. 17. 337 [need reference] 338 City of Napa Response to Financial Questions 2019-06-25. 339 Water Cost of Service Rate Study, Black and Veatch, Prepared for the City of Napa Water Division, Sept. 20, 2017. 340 City of Napa Response to Financial Questions 2019-06-25. CHAPTER 6: CITY OF NAPA 159 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR WATER SERVICES The City plans for its water services in several planning documents, including the Urban Water Management Plan, the Capital Improvement Plan, and the Water Cost of Service Rate Study. Additionally, the City’s General Plan 2020 includes goals and policies to achieve those goals regarding the City’s water services. Goal CS-9: To ensure adequate, reliable, and safe water supplies to the community, even through drought periods of similar intensity as the 1986-1992 drought. Policy CS 9.1: The City shall continue to implement water conservation programs that show promise of saving significant amounts of water at a reasonable cost. Policy CS 9.2: The City shall acquire or develop additional water supplies that would be available during drought periods to offset the shortages anticipated from existing supplies. Policy CS 9.3: The City of Napa shall determine the firm yield available from existing and future SWP water supply sources and shall monitor and, if necessary, limit growth (new water system hook-ups) in order to guarantee drought year water supplies to existing and proposed development. Policy CS 9.4: The City shall implement the “Water System Optimization and Master Plan” (adopted 11/97) which refines policies and implementation programs for efficient water supply, storage, and delivery for projected demand to the year 2020. Policy CS 9.5: The City shall evaluate the feasibility and pursue the efficient use of reclaimed wastewater in appropriate locations to offset the demand for potable water supplies. Policy CS 9.6: The City shall promote voluntarily conservation efforts to conserve water to a reasonable extent during multi-year droughts to avoid inordinate expenditures for new water supplies. Policy CS 9.7: The City shall work cooperatively with other agencies having similar needs to identify water supply options that could have mutual benefit and consider entering into joint powers agreements to develop and manage a candidate project. Policy CS 9.8: The City shall encourage state and federal agencies to cooperatively establish programs and projects that will enable the State Water Project to meet its contractual obligations to the city predictably and reliably. Policy CS 9.9: The City shall monitor the State Water Contract and work with other agencies to ensure continued and increased reliable water supply deliveries from the State Water Project. Policy CS 9.10: The City shall seek to control urban development in the city's Water Service Area beyond the RUL. To this end, the City shall continue applying Policy Resolution #7 (Outside Water Service Policy) as an effective means of limiting and preventing urban development beyond the city's RUL. CHAPTER 6: CITY OF NAPA 160 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR Type and Extent of Services Services Provided The City of Napa provides potable water to residential, commercial, industrial, and agricultural customers within the City and portions of the surrounding area. All distributed water is treated at one of the City’s three treatment plants— Hennessey Water Treatment Plant, Milliken Water Treatment Plant, and the Edward I. Barwick Jamieson Canyon Water Treatment Plant. The City is a drinking water provider only and does not distribute raw water to customers. Recycled water demands within the City’s service area are met by Napa Sanitation District (NapaSan) via their Soscol Water Recycling Facility (SWRF). Service Area While the vast majority of city water is delivered to customers within the City limits, the City does provide water outside the city limits and even outside the RUL, including to customers in the Monticello Road/Silverado Resort community and the independent Congress Valley Water District (CVWD), and to accounts along the Conn Transmission Main. The City provides water service within an area generally coinciding with its RUL; however, approximately 10 percent of all city water customers reside outside the RUL. There is a high concentration of connections northeast of the RUL in the Vichy/Silverado Country Club area. In total the City provides service to 2,213341 connections outside the City limits. The City also serves the approximately 1,175 residents of Napa State Hospital located outside the City limits and RUL.342 Of the out-of-area service connections, 40 were added after 2001343 when it was legislated that cities and special districts must have LAFCO approval to extend services beyond their boundaries. It was noted in LAFCO’s 2004 MSR of the City that Napa needed to revisit its outside water service program and comply with a new requirement for cities and special districts to only provide new or extended services beyond their boundaries after receiving approval from LAFCO. Since then, the City has been diligent in receiving LAFCO approval for extension of services beyond its boundaries. The process of adding outside services has been streamlined for health and safety issues, as the LAFCO Executive Officer can approve the extension with agreement by the Commission Chair and present the extension to the Commission for ratification at the next meeting.344 The City noted that there is a need to further define in policy what constitutes a health and safety issue. The City has adopted policy limiting extension of services outside of the RUL in its Charter Section 180. City Charter Section 180 is as follows: B. Except as expressly provided herein, no City of Napa water service shall be provided for any area or site outside the RUL. The City of Napa shall provide City water service to all properties within the incorporated area of the City of Napa and may, in its sole discretion, 341 As reported in correspondence from Doug De Master, Associate Engineer, July 24, 2019. 342 City of Napa, Urban Water Management Plan, 2015, p. 3-3. 343 Actions indicated as approved after January 1, 2001 in Napa Outside Water Service Index.xslx. 344 Local Agency Formation Commission of Napa County, Policy on Outside Service Agreements, adopted November 3, 2008. CHAPTER 6: CITY OF NAPA 161 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR provide City water service for areas or sites outside the RUL and outside the incorporated area of the City of Napa as of March 1999 as follows: v To be used for municipal purposes by any other incorporated city or municipality; v To be used for community facilities, recreational facilities, parks, public service facilities including, but not limited to, fire and police stations and substations, any similar facilities, as well as any public school facilities sponsored or developed by the City of Napa, the Napa Valley Unified School District or other public educational bodies; v If such area or site qualifies for interruptible surplus agricultural water service pursuant to Napa Municipal Code Section 13.04.050 as the same may be amended from time to time; v For existing uses which have been provided with City of Napa water prior to the effective date of this charter amendment; v As necessary to fulfill any contractual obligation existing prior to the effective date of this charter amendment; v For any other uses approved by four-fifths (4/5) vote of the City Council. Also, in 1999, the City adopted Policy Resolution No. 7 determining that residential properties within the RUL but not within the City Limits shall be required to annex to the City prior to receiving water services. The City makes its potable water available for trucking via a filling station or rental of a hydrant meter. Historically, this trucked water was primarily used for construction sites. At present, there are no limitations on who may make use of the water for trucking; however, the City is in the midst of developing policy to create possible geographical and use limits. Users must sign up and pay the associated fee, but the water supplied is surplus water with no guarantee of availability. In 2018, there were 118 trucked water users or hydrant meter rentals; however, some truckers serve multiple end-use customers. CHAPTER 6: CITY OF NAPA 162 City of Napa Figure 6-5 Lake Hennessey Sage Canyon Road Legend City of Napa Jurisdictional Boundary City of Napa Sphere of Influence Rector O C ak r v o i s l s l e Road Reservoir C O i u ty ts i o d f e N W ap at a er Connections £¤ Town of Yountville 29 Jurisdictional Boundary Yo u C n r t o v s i s l l R e oad S o d a C a n y o n R o a d Milliken S ilv Reservoir era d W V ee d M e r o u R n t D ry C reek R oa d O A ak v e K n n u o e ll B o ig T R ra a il Monticello Road o o d en V a lley R o a d o n a c d h R o a d P artrick R oad T S r t a r n ee c t as S o s c Browns Valley Road n e v A l o e u Coombsville Road Imola Avenue £¤ 12 £¤ 29 £¤ 12 0 0.75 1.5Miles Lake Yountville Yolo Calistoga December 26, 2019 St. Helena Prepared by LAFCO Staff Sonoma Yountville Napa Solano LAFCO of Napa County 1030 Seminary Street, Suite B Napa Sonoma Solano American Napa, California 94559 Marin Canyon http://www.napa.lafco.ca.gov NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR Services to Other Agencies Southwest of the RUL, the independent Congress Valley Water District (CVWD) contracts with the City of Napa to supply water and maintain its system. The City provides all services related to the operation of the water system. Additionally, CVWD customers are billed directly by the City for water services. Given that the City provides all services to the community, previous MSRs have identified the need for the district to be dissolved and services continued by the City. The original agreement was set to expire in 2017; however, their current agreement was recently extended to 2022 in order to establish a water service transition plan. The City also exports water to the Cities of American Canyon, St. Helena, and Calistoga, the Town of Yountville, and the California Veterans Home. Calistoga and American Canyon have contractual entitlements to SWP water from the North Bay Aqueduct (NBA), and the City simply treats their water at its Edward I. Barwick Jamieson Canyon Water Treatment Plant (WTP) and wheels it to them. St. Helena and Yountville are also “wholesale” customers of the City, as any city water they purchase is then sold to their own retail customers who make end use of the water. St. Helena is contractually obligated to purchase at least 600 acre- feet of City of Napa water each year. Yountville and Veterans Home purchases of City water are rare and minimal due to their own sufficient local supply sources.345 The City also provides 20 hours of water conservation education in Yountville, which includes a booth at Yountville Days. Contracts for Services The City does not contract for water services from other agencies. Overlapping Service Providers In 1998, the City and NapaSan entered into a 20-year agreement that permits NapaSan to solicit and provide recycled water service within a specified portion of the City’s water service area. The agreement originally defined the recycled service area as lands east of the Napa River, south of Imola Avenue, west of Highway 221, and north of American Canyon, along with other specified areas. Generally, this means NapaSan recycled water can be made available to Napa State Hospital, Stanly Ranch, Napa Valley Commons, South Napa Marketplace, and other nearby sites. The agreement includes a “make whole” calculation to ensure that City water revenues are not adversely affected by existing customers converting to recycled water. NapaSan also agreed to furnish up to 50 af per year to Kennedy Park and Napa Valley College at no cost.346 A 1998 amendment to the agreement added Tulocay Cemetery and Silverado Middle School to the recycled service area. The existing agreement terms automatically extend if the agreement is not renewed; however, the City of Napa and NapaSan are in the process of reviewing the agreement for renewal. There are no overlapping potable water service providers within the City of Napa; however, both the Cities of Napa and St. Helena provide water services to the Rutherford Road area, which is outside both cities. There is an opportunity for greater collaboration between the two cities to ensure that duplicative services do not occur in other locations. 345 City of Napa, Urban Water Management Plan, 2015, p. 3-3. 346 City of Napa, Urban Water Management Plan, 2015, p. 6-8. CHAPTER 6: CITY OF NAPA 164 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR Collaboration The City participates in the Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (IRWMP). The City additionally is participating in a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) among Napa County municipal water purveyors to develop a Napa Valley Drought Contingency Plan. As part of this collaboration, participating agencies are evaluating opportunities for supplemental water supply and constraints of their current utility systems. Staffing The Water Division of the Utilities Department is responsible for the operation, maintenance, and improvement of the municipal drinking water utility owned by the City of Napa. The Division is led by the Deputy Utilities Director who reports to the Utilities Director. The Water Division is organized into four sections—Water Treatment, Water Distribution, Engineering, and Water Resources/Conservation. Water Supply The City of Napa currently meets its demands by supplying water from three major sources—Lake Hennessey, Milliken Reservoir, and the State Water Project (SWP) water delivered through the North Bay Aqueduct (NBA). Lake Hennessey and Milliken Reservoir are two local surface water reservoirs along tributaries of the Napa River. SWP water is supplied through an agreement with the Napa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (NCFCWCD), the SWP contract administrator for several municipalities in Napa County. Water from these three sources is introduced into the City of Napa distribution system from three separate water treatment plants. Hennessey WTP treats the Lake Hennessey supply. Milliken WTP treats Milliken Reservoir water. SWP water is treated at the Edward I. Barwick Jamieson Canyon WTP southeast of the City. Lake Hennessey Lake Hennessey is the major local water source for the City of Napa system. Located approximately 13 miles north of the City, Lake Hennessey was formed in 1946, and became the City’s primary source for the next several decades until supplemented by SWP entitlements in the late 1960’s. The City’s water rights to Lake Hennessey are secured through a permit with the SWRCB Division of Water Rights. The permit authorizes the City to divert and store up to 30,500 af per year from Conn Creek for beneficial use. Lake Hennessey has an approximate storage capacity of 31,000 af. Lake Hennessey’s storage capacity is much greater than its average annual inflow of 19,692 af. Milliken Reservoir In 1923, the Milliken Dam was constructed, which allowed storage of water from Milliken Creek, a tributary of the Napa River. The resulting Milliken Reservoir served as the City’s sole water source until Lake Hennessey was created in the 1940’s. Located approximately five miles northeast of the City, Milliken Reservoir is now a seasonal source of supply used in the high-demand summer period when turbidity levels in the reservoir can be effectively treated CHAPTER 6: CITY OF NAPA 165 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR at the Milliken WTP. The City’s water rights to Milliken Reservoir are secured through a license with the SWRCB. It authorizes the City to divert and store up to 2,350 af of water per year from Milliken Creek for beneficial use. Milliken Reservoir has an approximate storage capacity of 1,390 af, much smaller than its average annual inflow of 3,656 af. The storage capacity of Milliken Reservoir is limited to 1,390 af due to seismic stability concerns by the State Division of Safety of Dams that necessitated the boring of five holes which have lowered the reservoir storage elevation by 16 feet. The City’s UWMP (2015) assumes a maximum yield for Milliken of only 700 af in all but critical single-dry years.347 State Water Project In 1966, the City added a third source of supply by sub-contracting with NCFCWCD for imported surface water from the SWP. The NCFCWCD acts as the SWP contract administrator on behalf of municipalities in Napa County. The SWP diverts water from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta at the Barker Slough Pumping Plant east of Vacaville and conveys it approximately 21 miles via the North Bay Aqueduct (NBA) to Cordelia Forebay to serve contractors in Napa and Solano Counties. The original 1966 agreement with NCFCWCD provided the City of Napa with gradually increasing annual allotments of SWP water, known as “Table A” entitlements. In 2009, the SWP contract was amended to accelerate the entitlement schedule, with the City granted its full 2021 entitlement of 18,800 beginning in 2010. The current SWP contract was extended to 2085. In 2000, the City obtained an additional 1,000 af per year of SWP water in a transfer agreement between NCFCWCD and the Kern County Water Agency (KCWA). The City of Napa subsequently purchased the City of St. Helena’s 1,000 af KCWA entitlement in 2006. In 2009, the City signed a water transfer agreement with the Town of Yountville, obtaining Yountville’s total SWP Table A entitlement of 1,100 af per year, along with its NBA conveyance capacity. The City’s complete current Table A entitlements (21,900 af) are shown below. These amounts represent the absolute maximum annual yields of Table A water. Actual deliveries are determined by DWR depending on each year’s hydrologic conditions. v City of Napa - 18,800 af v 2000 KCWA Purchase - 1,000 af v 2006 St. Helena Purchase – 1,000 af v 2009 Yountville Purchase – 1,100 af Additional SWP water beyond the Table A entitlements is available to the City of Napa depending on the year’s conditions. Carryover Water is water from a previous year’s entitlement that was available for use, but exceeded demands, and was therefore stored for use in subsequent years. Carryover water is stored in San Luis Reservoir and if San Luis Reservoir spills, the carryover water is considered the first water to be lost. The City typically uses carryover water in the first few months of the year and will continue to do so. Over the 347 City of Napa, Urban Water Management Plan, 2015, p. 6-3. CHAPTER 6: CITY OF NAPA 166 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR long term, this is not considered new supply but taking better advantage of existing SWP entitlements. Actual Table A deliveries in any given year have been bolstered by a 2013 legal settlement with DWR. Resolution of Solano County Water Agency et. al. v. Department of Water Resources, known as the “Area of Origin” settlement, entitles the City of Napa to the North of Delta allocations and Advanced Table A program. Each year, DWR calculates a separate SWP Table A allocation for North of Delta (NOD) contractors in Solano, Napa, and Butte Counties and Yuba City. The NOD Allocation is expected to be five percent to 25 percent beyond the standard Table A allocation each year, depending on hydrologic conditions and regulatory and operational constraints applicable to only the North Delta. Additional SWP water becomes available from a credit account once all available Table A supplies are exhausted, including any carried over from previous years. Known as Advanced Table A, this credit account can provide the City of Napa an additional 3,772 af in a year when the standard (South of Delta) allocation is less than or equal to 20 percent. When the standard allocation is greater than 20 percent, the City may borrow 5,659 af. An additional amount may be requested if Solano County Water Agency and Yuba City do not use their maximum Advanced Table A. The cumulative balance in the Advanced Table A account must not exceed 21,900 af and it resets to zero whenever Lake Oroville spills. “Article 21 Water” is an interruptible surplus SWP supply the City uses. Article 21 of the SWP contract allows for the purchase of surplus water beyond Table A quantities, provided that the contractor can take delivery during the wet season when excess water is available in the Delta without affecting Table A deliveries to other contractors. NCFCWCD uses an annual delivery schedule that maximizes the City’s use of Article 21 prior to consumption of carryover water. In dry years, DWR decides whether to operate a Dry Year Water Purchase Program based on Article 56 of the SWP contract. Also, a “Turn-Back Pool” may be established, with water from agencies not using their full Table A entitlement distributed to other agencies requesting additional supplies. NCFCWCD has purchased water through the program and will continue to do so, but it is not considered a reliable source, due to its unpredictable nature. Figure 6-6: Summary of Potable Water Sources City of Napa Potable Water Sources Maximum Normal Year Source Category Source Name Dry Year (afy) Yield (afy) (afy) SWP "Table A" Water 21,900 13,578 1,095 Varies by Carryover Water Varies by year Varies by year year State Water Project 5% to 25% 5% to 25% above the 5% to 25% above North of Delta above the standard the standard Allocation standard Table A Table A Table A allocation allocation allocation CHAPTER 6: CITY OF NAPA 167 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR City of Napa Potable Water Sources Maximum Normal Year Source Category Source Name Dry Year (afy) Yield (afy) (afy) Advanced Table A 5,659 5,659 3,772 Program Varies by Article 21 Water Varies by year Varies by year year Surface Water Lake Hennessey 31,000 17,500 11,500 Surface Water Milliken Reservoir 700 700 500 Total >59,259 >37,437 >16,867 Source: City of Napa 2015 Urban Water Management Plan. Recycled Water As mentioned, the City of Napa is a drinking water supplier only, and recycled water for non-potable uses is provided in the City’s water service area by Napa Sanitation District (NapaSan). NapaSan has the capacity to produce up to 3,700 af of recycled water; however, at present average production is about 2,200 af a year depending on inflow and demand. Approximately 24 percent of the total recycled water produced and delivered by NapaSan is provided within the City’s “water service area” that applies under the aforementioned agreement. Water Production Figure 6-7 shows the amount of potable water produced by the City from 2014 through 2018. The City receives a majority of its water from the SWP water source. Over the last five years SWP water has comprised 62 percent of the City’s water produced. Lake Hennessey water has provided 36 percent and Milliken Reservoir two percent. As shown, the City has produced water well within its capacity even in dry years. Figure 6-7: Potable Water Production by Source (2014-2018), acre-feet Potable Water Produced 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Lake Hennessey 2,801.55 3,443.72 6,163.38 7,568.71 4,294.39 Milliken Reservoir 564.99 733.61 0 242.99 0 SWP 11,303.64 8,403.50 6,606.87 5,724.00 9,153.82 Total 14,670.18 12,580.82 12,770.25 13,535.69 13,448.21 Source: City of Napa Request for Information, January 23, 2019. Emergency Preparedness To address outages during a supply interruption, the City has developed an Emergency Response Plan (ERP). Given that the City has three separate supply sources, which are supplied via three treatment plants, there is depth in the supply sources to allow for backup supply in case of outages in one of the three systems. Two of the three water treatment plants can produce 20 mgd, have auxiliary power supplies, their own water sources, and redundant CHAPTER 6: CITY OF NAPA 168 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR systems for backup purposes. The plants are separated by more than 20 miles, lessening the likelihood of impacts on both plants at the same time. Should the City lose all of its sources at once, the system’s tank storage of 33 mg can help the City weather the emergency. Additionally, in an extreme emergency, the City is able to deliver raw water to town from both Lake Hennessey and Milliken Reservoir. That allows the City to provide water for fire protection even if the pipelines have numerous leaks. The raw water would also be available for human consumption as long it was boiled or treated with iodine. With some events, it could be necessary for the City to use an emergency source of supply to maintain system pressure. The City has intertie connections with the Cities of American Canyon, St. Helena, and Calistoga, and the Town of Yountville. American Canyon would be capable of supplying Napa with approximately 4 mgd for a limited time. To address supply shortages as a result of drought conditions, or other conditions that may require use reduction regulations, the City has developed a Water Shortage Contingency Plan and Moderate and Severe Water Shortage Regulations contained in Napa Municipal Code Chapters 13.10 and 13.12. These regulations were enacted during the drought between June 2015 and May 2016, when the State required a 20 percent reduction in total water consumption compared to those months in 2013. Through public outreach and implementation of its updated Moderate Water Shortage Regulations, the City beat its target. Some months even saw savings of 30 percent or more, and the Napa community achieved 25 percent savings for the overall 12-month period. Largely through reductions in lawn irrigation, the City of Napa demonstrated the large savings potential that is available in the event of a local supply shortage. Water Demand The City’s water system served 25,841 municipal connections in 2018.348 The breakdown by customer type is shown in Figure 6-8. Figure 6-8: Water Connections by Customer Type (2018) City of Napa Water Connections in Service Area Connection Type Potable Water Single-family Residential 21,777 Multi-family Residential 1,178 Commercial/Institutional 1,658 Industrial 0 Landscape Irrigation 489 Agricultural Irrigation 28 Other (includes Fire Services) 711 Total 25,841 Source: City of Napa, Annual Report to the Drinking Water Program for the Year Ending December 31, 2018 Approximately 89 percent of the City’s water accounts are single-family or multi-family residential. Commercial and institutional customers are primarily confined to the downtown 348 City of Napa, Large Water System Annual Report to the Drinking Water Program for Year Ending December 31, 2018. CHAPTER 6: CITY OF NAPA 169 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR area and shopping complexes along several major streets. The City does serve 28 agricultural accounts outside City limits, primarily located along the Conn Transmission Main. By agreement, these are interruptible services that can be cut off during extreme water supply shortages.349 All of the City’s customers are metered, with the exception of fire services. Since 2018, separate fire services include tattle meters to ensure accounting and reduction of non- revenue water. The 2015, 2016, 2017, and 2018 demand for potable water in the City’s water service area is shown in Figure 6-9. Exports to Calistoga and American Canyon are excluded, as the City simply treats and delivers those agencies’ own SWP supplies. Figure 6-9: Demand for Potable Water by Customer Type (acre-feet) Demand for Potable Water Level of Treatment When User Type Delivered 2015 2016 2017 2018 Single-Family Residential Drinking Water 5,462 5,450 5,934 6,048 Multi-Family Residential Drinking Water 1,600 1,615 1,667 1,672 Commercial/Institutional/ Governmental Drinking Water 2,669 2,762 2,898 3,051 Landscape Drinking Water 739 648 709 773 Agricultural Irrigation Drinking Water 195 218 135 130 Sales/Transfers/Exchanges to other agencies Drinking Water 582 586 620 679 Other Miscellaneous Drinking Water 29 29 31 31 Losses (Real and Apparent) Drinking Water 758 878 1,147 643 TOTAL 12,034 12,186 13,141 13,027 Source: Adapted from 2015 Urban Water Management Plan, p. 4-3, Table 4-1 and City of Napa Annual Reports to the Drinking Water Program for 2016, 2017, 2018. Population is a key factor in determining water use; however, reductions in per capita water use over the last decade have offset gradual population increases. Although the City of Napa service area population has been slowly rising, total water use declined dramatically through 2015 as a result of conservation efforts and the statewide mandatory urban water use reductions during the drought. Use in 2015 represents the lowest annual demand on the system since the 1987-1992 drought, when population served was 15,000 fewer and extensive hotel development had yet to occur. The moderate increase in total water demand since 2015 is driven largely by a “drought rebound” effect with resumption in landscape irrigation in the single-family residential and commercial sectors. The City’s detailed demand projections for potable water through 2035 are shown in Figure 6-10 and summarized in Figure 6-11 as compared to the projected water supply during a normal year. Residential demand represents approximately 62 percent of the City’s anticipated total water demand. As anticipated, residential demand increases somewhat from 2015 levels, but it is not anticipated that demand will return to historical peak levels. 349 City of Napa Urban Water Management Plan, 2015, p. 3-6. CHAPTER 6: CITY OF NAPA 170 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR Figure 6-11 compares demand projections and available water supply projections in an average year. The City’s raw water sources are projected to have a combined 31,778 af available in an average year, with NapaSan recycled water supplies/demands increasing over the period. Recycled water supply volume for users in the City service area is equivalent to demand. Figure 6-10: Projected Demand for Potable Water, acre-feet Projected Demand for Potable Water Use Type 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 Single-Family Residential 6,405 6,556 6,720 6,906 NR Multi-Family Residential 1,876 2,122 2,378 2,645 NR Commercial 2,970 3,108 3,254 3,412 NR Institutional/Governmental 177 180 185 191 NR Landscape 755 773 792 814 NR Agricultural Irrigation 300 300 300 300 NR Sales/Transfers/Exchanges to other agencies 600 600 600 600 NR Other- Miscellaneous 36 37 38 39 NR Losses (Real and Apparent) 1,070 1,040 789 534 NR Total 14,189 14,716 15,056 15,441 NR Note: NR = Not reported. Source: City of Napa 2015 Urban Water Management Plan, p. 4-6, Table 4-2. Figure 6-11: Projected Water Supply and Demand During a Normal Year, acre-feet Demand/Supply Projections 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 Potable Water Demand 14,189 14,716 15,056 15,441 NR Recycled Water Demand 650 855 1,095 1,095 NR PROJECTED WATER DEMAND 14,839 15,571 16,151 16,536 NR SWP "Table A" Water350 13,578 13,578 13,578 13,578 NR Lake Hennessey 17,500 17,500 17,500 17,500 NR Milliken Reservoir 700 700 700 700 NR Subtotal Stored/Imported Water 31,778 31,778 31,778 31,778 NR Napa Sanitation District Recycled Water 650 855 1,095 1,095 NR Subtotal Recycled Water 650 855 1,095 1,095 NR PROJECTED WATER SUPPLY 32,428 32,633 32,873 32,873 NR Note: NR = Not reported. Source: Adapted from 2015 Urban Water Management Plan, p. 4-8, Table 4-3; p. 6-16, Table 6-9 According to the City’s 2015 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), the City’s combined projected water supplies are sufficient to meet projected demands during normal water year conditions as can be seen from Figure 6-11. Under single-dry year conditions, the supply is generally sufficient until sometime after 2035 when total demand is nearly 350 SWP supplies are 62 percent of Table A, with no Carryover, Article 21, or North of Delta allocation bonus assumed. CHAPTER 6: CITY OF NAPA 171 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR equivalent to the volume available in a single-dry year (52 percent of average supply). However, it should be noted that the City has conservatively estimated available SWP supply in that they assume no Carryover, Article 21, North of Delta Allocation bonus, or any of the other supplemental SWP categories.351 Water Infrastructure and Facilities The City receives SWP water through the NBA. Surface water at Lake Hennessey and Milliken Reservoir provide the City a storage capacity of 31,000 and 1,390 acre-feet respectively. Three local treatment plants with a total capacity of 44 mgd treat the surface and SWP water. The City delivers all treated water through an extensive system of 360 miles of transmission and distribution pipelines. Treatment and Transmission All SWP raw water delivered to the City is processed at the Edward I. Barwick Jamieson Canyon Water Treatment Plant (WTP). The plant was originally constructed in 1968. In 2011, the City completed $42 million in improvements, which increased plant treatment capacity to 20 mgd. This facility now includes pre- and intermediate-ozonation along with more conventional surface water treatment steps such as rapid mixing, flocculation, sedimentation with tube settlers, gravity filtration, and disinfection. Treated water is stored in a 5.0-million gallon clearwell tank on site. The Jamieson Transmission Line delivers the potable water to the City. It consists of a 42-inch diameter line that runs parallel to Jamieson Canyon Road to State Route 29, which then splits into 36-inch and 24-inch lines near the intersection of State Routes 29 and 221 as it joins the rest of the distribution system. Raw water from Lake Hennessey flows into a cylindrical concrete intake tower and is pumped up to the Hennessey WTP. Hennessey WTP began operation in 1981 and has a nominal treatment capacity of 20 mgd. The facility provides complete conventional treatment, including flash mixing, coagulation, flocculation, sedimentation, filtration, and disinfection. Treated water from the plant is conveyed into a buried 5.0-million gallon concrete clearwell tank on site. This treated water is delivered to the distribution system through the 36-inch diameter Conn Transmission Main. The Conn Line is approximately 20 miles long and runs parallel to Conn Creek, State Route 128, and State Route 29. It travels along easements and rights-of-way before meeting the Jamieson Line in northwest Napa. Raw water is currently not taken directly from the Milliken Reservoir, but is instead released into Milliken Creek by a manually operated valve system at the base of the dam. About two miles downstream, a diversion dam directs water into a 16-inch diameter aboveground raw water line. That line then runs approximately one mile down to the Milliken WTP. This treatment facility was constructed in 1976 and has a treatment capacity of 4.0 mgd. It is a direct filtration plant with a contact/reaction tank and four horizontal, dual-media pressure filters operated in parallel. Treated water is stored in a 2.0-million gallon clearwell tank located above the treatment plant site. The treated water is delivered to the distribution system via the Milliken Transmission Line. Approximately three miles long, the line serves customers in the Silverado Resort/Hillcrest areas before its joins the main system at the intersection of Silverado Trail and Monticello Road. The City also holds a 351 City of Napa, Urban Water Management Plan, 2015, p. 7-3. CHAPTER 6: CITY OF NAPA 172 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR permit for direct diversion of 7.74 cubic feet per second (cfs) from Milliken Creek for the period of November through March. However, due to treatment plant limitations the water is unable to be treated in winter to meet water quality regulations and therefore currently cannot be served to meet customer demands. Storage The City owns and maintains 15 water storage facilities ranging in size from 10,000 gallons to 5 mg, which total 29.819 mg in potable water storage. The storage facilities are shown in Figure 6-12. There are nine distribution storage tanks in the system, one fire protection tank, two pressure tanks, and three clearwells. The distribution storage tanks and the clearwells are able to provide water to the system for domestic use. The fire protection tank is only used in the event of a fire. The oldest storage facilities date back to 1967; however, the five storage facilities installed in the 60s and 70s (with the exception of the Jamieson Canyon Wash Water facility) have been re-lined or coated in the last two decades. Figure 6-12: Potable Water Storage City of Napa Potable Water Storage Tank Name Capacity (mg) Year Installed Jamieson Canyon Finished 5.0 1967 “C” Tank 2.0 1967 Imola 5.0 2006 Lakeview 5.0 1999 Alta Heights #1 0.080 2007 Alta Heights #2 (Fire) 0.060 2007 Falcon Ridge 0.032 1991 Jamieson Canyon Wash Water 0.5 1967 Hennessey Finished 5.0 1980 Milliken Finished 2.0 1975 Milliken Wash Water 0.105 1975 “A” Tank (Alston Park #2) 4.0 2002 “B” Tank 1.0 1961 Hagen Oaks 0.032 1989 Silverado Highlands 0.01 1994 Total 29.819 Source: City of Napa, Annual Report to the Drinking Water Program for the Year Ending December 31, 2018 It was noted in the City’s 2005 MSR that there was a need for additional potable water storage capacity to meet existing and anticipated peak day demands. The City has since installed the 5-mg Imola tank, which addressed the concern expressed in the MSR. The City’s maximum day demand in 2018 was 19 mg.352 The storage facilities are more than sufficient to cover one day of maximum day demand. 352 City of Napa, Annual Report to the Drinking Water Program for the Year Ending December 31, 2018. CHAPTER 6: CITY OF NAPA 173 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR Distribution System The City’s distribution system is comprised of 11 pressure zones served by nine booster pump stations. Of the 360 miles of distribution pipeline, the vast majority is either cast iron (42 percent) or ductile iron (34 percent). The remainder of the system is a combination of asbestos cement (10 percent), steel (nine percent), plastic (four percent), and cement concrete (one percent). The distribution system is aging with approximately 60 percent of the system over 50 years old. California Waterworks Standards §64602, requires that the City maintain a minimum pressure of 20 psi at all service connections. With the exception of three services and one undeveloped parcel near the tank at Hagen Oaks, the existing system adequately meets the minimum pressure requirement and delivers maximum day and peak hour demands.353 Based on the City’s 2016 Permit Report, the overall system has sufficient capacity to meet four hours of peak hourly demand with source capacity, storage capacity, and/or emergency connections as required. Additionally, the City has adequate supplies in each pressure zone.354 The City has undertaken several significant improvement projects on the distribution system in recent years. In 2012, the City of Napa replaced a 7,400-foot section of water main on the west side of State Route 221 from Napa Valley College south to Kaiser Road, resulting in a major improvement in how water moves through the distribution system. In 2013, the City replaced several aged, leaking, and undersized freeway crossings with new mains to improve circulation within the water system. Three State Route 29 freeway crossings damaged during the 2014 South Napa Earthquake were replaced in 2019. Water loss, specifically the amount of water lost due to system breaks and leaks, as well as illegal connections, is a measure of the water system’s integrity. Water losses can include “real losses”, which are physical losses from the water distribution system and the supplier’s storage facilities, as well as “apparent losses”, which represent losses due to metering inaccuracies, data handling errors and/or unauthorized consumption. The City’s 2018 AWWA Water Audit shows that losses represented five percent of overall demand. The Infrastructure Leakage Index (ILI) was just 1.02, the ratio of real losses to unavoidable real losses. Both measures were historically on the low side for the city system, which has ranged up to nine percent loss and 2.14 ILI. Breaks and leaks in the mains and service connections account for some of the loss experienced in the system. The City experienced an aberrant 272355 main breaks in 2014 due to the South Napa Earthquake. Recent years have been more typical, with 66 main breaks in 2015, 56 in 2016, 54 in 2017, and 47 in 2018, which averages to 56 main breaks annually and 16 breaks per 100 miles of main. This is lower than the national average of between 21 and 27 breaks per 100 miles of pipe per year.356 Over the 2015-2018 period, the City experienced a slight decline in main breaks. 353 City of Napa, Permit Report 2016, p. 64. 354 City of Napa, Permit Report 2016, p. 63. 355 233 related to Earthquake and remainder primarily due to corrosion. 356 WaterRF, Knowledge Portals, 2017. CHAPTER 6: CITY OF NAPA 174 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR Shared Facilities The City shares interconnections with Calistoga, St. Helena, American Canyon, Yountville, and the California Veterans Home. In conjunction with the cities of St. Helena and Calistoga, City of Napa is looking for grant funding to make improvements to the Dwyer booster pump station in order to ensure reliable and adequate pressure for fire protection purposes. In addition, the City is monitoring regulations currently under study to define requirements for direct potable reuse (DPR). The regulations are likely to be finalized within five to 10 years. The proximity of NapaSan’s SWRF to the Barwick Jamieson treatment plant shows great potential for DPR, subject to capital improvements including a pump station and added treatment trains.357 Infrastructure Needs The City plans for its infrastructure needs in its annual CIP, which is updated each year as part of the budget process. The Water Division also developed a 20-year Master Plan in 2010 to identify system needs including routine testing, inspections, maintenance, and renewal and replacement requirements. Long-term capital plans include upgrades to the Hennessey WTP. Modifications to the Lake Hennessey spillway will be constructed to accommodate the maximum probable flood. The City is considering modifications to the Milliken WTP so that Milliken Reservoir could be used as a source year-round. The City continues to monitor and assess the increasing trend of the price of water supply and the decreasing trend in the cost and technical capabilities of packaged treatment plants for consideration of this added increment of water supply. The City continues to review possible additional water supply sources. The City of Napa participated in a feasibility study for a water supply reservoir under consideration by the South Sutter Water District. The Garden Bar Water and Power Project would consist of a new dam and reservoir project located on the Bear River. If approved and implemented, the project would provide substantial water supply and hydroelectric power generation benefits. This Garden Bar Reservoir project has been the subject of several feasibility studies since the 1970’s. The City of Napa could be in a position to purchase a share of the newly- created non-SWP water supply resulting from the completion of the project. This is one potential source of water that could fill the pipe in years of low SWP allocations; however, as of 2019 the project was on hold. The City is scheduled to develop a Capital Improvement Master Plan and corresponding Financing Plan in 2021. This document will inform the cost of service study associated with the rate setting process in 2022 as required every five years. Near-term needs are addressed in the annual CIP through planned improvements or modifications for 2019-2020 and continued projects into subsequent years, which include the following: v Reconstruct water facilities destroyed during the October 2017 Atlas Fire: 357 City of Napa, Urban Water Management Plan, 2015, p. 6-14. CHAPTER 6: CITY OF NAPA 175 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR - Completed the replacement of storage sheds at Milliken Dam and Milliken Treatment Plant - Begin replacement of the Hillcrest Pump Station; - Begin replacement of the Silverado Highlands Pump Station; - Begin burial of the above ground raw water pipeline to the Milliken Treatment Plant; - Begin replacement of appurtenant facilities to the Milliken Treatment Plant that include raw water pipeline access walkways and instrumentation. v Complete replacement of an existing pressure tank for Alta Heights II. v Planned distribution improvements as part of City-sponsored CIP and development, consisting of installation of 5,300 feet of main and one remaining freeway crossings to benefit the flow of the City’s system and installation of 2,150 of main to serve new development, as well as completing lining of 6,700 feet of pipeline and main. v Continue updating the City’s hydraulic model. v Continue SCADA system enhancements. v Install a bypass around the Barwick Jamieson clearwell to facilitate installation of a mixer/aerator in the clearwell. v Continue rehabilitation or replacement of valves along the City’s Jamieson transmission main. v Meter Testing and Replacement Program to replace aging meters in the system. v Automated Meter Reading – completed installation of radio read heads on all meters to avoid time consuming manual reads. Install fixed network locations after new utility billing software is installed. v Continue GPS surveying of existing water infrastructure. v Continue population of the geodatabase for water specific assets in conjunction with the work order and asset management program implementation. v Continue implementation of a Workorder Asset Management Program within treatment facilities and distribution system. v Complete spot repairs of the Hennessey spillway. v Replace and increase capacity in the Falcon Ridge storage tank. Water Quality The State Water Resources Control Board Division of Drinking Water (DDW) implements the Safe Drinking Water Act in California. DDW requires public water systems to perform routine monitoring for regulated contaminants. To meet water quality standards and comply with regulations, a water system with a contaminant exceeding a maximum contaminant limit (MCL) must notify the public and remove the source from service or initiate a process and schedule to install treatment for removing the contaminant. Health violations occur when the contaminant amount exceeds the safety standard (MCL) or when CHAPTER 6: CITY OF NAPA 176 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR water is not treated properly. In California, compliance is usually determined at the wellhead or the surface water intake. Monitoring violations involve failure to conduct or to report in a timely fashion the results of required monitoring. Source Water Lake Hennessey watershed activities include rural residential land uses, agriculture, raising of livestock, and fishing. The lake is subject to sewage hazards such as overflows and accidental discharges of treated or untreated wastewater from the Pacific Union College Wastewater Treatment Plant located in Angwin, adjacent to Conn Creek. Historically, the facility has had few overflow incidents. Septic systems located throughout the watershed are generally not adjacent to tributaries and are not considered to be a significant potential contaminant source. While the risk level associated with these potential contaminant sources as described appears to be moderate, they comprise the most significant potential sources of contaminants in the Lake Hennessey watershed, which are the Pacific Union College Wastewater Treatment Plant, older septic tank systems, vineyards, spills of hazardous materials along Highway 128 near the lake, wildfires, and associated erosion around Lake Hennessey. Additionally, there are various species of algae in Lake Hennessey that have been problematic to the system’s water quality, i.e., taste and odors, total trihalomethanes (TTHMs) and haloacetic acids (HAA5). To reduce organic loading to the treatment facility, the City has a program for applying sodium carbonate peroxyhydrate (PAKTM27) into the lake.358 The City and County have commissioned a joint study to develop a Watershed Analysis Risk Management Framework (WARMF) model to understand potential effects of land use in the watershed. In 2019, the joint study has started a sampling and analysis program to understand water quality in tributaries throughout the Hennessey and Milliken watersheds. Results of the initial three-year study will be used to populate the WARMF model and better understand water quality throughout the watershed that contributes to the drinking water reservoir. At Milliken Reservoir, the most significant potential sources of contaminants in the Milliken watershed are cattle grazing, wild animals, wildfires, and erosion from the City’s maintenance roads around Milliken Reservoir. The State Water Project water is transported from Barker Slough via the North Bay Aqueduct. The source is considered to be vulnerable to cattle and sheep grazing activities in the watershed associated with turbidity, total organic carbon, and coliform bacteria detected in the water supply. Fencing, wells to provide livestock water, watering troughs, and irrigation pipe were installed to exclude cattle from Barker Slough upstream of Campbell Lake. Frequent water quality monitoring is performed on Barker Slough. Treated Water Quality of treated water can be evaluated according to several measures. For the purposes of this report, the following indicators are used: the number of violations as reported by the EPA since 2008 and the number of days in full compliance with Primary Drinking Water Regulations in 2018. 358 City of Napa, Permit Report 2016, p. 6. CHAPTER 6: CITY OF NAPA 177 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR According to the EPA report the City had one health-based violation in 2013, four in 2015, and one in 2016, all for exceeding the total allowed amount of total trihalomethanes (TTHMs), which is primarily related to disinfection byproducts. The City optimized its water treatment process to reduce natural organic materials, expedited its annual unidirectional hydrant flushing program, and installed new mixing and aeration systems in distribution system storage tanks. Reportedly, these corrective actions resulted in water quality improvements, and the City has had no health violations since 2016. In 2018, the City was in compliance with primary drinking water regulations 100 percent of the time, with no violations. By comparison, the industry standard for compliance with Primary Drinking Water Regulations is 99 percent (361 days) of the year. CHAPTER 6: CITY OF NAPA 178 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE OPTIONS Over the course of this review, several governance structure options were identified with respect to the City of Napa and its water services, including possible service structure modifications, territorial changes, and reorganizations with other agencies. The feasibility of each of these options is generally assessed here; however, more in-depth review would be required to refine specifics of process and structure should the affected agencies or LAFCO choose to move forward. Reorganization of Congress Valley Water District Given that the City of Napa provides almost all services to the customers within the Congress Valley Water District’s (CVWD’s) boundaries, which in essence is a “functional consolidation,” there is a potential to streamline the service structure by eliminating a level of administration. While there is no duplication of services offered, there is certainly a potential for greater efficiency of service structure and elimination of duplicative overhead costs, as the two separate agencies are not necessary to offer the current level of services. The potential for changing the service structure in the Congress Valley area was outlined in the First Amendment (2017) to CVWD’s Water Supply Contract with the City of Napa. The amendment required that CVWD, the City of Napa, the County of Napa, and LAFCO should convene no later than 2020 for the purpose of determining the appropriate long-term service arrangement for the Congress Valley community, including determining whether it would be appropriate for CVWD to initiate dissolution proceedings and transition formal service responsibility to the City of Napa. According to the agreement, the long-term service arrangement should be formalized no later than July 1, 2022. At present, the City provides 100 percent of the CVWD’s water supply and is responsible for the complete operation, maintenance, and eventual replacement of the distribution system, as well as the direct billing to CVWD customers. CVWD retains the ownership of the distribution system and collects a share of the property tax, which covers board expenses, and legal and financial services. The District is also able to offset a portion of the City’s rates for CVWD residents by paying the difference between the resident rates charged by the City and the non-resident rates charged to the connections outside of the city limits. The District maintains a part-time District Secretary to oversee all agency activities, including providing accounting services and coordinating service requests with the City of Napa. At present, CVWD does not have a plan to expand services offered. CVWD contends that it plays an important role in the provision of water to its landowners and that dissolution would not advance efficient service provision nor serve the best interest of its constituents based on 1)its authority to manage water in its boundaries thereby providing a voice for district landowners in water management issues, 2) its efforts to act as a responsible steward of its resources and exercising appropriate oversight over billing and financial operations in the best interest of residents, and 3) its efforts in actively identifying capital outlays beyond city-planned improvements. Following the release of this report, in August 2020, the Napa City Council directed staff to negotiate an agreement with CVWD for continued services similar to the existing service CHAPTER 6: CITY OF NAPA 179 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR structure. It is likely that this service structure will continue at least until the expiration of the negotiated contract. However, there continue to be several governance structure options available as CVWD moves forward with considering its long-term service arrangement, including the following: 1) Maintaining the status quo, 2) Expansion of the City’s SOI and annexation of the CVWD territory, 3) Formation of a subsidiary district of the City of Napa, 4) Transition to a county service area, and 5) Dissolution of CVWD and continued service by City of Napa. Status Quo One option is the continued existence of CVWD as it is currently operated and governed. This option assumes that the City of Napa is willing to continue offering water supply and operational services beyond the agreed upon contract expiration date of July 1, 2022. The City has not indicated if it would be willing to continue services in the long term without follow through on the terms of the First Amendment to the original agreement between the two agencies. However, this option does not address the issues that have compelled consideration of governance structure options for CVWD, including duplication of administration efforts and costs, as well as continued existence of a surplus governance layer with marginal utility. If CVWD desires to continue providing services as it is presently, it is recommended that it demonstrate its value added in a long-term plan for services. Expansion of the City’s SOI and Annexation of CVWD Territory Among the purposes of LAFCO is encouraging logical boundaries and promoting efficient delivery of services. Logical boundaries generally entail orderly organization of districts and cities with boundaries that encompass their respective service areas and do not create irregularities, such as islands or division of communities. Logical boundaries promote efficient delivery of services by eliminating overlap of boundaries and consequently minimizing the potential for duplication of services. Ideally, orderly development of local agencies streamlines service structure and reduces the need for multiple agencies providing similar services. In the case of CVWD, the City is immediately adjacent to the community in question. Based on LAFCO’s purpose, the ideal service structure would be an amendment to the City’s SOI to include the area already served by the City and a subsequent annexation of the territory in question. CVWD would then be dissolved. This option 1) meets the needs of the agency service agreement, 2) aligns with LAFCO’s aforementioned responsibilities by promoting logical boundaries and efficiency of services, 3) allows for continued service by a professional and well-managed agency, and 4) appropriately allows for the representation of CVWD residents on the City Council as the decision-making body affecting water services in the area. However, CVWD’s boundaries are located outside of the City’s Rural Urban Limit (RUL) making this option infeasible in the short term. While the territory could be included in the CHAPTER 6: CITY OF NAPA 180 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR City’s SOI, it is not annexable unless the RUL is amended by voter approval and the City completes the LAFCO annexation process, including a tax sharing agreement with the County. Consequently, it is determined that a sphere of influence change is not feasible in the short term as there is no potential for a correlating boundary change until the RUL is adjusted, which is part of a substantial process. Should the City decide to pursue this option, then it would need to conduct appropriate planning in its General Plan, work with the County to construct consensus, and apply to LAFCO to initiate the SOI change. Finally, the City would need to prepare a ballot measure to adjust the RUL to allow for annexation. Formation of a Subsidiary District A subsidiary district is a dependent district of a city, where the city council acts as the governing body of the district, and the finances of the district are accounted for separately to prevent the comingling of funds. Formation of a subsidiary district mirrors the benefits of the SOI amendment and annexation option discussed previously. It 1) meets the needs of the agency service agreement, 2) aligns with LAFCO’s aforementioned responsibilities by promoting logical boundaries and efficiency of services, and 3) allows for continued service by a professional and well-managed agency. This option does not, however, allow for the representation of CVWD residents on the City Council. Unfortunately, this option would require an involved process to meet State requirements for the formation of a subsidiary district. Government Code §57105 requires that 70 percent or more of the area of land within the subsidiary district be within the City and 70 percent or more of the number of registered voters who reside within the district must be within the City. In the case of CVWD, substantial City territory would first need to be annexed to the District in order to meet the 70 percent requirement, since presently the District is entirely outside of the City. An alternative may be to include the entirety of the City’s water service area within the boundaries of the district and then transition to the subsidiary district. In this case, the entirety of the District could be up to 26.29 square miles consisting of the entirety of the city limits (18.4 square miles) and up to 7.89 square miles outside of the city limits to meet the 70 percent requirement. In this scenario, the entire City water division would then be operated as a subsidiary district. This would allow for an organized structure for the 2,213 out of area service connections presently served by the City of Napa. But, once again, does not allow for the representation of out of area residents on the City Council. Formation of a County Service Area Another option may be changing the structure of CVWD to a county service area (CSA), which is a dependent special district of the County. The County Board of Supervisors would act as the governing body for the District and provide all the administration. This option assumes that the County would be willing to take on the responsibility for the District’s operations; however, the County has not yet indicated whether it would be agreeable to accepting this duty. CHAPTER 6: CITY OF NAPA 181 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR The benefits of this option include 1) continued existence of an entity that can contract with the City of Napa for services, if desired, 2) minimization of duplicative administrative costs as the County can capitalize on the administrative structure it already has in place, 3) residents can benefit from a professional entity with technical knowledge working on its behalf to ensure adequate services, and 4) elimination of a surplus governance layer with marginal utility. Conversely, the transition to a CSA would not fully maximize efficiency for the customers as they would continue to receive services through a network of two agencies. Additionally, while the administrative costs would be minimized, this option does not fully eliminate the duplication of administrative costs that would be experienced should CVWD be fully dissolved. Moreover, by the County Board of Supervisors acting as the governing body, the decision-making power would be removed from local trustees that represent the interests of the landowners within CVWD. Should CVWD, the City of Napa, and the County agree that this option best fits the needs of the residents of the community, then an application to LAFCO to transition to a CSA would be the next step. Additionally, the City and the County would need to determine if the service structure would continue to be appropriate and negotiate a new service agreement. Dissolution and Continued Service by City of Napa Given that City of Napa is providing all the core services within CVWD, dissolution of CVWD and continued services by the City of Napa is an option that would address duplicative administrative efforts on the part of both agencies. Because the Congress Valley area is entirely outside of the City’s Sphere of Influence and Rural Urban Limit, there is no potential for annexation of the territory in the foreseeable future. The inability of the City to annex the territory has posed a challenge in the past because based on former State law, the City would have lacked a legal basis for continuing provision of water service to district customers outside of the city limits. However, the California legislature has adopted a pilot program (Government Code 56133.5), under which LAFCO could authorize the City to extend its water service to the properties already receiving water service from CVWD through an outside service agreement. This pilot program expires January 1, 2021, unless it is extended through future legislation. As of the date of this report, a bill to extend the sunset date for another five years was introduced but tabled in order to address immediate needs resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic. It is assumed for the purposes of this report that Government Code 56133.5 will be extended once the State legislature is able to return to regular business. Should this code section expire, there does not appear to be a manner to make use of Government Code 56133 in its stead as no impending threat to the health and safety of the public exists and the area is not within the City’s SOI. When a district is dissolved, typically a “successor agency” is identified that annexes the territory and all assets and infrastructure are transferred from the dissolved agency to the successor agency. In this case, the only viable successor agency upon dissolution of CVWD is the City of Napa. This MSR finds that the City’s administrative controls, as well as public CHAPTER 6: CITY OF NAPA 182 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR water supplies and capacities, are adequate to meet current and projected demands under normal and multiple dry year conditions into the foreseeable future. However, the City is unable to annex the CVWD territory, which creates some not insurmountable barriers to finalizing the reorganization. First, there are 14 parcels within CVWD’s boundaries that are not yet connected to the distribution system. These parcels would have the ability to connect to the CVWD’s system if they so choose, should the District continue to exist. Upon the dissolution of CVWD, these parcels would no longer be guaranteed service, but would have to apply to the City under the requirements of Government Code 56133.5 allowing the extension of services outside of the city limits. LAFCO may consider preemptively approving City of Napa service to these parcels as a condition of the dissolution to ensure the properties are identified and safeguarded for potential future water services. Second, typically the former district’s property tax share is transferred to the successor agency following negotiations with the County. However, in this case, the City would not be annexing the territory and therefore tax sharing negotiations with the County would not be triggered. (CVWD receives 12.2 percent share of the Proposition 13 one percent property tax, which is budgeted to be $85,065 in FY18-19.) In general, the rates charged by the City are set to sufficiently cover the cost of providing services and additional property tax revenue would not be necessary; however, as mentioned, with its property tax share CVWD offsets a portion of the City’s rates for CVWD residents by paying the difference between the resident rates charged by the City and the non-resident rates charged to connections outside of the City limits totaling $13,089 in FY17-18 and allocated $30,000 in FY18-19. Ideally, in some manner, the tax funds would continue to provide this offset for the residents of CVWD and not be reapportioned to other agencies. It is recommended that the City and the County discuss a means to continue making use of this tax apportionment for the benefit of the current CVWD customers. Third, the dissolution of CVWD would eliminate a governing body with entirely local trustees that represent the interests of the landowners within CVWD. Additionally, those from outside the City limits are precluded from sitting on the City Council, which would be making decisions affecting water services in the area. All of the City’s outside service connections are similarly disenfranchised without the representation on the decision- making body. It is recommended in order to address this issue, that the City form a Water Commission or Advisory Committee to provide input to the City Council on which out of area customers may sit or for whom seats are reserved. One example of a Water Commission is in the City of Ventura; the Commission reviews and makes advisory recommendations regarding water rates, water resources infrastructure projects in the five-year capital improvement program, the integrated water resources management plan, water supply options, the Urban Water Management Plan approval process, a water dedication and in-lieu fee requirement, and other water resource issues. As part of the process for this scenario, all financial and physical assets of CVWD would likely be transferred to the City of Napa. The transfer of CVWD’s assets is accounted for in its agreement with the City as follows. “In consideration of the services provided by the City under the terms of this Agreement, no later than thirty (30) days prior to the termination of this Agreement, the District shall convey to the City title to all physical system assets of the CHAPTER 6: CITY OF NAPA 183 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR District.” Financial assets of CVWD consist of an estimated fund balance of $689,000 at the end of FY19. CVWD has no outstanding debt. The quantifiable benefits of this reorganization would be a savings of approximately $100,000 each year, which is presently allocated to CVWD administrative costs, including board expenses, legal, insurance and financial services. These services could likely be covered at little or no additional expense to the City of Napa and are likely already included in the rates that are charged to every connection. In order to comply with Government Code 56133.5 to approve new or extended services outside of a jurisdictional boundary, the Commission must come to determinations regarding the following: (1) The extension of service or services deficiency was identified and evaluated in a review of municipal services prepared pursuant to §56430. The extension of City of Napa services to provide direct water services as opposed to contract water services is identified and evaluated as part of this municipal service review. (2) The extension of service will not result in either (1) adverse impacts on open space or agricultural lands or (2) growth inducing impacts. This governance option does not propose changes in land use to open space or agricultural lands. For those parcels within CVWD’s boundaries that are not yet connected but may desire to do so at some point in the future, there is potential for growth as a result of offering water services in the area; however, these parcels already have access to the water services as they are within the boundaries of a water service provider and the change in organization will not create further potential for growth. (3) A sphere of influence change involving the affected territory and its affected agency is not feasible under this division or desirable based on the adopted policies of the commission. A sphere of influence change is not being proposed for this governance option. The area is located outside of the City’s Rural Urban Limit, which does not preclude the territory from being included in the City’s SOI but does prevent the annexation of the area in question unless the RUL is amended by voter approval and the City completes the LAFCO annexation process, including a tax sharing agreement with the County. Consequently, it is determined that a sphere of influence change is not feasible as there is no potential for a correlating boundary change. Beyond cost savings, other potential benefits of this reorganization consist of 1) streamlining and improving clarity of service structure for customers, 2) elimination of duplicative administration and governance services, and 3) provision of all services by a well-managed professional agency with full-time staff and extensive expertise and resources. There are drawbacks to the potential reorganization of City of Napa and CVWD, including 1) elimination of a governing body with entirely local trustees that represent the interests of CHAPTER 6: CITY OF NAPA 184 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR the landowners within CVWD and 2) the potential disenfranchisement of local customers. These drawbacks may be addressed by the formation of the recommended City Water Commission, which would be a means for local residents to provide input on water issues. It appears that this option may offer the most benefits to the Congress Valley community, and provide the most straightforward process, should the challenges specific to this reorganization be appropriately addressed. It is recommended that City of Napa, CVWD, and the County begin discussions regarding the possibility of moving forward with reorganization and the manner of addressing the challenges to this option. Expansion of Services to other Agencies There are several small water systems in Napa County which struggle to provide an adequate level of services. Smaller service providers in rural areas often must focus on day- to-day operations and do not have the staff capacity to conduct pre-planning and highly technical services. These agencies have expressed interest in either receiving support services or being fully taken over by a larger service provider. One such option is for the City of Napa to take on the role of a regional water purveyor by providing contract services to these small systems outside of its boundaries. Smaller wastewater service providers are facing challenges similar to the water service providers; however, City of Napa would likely only take on water services for the multi-service agencies, as it presently does not provide wastewater services. Separating the water and wastewater utility operations that are already offered together may result in a loss of efficiencies; however, provision of water services by the City of Napa may provide several benefits to interested agencies, including the following: 1. The provision of contract support services would allow for the flexibility in the manner and nature of services to be provided to allow for tailoring to the needs of the contracting agency, which could include the provision of specific or limited services or consist of all administration and operations. 2. Contracting to agencies for services outside of the city limits does not require LAFCO approval. 3. The contracting agency would continue to exist and maintain local control. 4. “Functional consolidation” would allow each agency to retain its identity while at the same time combining resources or specialty assets and improving efficiencies. 5. Contracting could result in a reduction in equipment needs and duplication of efforts. 6. Contracting for services would not face the labor concerns that may result from a “full consolidation.” 7. Customers of the contracting agency would receive a high level of services and broader expertise from a larger, professionally operated service provider. While certainly beneficial to the contract agencies, this structure would likely only involve the City of Napa taking on water services at multi-service agencies that may also desire wastewater delivery support services. In conjunction with this option, the opportunity for Napa Sanitation District (NapaSan) to similarly take on contract wastewater services at these agencies has also been recognized. The City of Napa and NapaSan could CHAPTER 6: CITY OF NAPA 185 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR work in conjunction to provide the appropriate level of support services for the utility functions of the interested agencies. An alternative option identified during this review is the potential for a countywide county water district that could provide support or take on both water and wastewater services for interested agencies. This governance structure option is discussed in more detail in the Overview chapter (Chapter 3) of this report. Countywide Water Agency There are several challenges to water and wastewater services around the County that could be potentially addressed by alternative governance structures: v Some County water resources not being used to the fullest extent possible, v A need for greater oversight of all jurisdictions providing water services in the County, v A need for support buying on the spot market, v Certain redundancies with several smaller systems around the County, which could be eliminated, v A need for occasional technical expertise and support, and v A lack of economies of scale in the smaller water and wastewater systems. Given these challenges, there may be a need for a single agency to conduct water supply management on a regional or countywide level, such as a county water agency and/or an agency to provide management and operational support to the smaller utility systems that could benefit from the consolidation of certain services (i.e., lab testing) or from fully transitioning to operations by a regional agency, such as a county water district or a sanitation district. The City of Napa has expressed an interest in a means to improve efficiency of water supply management in the County, as well as continued and enhanced resource sharing. This governance structure option may be a means towards accomplishing these objectives. As these options may affect all of the water and wastewater service providers reviewed here, these governance structure options are discussed and assessed in further detail in the Overview chapter (Chapter 3) of this report. Merger with Napa Sanitation District There have been at least three separate reviews over the last 20 years regarding the merits of reorganizing NapaSan. The first formal review was initiated by NapaSan in 1995 in response to a grand jury report. The review considered–among other items–two alternatives: 1) reorganizing the District as an independent special district with a directly elected board, or 2) merging with the City of Napa. This review–prepared by a NapaSan subcommittee in consultation with LAFCO, the City of Napa, and the County–produced a recommendation that was ultimately enacted through special legislation to increase the number of appointed board members of the existing sanitation district from three to five CHAPTER 6: CITY OF NAPA 186 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR with the two new seats belonging to members of the public—one new seat appointed by the City and the other new seat by the County. The second review was performed directly by the Commission as part of its inaugural municipal service review of NapaSan. This review determined that the current governance structure appropriately balances the interests of both the City and the County while allowing NapaSan to remain independent in matters affecting local land use decisions. The third review was performed as part of the 2014 Central County Region MSR. The review considered the transition to an independent sanitary district, functional consolidation with the City of Napa through contract, becoming a subsidiary district of or merger with the City of Napa, and transition into a County-dependent county service area. The study ultimately found that there was a debate about the potential for greater accountability with an independent district, unclear benefits to a functional consolidation with the City, and no cost savings associated with becoming another form of a dependent district. The study did not find significant advantages to reorganization of NapaSan in terms of cost efficiency, accountability, or governance. The current MSR assessment concurs with the previous analyses and adds that, in addition to a lack of identifiable benefits to a reorganization of NapaSan, there is also a lack of impetus for change. NapaSan is a well-managed agency that provides a high level of services as indicated in the MSR review and determinations for NapaSan. NapaSan is financially stable and continuously makes efforts to innovate and to improve efficiency. Additionally, there is no duplication of services, deficiency in service levels, nor inefficiency in the existing structure that requires repair. It is recommended that the district type, service structure, and governance structure remain unchanged. CHAPTER 6: CITY OF NAPA 187 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR RECOMMENDATIONS During the process of this review, the following recommendations are made to the City of Napa regarding its water service delivery. 1) All of the City’s outside service customers are at risk of disenfranchisement due to the lack of representation on the water service decision-making body (City Council). While customers outside the City have the ability to take part in Proposition 218 rate protests and provide comment on water service related items at the City Council meetings, they do not have the ability to vote for decision makers, thus their voice carries less weight. In order to address this issue, it is recommended that the City form a Water Commission or an Advisory Committee that would include out-of-area residents served by the City; this advisory body would provide input to the City Council on water service issues. One example of a Water Commission is in the City of Ventura; the Commission reviews and makes advisory recommendations regarding water rates, water resources infrastructure projects in the five-year capital improvement program, the integrated water resources management plan, water supply options, the Urban Water Management Plan approval process, a water dedication and in-lieu fee requirement, and other water resource issues. While other cities in Napa County have outside service connections, the City of Napa has by far the greatest number. Additionally, this issue is particularly relevant given the anticipated Congress Valley Water District dissolution, eliminating the District’s governing body and leaving the former district residents without representation regarding water services. 2) The City makes its water available for trucking through a filling station. At present, there are no limitations on who may make use of the water for trucking. In order to ensure that trucked water does not promote development and growth in unincorporated areas where water supply is not sustainable and which may adversely affect agricultural uses, it is recommended that approved uses and locations for trucking of water be defined in the City’s municipal code. The intent of this code is to supplement the equivalent recommended specificity in County code as the land use authority in unincorporated areas. 3) Both the Cities of Napa and St. Helena provide water services to the Rutherford Road area, which is outside both cities. It is recommended that the two cities, in coordination with the County as the land use authority in these areas, create a communication structure to ensure that duplicative services do not occur in other locations. 4) It is recommended that City of Napa, CVWD, and the County begin discussions regarding moving forward with dissolution of CVWD and extended services by the City of Napa. Discussion should focus on the manner of addressing the challenges to this reorganization option. 5) It has been Napa LAFCO’s practice to not include city-owned property within a city’s SOI pursuant to Government Code §56742, which is specific to noncontiguous territories. LAFCO may wish to consider including the noncontiguous city-owned properties in the City of Napa’s SOI during its next update, or if LAFCO wishes to continue the practice of excluding these properties from the City’s SOI, then it may consider clarifying its intent in its policies. CHAPTER 6: CITY OF NAPA 188 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR CITY OF NAPA DETERMINATIONS Growth and Population Projections v The City of Napa’s population, as of 2019, was approximately 79,490, with the water system serving a total population of 87,134. v City of Napa’s population increased by approximately 4.5 percent over the 10-year period since 2009. v Future development within the City is limited by the Rural Urban Limit (RUL). Most of the undeveloped area in the RUL has been built out. There are 24 territories that are within the RUL that have not yet been annexed into the City. Of the property available for development in the RUL, only a portion is considered suitable for development due to environmental constraints v LAFCO anticipates a continued steady increase in population over the period from 2019 to 2030 of 6.3 percent, with a projected population of 84,513 in 2030. The Location and Characteristics of Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities Within or Contiguous to the Agency’s SOI v According to Napa LAFCO’s definition of disadvantaged unincorporated communities (DUCs), there are currently no DUCs in Napa County. Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities and Adequacy of Public Services, Including Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies v The City’s water production has been well within its water supply capacity, even in dry years, indicating that the exiting water supply is adequate to meet City of Napa’s current needs. v Future supply capacity is generally sufficient until sometime after 2035 when total demand is nearly equivalent to the volume available in a single-dry year. However, the City has conservatively estimated available State Water Project (SWP) supply assuming no Carryover, Article 21, North of Delta Allocation bonus, or any of the other supplemental SWP categories. It is likely that the City’s water supply will be sufficient beyond 2035 for both normal and dry years, depending on the availability of the supplemental SWP supply. v The level of water services offered by the City were found to be more than adequate based on integrity of the water distribution system and compliance with drinking water requirements. The integrity of the City’s water distribution system is excellent as measured by the degree of annual water loss and the rate of main breaks and leaks per 100 miles of main. The City was in full compliance with Primary Drinking Water Regulations in 2018. While the City had six violations reported by the EPA since 2008; the City has adjusted its treatment mechanism and has had no violations since 2016. CHAPTER 6: CITY OF NAPA 189 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR v The City appropriately plans for its infrastructure needs in the Capital Improvement Plan and a 20-year Master Plan. No substantial or unplanned for water infrastructure needs were identified. v The City is scheduled to develop a Capital Improvement Master Plan and corresponding Financing Plan in 2021. This document will inform the cost of service study associated with the rate setting process in 2022. v Long-term capital plans include upgrades to the Hennessey WTP and modifications to the Lake Hennessey spillway will be constructed to accommodate the maximum probable flood. The City is considering modifications to the Milliken WTP so that Milliken Reservoir could be used as a source year-round. The City reviews possible additional water supply sources on a continual basis. Financial Ability of Agencies to Provide Services v The City of Napa has the ability to continue providing water services. Projected water operations shortfalls anticipated for FY17 through FY19 were more than offset by rate increases adopted during FY17. v The City allocates net revenues to a number of reserves for operations, capital and rate stabilization. Ending fund balances, net position and liquidity measures are all positive and indicate a stable position. v From FY17 to FY18 the value of net capital assets increased, indicating that investments were keeping pace with, or exceeding, depreciation. The City’s cost of service studies are the basis for rate adjustments that include capital facility needs. Status of, and Opportunities for, Shared Facilities v The City shares interconnections with Calistoga, St. Helena, American Canyon, Yountville, and the California Veterans Home. v City of Napa partners with the Napa Sanitation District to run a large recycling program for oils (Recycle More Program). The two agencies also benefit from a joint water conservation program and collaboration on pipeline projects. Also, NapaSan, the City of Napa, and Napa Recycling coordinate scheduled tours of the wastewater treatment plant, water treatment plant, and recycling facility for Napa area students. v In conjunction with the cities of St. Helena and Calistoga, City of Napa is looking for grant funding to make improvements to the Dwyer booster pump station in order to ensure reliable and adequate pressure for fire protection purposes. v In addition, the City is monitoring regulations currently under study to define requirements for direct potable reuse (DPR). The regulations are likely to be finalized within five to 10 years. The proximity of NapaSan’s Soscol WRF to the Barwick Jamieson treatment plant shows great potential for DPR, subject to capital improvements including a pump station and added treatment trains. v The City is open to further collaboration and resource sharing with regional municipal water purveyors as demonstrated by its participation in the Napa Valley Drought Contingency Plan. CHAPTER 6: CITY OF NAPA 190 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR Accountability for Community Service Needs, Including Governmental Structure and Operational Efficiencies v The City Council holds regular appropriately noticed meetings. Meetings are also broadcast live on the City’s website. v The City makes available most documents on its website, including minutes, agendas, and financial and planning reports. The City is compliant with the agenda-posting requirements outlined in AB 2257. v It is recommended that City of Napa, CVWD, and the County begin discussions regarding moving forward with dissolution of CVWD and extended services by the City of Napa. Discussion should focus on the manner of addressing the challenges to this reorganization option. v Both the Cities of Napa and St. Helena provide water services to the Rutherford Road area, which is outside both cities. It is recommended that the two cities, in coordination with the County as the land use authority in the area, create a communication structure to ensure that duplicative services do not occur elsewhere. v All of the City’s outside service customers are prone to disenfranchisement without representation on the water service decision-making body (City Council). It is recommended in order to address this issue, that the City form a Water Commission or Advisory Committee to provide input to the City Council, on which out of area customers may sit or for whom seats are reserved. Relationship with Regional Growth Goals and Policies v The City’s growth area is limited by the voter-approved Rural Urban Limit (RUL). This constraint on growth aligns with the County’s Agricultural Preserve policy. v The City of Napa and four other municipalities of Napa County participate in the Napa Valley Transportation Authority (NVTA), which functions as the region’s Congestion Management Agency and provides input to the Bay Area-wide Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s (MTC) 20-year Regional Transportation Plan. Plans applicable to City of Napa include Napa Countywide Pedestrian Plan, Vision 2040 Moving Napa Forward – A Countywide Transportation Plan, Countywide Bicycle Plan, SR 29 Gateway Corridor Implementation Plan, and Plan Bay Area. v The City of Napa provides outside water services to 2,213 connections. A majority of these connections were established prior to G.C. §56133 and are specifically exempt. The City has adopted policy limiting extension of services outside of the RUL in its Charter Section 180. There are no similar policies regarding extension of services outside the city limits but inside the RUL. v The City makes its potable water available for trucking through a filling station. There are no limitations on who may make use of the water for trucking. In order to ensure that trucked water does not promote development and growth in unincorporated areas where water supply is not sustainable and which may adversely affect agricultural uses, it is recommended that approved uses and locations for trucking of water be defined in the City’s municipal code to supplement the recommended CHAPTER 6: CITY OF NAPA 191 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR County policy on approved uses and locations of transported water as the land use authority CHAPTER 6: CITY OF NAPA 192 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR 7. CI TY O F ST. HEL ENA AGENCY OVERVIEW City of St. Helena Profile Contact Information Mark T. Prestwich, City Manager Contact: 1480 Main Street, St. Helena, https://www.cityofsthelena.org/ Address: CA 94574 Website: Phone: 707-968-2744 Email: MPrestwich@cityofsthelena.org Formation Information Date of Incorporated: 1876 General Law Incorporation: Reincorporated: 1889 City type: Governing Body 1 Mayor, 1 Vice-Mayor and 3 City Council Governing Body: Members: Council Members Length of 4 years Council Members, 2 years Election at large Manner of Selection: term: Mayor Vintage Hall Board Room at Second and fourth Tuesday at 6 Meetings Location: St. Helena High School Meeting date: p.m. Campus, 465 Main Street Mapping and Population Population GIS Date: December 2019 6,133 (2019): Purpose Enabling Empowered California Constitution XI All municipal services Legislation: Services: Municipal Services Law enforcement, fire protection and EMS, water, sewer, streets, parks, planning, Provided (directly library, community recreation, housing authority services (City of Napa), solid or by contract) waste (Upper Valley Disposal & Recycling) Area Served Size: 4.7 square miles (3,046 acres) Location: Central Napa County Most recent Current SOI: 4.6 square miles (2,951 acres) 2008 SOI update: Municipal Service Reviews 2017 Municipal Service Review and Sphere of Influence Update for the City of St. Helena Draft Report 2008 City of St. Helena Municipal Service Review Past MSRs: 2005 Comprehensive Sanitation and Wastewater Treatment Study 2004 Comprehensive Water Service Study 1988 City of St. Helena Municipal Service Review CHAPTER 7: CITY OF ST. HELENA 193 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR Boundaries The City of St. Helena is located in the upper Napa Valley and surrounded by agricultural areas. The boundaries include 4.7 square miles, as shown in Figure 7-1. There have been no city boundary reorganizations since 2010. Sphere of Influence The City’s sphere of influence (SOI) was last updated in 2008 and included the addition of 245 acres east of Silverado Trail and Howell Mountain Road, which had already been previously a part of the City’s boundary area but excluded from the SOI at the time of its establishment in 1974.359 The City’s current SOI is slightly smaller than its boundaries, as can be seen in the agency profile above. The SOI excludes the non-contiguous two parcels contained in the City’s jurisdiction and owned and used by the City near the Bell Canyon Reservoir, as shown in Figure 7-1. Typically, this would indicate LAFCO’s anticipation that these areas be detached from the City; however, it has been Napa LAFCO’s practice to not include city-owned property within a city’s SOI pursuant to Government Code §56742, which is specific to non- contiguous territories. LAFCO may wish to consider including the non-contiguous city- owned properties in the City of St. Helena’s SOI during its next update, or if LAFCO wishes to continue the practice of excluding these properties from the City’s SOI, then it may consider clarifying its intent in its policies. The next comprehensive MSR/SOI Update for the City is planned to be initiated in 2020. 359 Napa LAFCO Resolution 08-08. CHAPTER 7: CITY OF ST. HELENA 194 City of St. Helena Figure 7-1 Bell Reservior Angwin Legend City of St. Helena Jurisdictional Boundary City of St. Helena Sphere of Influence Deer Park H o w e ll M o u n ta in R Lo di La ne k R o a d o a d r a P r £¤ e e D 29 Conn Valley Road e u n e v A att r P P o pe Street ne Silverado Trail e La v e n u Mills A a n o r a d ne M La x ai h C C ra n e A v en u e W hite La ne del L a ne n £¤ nfa 29 Zi 0 0.225 0.45Miles Calistoga Lake Yolo Angwin Calistoga December 11, 2019 St. Helena Prepared by LAFCO Staff Sonoma St. Helena Yountville Sonoma Napa Solano LAFCO of Napa County 1030 Seminary Street, Suite B Napa, California 94559 American Marin Canyon http://www.napa.lafco.ca.gov City of St. Helena Figure 7-1a Bell Reservior Angwin Legend City of St. Helena Jurisdictional Boundary City of St. Helena Sphere of Influence City of St. Helena Urban Limit Line Deer Park H o w e ll M o u n ta in R Lo di La ne k R o a d o a d r a P r £¤ e e D 29 Conn Valley Road e u n e v A att r P P o pe Street ne Silverado Trail e La v e n u Mills A a n o r a d ne M La x ai h C C ra n e A v en u e W hite La ne del L a ne n £¤ nfa 29 Zi 0 0.225 0.45Miles Calistoga Lake Yolo Angwin Calistoga December 17, 2019 St. Helena Prepared by LAFCO Staff Sonoma St. Helena Yountville Sonoma Napa Solano LAFCO of Napa County 1030 Seminary Street, Suite B Napa, California 94559 American Marin Canyon http://www.napa.lafco.ca.gov NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR ACCOUNTABILITY AND GOVERNANCE The City of St. Helena is governed by a four-member Council and one Mayor, all elected at large to staggered four-year terms, with the exception of the Mayor who is elected to a two-year term .360 The Council meets on the second and fourth Tuesday of every month at 6:00 p.m. in the Vintage Hall Board Room at the St. Helena High School.361 Agendas and minutes are posted on the website dedicated to Council meetings. 362 Council meetings are broadcast live on the website.363 In 2016, the State Legislature enacted Assembly Bill 2257 (Government Code §54954.2) to update the Brown Act with new requirements governing the location, platform and methods by which an agenda must be accessible on the agency’s website for all meetings occurring on or after January 1, 2019. The City of St. Helena complies with the new agenda posting requirement. The City maintains a dedicated webpage with the required agenda information with the direct link to this webpage posted on the City Council page.364 Complaints received by the City regarding water services over the phone are monitored by the Department of Public Works Water Treatment Division. Phone numbers and email addresses of department officials are posted on the city website, but there is no online complaint form. A majority of the complaints received are related to taste and odor (T&O). St. Helena maintains an ongoing log of complaints.365 The City demonstrated accountability and transparency in its disclosure of information and cooperation with Napa LAFCO. The City responded to the questionnaires and cooperated with the document requests. GROWTH AND POPULATION PROJECTIONS According to the California Department of Finance (DOF), the City’s population as of 2019 was about 6,133. St. Helena’s population increased by approximately six percent in the last 10 years. The City reported in its General Plan that the existing land uses within the city limits largely correspond to the existing and proposed General Plan land use designations, which reflects the fact that St. Helena is a largely built-out city..366 St. Helena aims to control and limit development in order to contain development and preserve open space and agricultural lands in and adjacent to the City.367 To accomplish this goal, the City has adopted an Urban Limit Line, designated Urban Reserve Areas, and developed the Residential Growth Management System.368 360 https://www.cityofsthelena.org/bc-citycouncil 361 https://www.cityofsthelena.org/bc-citycouncil 362 https://sthelena.civicweb.net/Portal/MeetingTypeList.aspx 363 https://sthelena.civicweb.net/Portal/MeetingTypeList.aspx 364 https://www.cityofsthelena.org/bc-citycouncil 365 Napa County Grand Jury Report, Napa County Water Quality: It’s a Matter of Taste, June 14, 2019. 366 City of St. Helena, General Plan Update 2040, June 2019, p. 1-10. 367 City of St. Helena, General Plan Update 2040, June 2019, p. 2-3. 368 City of St. Helena, General Plan Update 2040, June 2019, p. 2-17. CHAPTER 7: CITY OF ST. HELENA 196 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR Land outside the Urban Limit Line, but inside the incorporated area, is designated for agricultural uses. Given the long-term nature of the General Plan and the potential for unforeseen circumstances, the Plan anticipates the potential need to expand the urban area by identifying Urban Reserve Areas. Urban Reserve Areas can be considered for urban development after urban sections within the Urban Limit Line are developed and if additional land is needed for urban uses. The Urban Reserve Areas, which are contiguous with the existing urban area, have been located to encourage measured growth and to ensure that further urban development will maintain the compact development pattern desired by the community. The Residential Growth Management System (GMS) limits the number of building permits available for residential growth each year. That limit, as of the time of the General Plan update in 2018 was nine residential units a year, with exceptions given for affordable housing, accessory dwelling units, and other similar circumstances.369 The current list of development applications at various stages of approval consists of six projects as shown in Figure 7-2. The St. Helena Estates project is proposed to consist of 56 townhomes, 12 single-family residences with secondary units, seven affordable housing units, and a winery with one residence and 12 worker housing units. The Farmstead at Long Meadow Ranch Lodging project is a proposed 65 room hotel. The St. Helena Lawn Tennis Club has been approved to develop a vacant portion of a parcel for a not-for-profit tennis club. The Downtown Restroom project will provide new public restrooms located at the parking lot of 1304 Oak Avenue. Jayden Properties, LLC has proposed the development of an additional residence at 2525 Madrona Avenue. The Hunter Residential Subdivision is the largest development under consideration by the City and is proposed to consist of 51 residential lots for single family residential development and one 3.13-acre parcel for a multi-family housing development. Figure 7-2: City of St. Helena Development Projects370 Project Name Description Status St. Helena Estates Pre-Application 567 Pope Street Review Complete Farmstead at Long Meadow Ranch 1000 Mills Lane Lodging Project Under Review 156 Main Street St. Helena Lawn Tennis Club Approved 1301 Money Way Downtown Restroom City Project Approved 2525 Madrona Avenue Parcel Map Approved Project 10-40 Hunter Residential Subdivision Under Review Source: https://www.cityofsthelena.org/projects The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) projects that the population of St. Helena will grow by 400 residents between 2015 and 2040. ABAG also projects that the total growth within the City between 2020 and 2030 will be 1.7 percent or about 0.2 percent a year on average. Based on these projections, the City’s population would increase from 6,133 in 2019 to approximately 6,250 in 2030. 369 City of St. Helena, General Plan Update 2040, June 2019, pp. 2-17, 2-19. 370 https://www.cityofsthelena.org/projects CHAPTER 7: CITY OF ST. HELENA 197 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR Napa LAFCO has developed its own population projections. To project future growth, LAFCO calculated the annual percentage change in population between 2012 and 2017 based on the DOF population estimates for these years.371 Population growth was then projected in five-year increments through 2030. According to LAFCO’s projections, the population of St. Helena in 2025 will be about 6,458 and approximately 6,728 in 2030. In the case of the City of St. Helena, the projections developed by LAFCO are significantly higher than the ones from ABAG. LAFCO projects that St. Helena will grow by 0.88 percent a year through 2030. With regard to potential development outside of the city limits under the land use authority of the County, St. Helena identified a concern regarding the project approval process within its municipal watershed, thus potentially impacting the City’s watershed health. The City proposes that the County of Napa establishes a policy to consult with and require joint jurisdiction approval in conjunction with a County permit if a proposed project, such as a vineyard conversion, is within another jurisdictions municipal watershed. Napa County indicated that it has concerns about this proposal. DISADVANTAGED UNINCORPORATED COMMUNITIES LAFCO is required to evaluate disadvantaged unincorporated communities as part of this service review, including the location and characteristics of any such communities. St. Helena is incorporated and does not serve any DUC in the unincorporated area. According to Napa LAFCO’s definition of DUCs, there are currently no disadvantaged unincorporated communities in Napa County. Based on the adopted policy, the Commission annually reviews Census Bureau American Community Survey data to determine if local and/or statewide median household income levels have changed.372 371 The change in population, especially unincorporated area, between 2017-2018 was significant due to the wildfires and loss of homes. Therefore, LAFCO used the timeframe from 2012 to 2017. 372 Napa Local Agency Formation Commission, Policy on Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities, 2018. CHAPTER 7: CITY OF ST. HELENA 198 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR FINANCIAL ABILITY TO PROVIDE SERVICES The City of St. Helena provides water and wastewater services as City enterprise (“business-type” activities). City departments provide administrative and overhead services to the water and wastewater enterprises, which in turn reimburse the City departments for those expenses. The enterprises are supported by rate revenues and charges; no property tax revenue accrues directly to the enterprises. The City requires that properties requiring City wastewater services annex to the St. Helena Municipal Sewer District No. 1, with boundaries the same as the City.373 However, there are no separate property tax allocations to the District, no special assessments or other property tax “overrides” above the basic one percent property tax, and the City’s CAFR and budgets do not reference the District. The City does receive an insignificant amount of additional property tax from a slightly higher tax rate within the Tax Rate Area receiving properties annexed to the District, but the annual amount is probably less than the applicant fees and City staff processing time required for a single annexation. Municipal Sewer District No. 1 appears to be a relic of previous circumstances and no longer provides a benefit to the City’s operations but instead creates an extra layer of unnecessary process. It is recommended that the District be eliminated, and its functions continued as part of the City’s Finance and Public Works Departments, similar to other cities. The City has indicated it agrees with this recommendation. Figure 7-3: Summary of Selected Financial Information, City of St. Helena Water Operations City of St. Helena Water Operations FY18-19 Water Budget Net $1,244,000 Operating Revenues $6,093,000 Operating Expenditures (exc. debt & CIP transfers) $4,849,000 Ending Fund Balance as % of Operating Revenues 59% Ending Fund Balance $3,597,000 Debt Service as a % of Operating Revenues 16.6% Total Debt Outstanding $10,594,000 Debt Service $1,009,000 Monthly Water Rates as a % of Household Income 1.4% Typical Monthly Rate $103 Median Household Income (2017) $85,663 Pension+OPEB Total Payments % of Revenues 1.5% Pension+OPEB Total Payments $90,000 Unfunded Pension Liability $1,693,000 373 Municipal Sewer District No. 1 is codified in Chapter 13.20 Section 040 of the City’s Municipal Code, where annexation fees are established. CHAPTER 7: CITY OF ST. HELENA 199 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR Figure 7-4: Summary of Selected Financial Information, City of St. Helena Wastewater Operations City of St. Helena Wastewater Operations FY18-19 Wastewater Budget Net $854,000 Operating Revenues $3,155,000 Operating Expenditures (exc. debt & CIP transfers) $2,301,000 Ending Fund Balance as % of Operating Revenues 23% Ending Fund Balance $728,000 Debt Service as a % of Operating Revenues 8.1% Total Debt Outstanding $2,651,000 Monthly Wastewater Rates as a % of Household Income 1.3% Typical Monthly Rate $91 Median Household Income (2017) $85,663 Pension+OPEB Total Payments % of Revenues 2.5% Pension+OPEB Total Payments $78,000 Unfunded Pension Liability $1,188,000 Unfunded OPEB Liability $0 2020-01-28 Balanced Budget For any agency, recurring operating deficits are a warning sign. In the short-term, reserves can backfill deficits and maintain services. However ongoing deficits eventually will deplete reserves. The City’s FY19 budget indicates that its water and wastewater “are beginning to stabilize after being financially stressed over the past few years.”374 At that time, the City anticipated that recently adopted rate increases would enable the utilities to meet debt covenants, fund capital projects and help achieve cash balance targets. More recently, the City has indicated that non-utility funding sources such as General Fund loans may be part of a funding plan for major utility improvements, for example wastewater plant upgrades.375 Recent City consultant analysis of infrastructure needs stated that “the extent of system needs were not considered in the current utility rate structure and likely exceeds the overall ability for City ratepayers to absorb these expenses… the scale and cost of needs demands the City consider other funding strategies including grants, project specific state/federal appropriations, private/public partnerships, etc.”376 374 City of St. Helena Operations & Capital Budget FY 2018/19, pg. 6. 375 See also discussion under St. Helena Wastewater Infrastructure and Facilities, Treatment Plan. 376 Report to the City Council, 30 Jul 2020. CHAPTER 7: CITY OF ST. HELENA 200 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR Water Services Water enterprise operating revenues exceed operating expenditures by $1.24 million after deducting the cost of services provided by other City departments (excluding debt service and transfers out for CIP). Wastewater Services Wastewater enterprise operating revenues exceed operating expenditures by $854,000 after deducting the cost of services provided by other City departments (excluding debt service and transfers out for CIP). Fund Balances, Reserves and Liquidity Fund balances and reserves should include adequate funds for short-term cash flow, liquidity, and to fund longer-term capital needs. As noted above in the “Balanced Budget” section, recent updates of required infrastructure costs recommend that the City consider “other funding strategies including grants, project specific state/federal appropriations, private/public partnerships, etc.”377 The City’s financial policies direct the Water and Wastewater Operating Fund balances and CIP funds to maintain at least 10-14 months (83%-106%) and 6-8 months (50-67%) of annual operating expenditures in cash, respectively.378 Water Services The City projects a $3.6 million, or 59 percent cash balance in the Water Fund for FY19.379 Adding a $316,000 impact fee balance and $963,000 Water CIP fund balance produces a combined balance equal to about 83 percent of operating expenditures (including administration and excluding transfers to Water CIP), which meets the minimum 83 percent target. Wastewater Services The City projects a $728,000, or 25 percent cash balance in the Wastewater Fund for FY19.380 Adding a $652,000 impact fee balance and $153,000 Wastewater fund balance produces a combined balance equal to about 60 percent of operating expenditures (including administration and excluding transfers to Wastewater CIP), which is above the minimum 50 percent target. Net Position An agency’s “Net Position” as reported in its CAFR represents the amount by which assets (e.g., cash, capital assets, other assets) exceed liabilities (e.g., debts, unfunded pension and OPEB liabilities, other liabilities). A positive Net Position provides an indicator of financial soundness over the long-term and ability to fund capital improvements. 377 Report to the City Council, 30 Jul 2020. 378 City of St. Helena Administrative Policy Finance, 2018-11-27, Item J. Fund Balance Levels, 6. Water and Wastewater. 379 City of St. Helena Operations & Capital Budget FY 2018/19, Water Fund (561) pg. 156 does not include balances in the CIP fund, impact fee fund, and bond proceeds. 380 City of St. Helena Operations & Capital Budget FY 2018/19, Wastewater Fund (571) pg. 176. CHAPTER 7: CITY OF ST. HELENA 201 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR The City’s utility funds both show positive total and unrestricted net positions. Water Services The Water Fund’s unrestricted net position represents $7.2 million of the Fund’s total $10.4 million at the end of FY18.381 Wastewater Services The Wastewater Fund’s unrestricted net position represents $2.9 million of the Fund’s total $7.1 million at the end of FY18.382 Rates and Charges Water and wastewater operations are primarily funded by service charges. Enterprises are allowed to establish charges sufficient to fund their cost of service. Rates typically are expected to not exceed 2-2.5 percent of household income, for each utility.383 St. Helena’s rates for water equal 1.4 percent of median household incomes, and typical City wastewater rates equal 1.3 percent of median household incomes, which are less than the rate thresholds noted above.384 The City collects water and wastewater connection impact fees to pay for system improvements required to serve new development.385 As noted above in the “Balanced Budget” section, recent City consultant analysis of infrastructure needs stated that “the extent of system needs were not considered in the current utility rate structure and likely exceeds the overall ability for City ratepayers to absorb these expenses.” 386 The City offers a low-income water and wastewater rate program providing 50 percent reductions in base rates. The maximum General Fund subsidy was $90,000 in FY18.387 Water Services Without water rate increases, the water utility fund faced the prospect of negative balances within two years.388 Following implementation of the 2016 rate study, the City Council revisited the rates and rate structures. The result of this subsequent study was adoption of new rates in November 2017 with implementation in December 2017.389 Wastewater Services The City adopted rates based on a rate study prepared in 2016.390 The study responded to a need to fund wastewater plan improvements needed to meet more stringent NPDES 381 City of St. Helena FY18 CAFR, Statement of Net Position, Proprietary Funds, pg. 21. 382 City of St. Helena FY18 CAFR, Statement of Net Position, Proprietary Funds, pg. 21. 383 Teodoro, et al, (2018) cite USEPA’s Financial Capability Guidebook (USEPA 1984) as original source for the use of personal income as a measure, although it was not applied to rates in the 1984 document. 384 Based on median household income of $85,663 according to the American Community Survey 2017, DP03, 5-Year estimates. See appendix for detailed estimate of typical household charges. 385 See the City of St. Helena Fee/Rate Schedule (note: filename indicates it was updated 7.1.2018). 386 Report to the City Council, 30 Jul 2020. 387 City of St. Helena Council Policy Low Income Water and Wastewater Subsidy, Reso. 2017-18, P-FI-0009. 388 City of St. Helena (2016) Water and Wastewater Study, Final, October 31, 2016, Hansford Economic Consulting, pg. 3. 389 City of St. Helena response to 9/11/19 financial data request. 390 City of St. Helena (2016) Water and Wastewater Study, Final, October 31, 2016, Hansford Economic Consulting. CHAPTER 7: CITY OF ST. HELENA 202 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR requirements, which the rate structure at the time did not collect revenues to pay for needed improvements and reduce costly fines. As noted above for water services, the City revisited the 2016 rates and implemented the rates in December 2017. Long-term Debt Excessive long-term debt incurs interest charges that consume financial resources that could otherwise fund needed services and capital improvements. Studies indicate that a majority of debt-paying water and wastewater agencies surveyed spent between 10 percent and 30 percent of their total operating revenues on debt service.391 The City’s debt service payments generally fall within or below this range. Water Services The City’s water services debt outstanding totals $10 million at the end of FY18.392 The Water Fund currently spends about 16.6 percent of revenues for debt service.393 Wastewater Services The City’s wastewater services debt outstanding totals $2.5 million at the end of FY18.394 The Wastewater Fund services spends about 8.1 percent of its total operating revenues for debt service.395 391 http://efc.web.unc.edu/2014/02/17/napshot-debt-service-as-percent-of-total-operating-revenues/ 392 City of St. Helena FY18 CAFR, Statement of Net Position, Proprietary Funds, pg. 21. 393 Appendix A, City of St. Helena Water Operations Fiscal Profile. 394 City of St. Helena FY18 CAFR, Statement of Net Position, Proprietary Funds, pg. 21. 395 Appendix A, City of St. Helena Water Operations Fiscal Profile. CHAPTER 7: CITY OF ST. HELENA 203 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR Pension and OPEB Liabilities Unfunded pension and OPEB liabilities present one of the most serious fiscal challenges facing many cities and districts. However, current costs and potential increases in St. Helena pension costs do not appear to be a significant adverse factor relative to its total budget. CalPERS projects the City’s largest plan’s required contributions towards its unfunded liability to increase by less than three percent through 2025, or about an additional $220,000. 396 The City planned to accelerate the reduction of its pension liability via a 15-year amortization schedule beginning in FY19-20.397 The commitment by the City Council to make additional contributions to emulate a 15-year amortization schedule, which was included in the FY20 Operating Budget, was memorialized via Resolution 2019-154 on December 10, 2019. The City’s financial report indicates that the City has no OPEB liabilities398 and is working towards pre-funding its retiree medical obligations.399 Water Services Unfunded pension liabilities allocated to the water system total $1.7 million;400 payments toward these liabilities total about 1.5 percent of total revenues.401 Wastewater Services Unfunded pension liabilities allocated to the wastewater system total $1.2 million;402 payments toward these liabilities total about 2 percent of total revenues.403 Capital Assets Capital assets must be adequately maintained and replaced over time and expanded as needed to accommodate future demand and respond to regulatory and technical changes. The City’s 5-Year CIP Summary shows major water and wastewater capital improvements through FY23. The City’s budget also displays expenditures towards current projects underway through FY18.404 Prior year expenditures towards completed projects are not shown in the budget. 396 CalPERS Actuarial Valuation as of June 30, 2017 for the City of St. Helena, Misc. Plan, Projected Employer Contributions, pg. 5. 397 City of St. Helena FY18 CAFR, Letter of Transmittal, pg. iv. 398 City of St. Helena FY18 CAFR, Letter of Transmittal, pg. iii 399 City of St. Helena FY18 CAFR, Letter of Transmittal, pg. iii 400 City of St. Helena FY18 CAFR, Statement of Net Position, Proprietary Funds, pg. 21. 401 City of St. Helena FY19 Budget, Water Enterprise Fund, pg. 158, 168. See also Appendix A, Town of St. Helena Water Operations Fiscal Profile. 402 City of St. Helena FY18 CAFR, Statement of Net Position, Proprietary Funds, pg. 21. 403 City of St. Helena Operations & Capital Budget FY 2018/19 FY19 Budget, Wastewater Enterprise Fund, pg. 178, 182. See also Appendix A, Town of St. Helena Wastewater Operations Fiscal Profile. 404 City of St. Helena Operations & Capital Budget FY 2018/19 FY19 Budget, pg. 196 (water system capital improvements) and pg. 205 (wastewater system capital improvements). CHAPTER 7: CITY OF ST. HELENA 204 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR Water Services The value of depreciable capital assets, after deducting depreciation, declined from FY17 to FY18.405 CIP water system expenditures for FY19 through FY23 appear to approximately equal annual depreciation of $770,000406 in addition to expenditures for planning and assessment projects. Wastewater Services The value of depreciable capital assets, after deducting depreciation, declined from FY17 to FY18.407 CIP wastewater system expenditures for FY19 through FY23 appear to substantially exceed annual depreciation of $530,000408 in addition to expenditures for planning and assessment projects. This is primarily due to the Wastewater Treatment Plant upgrades. Financial Planning and Reporting Achieving transparency and public accountability standards dictates that cities and agencies provide easily accessible and clear documentation of their activities, including financial information. Website – The City’s website includes descriptions of and access to current and past water and wastewater financial documents. Financial Policies – The City maintains financial policies accessible on its website.409 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) – The City prepares a CAFR in a timely manner with detailed information for each of its utilities. Capital Improvement Program – The City’s budget includes a 5-year CIP showing detailed cost estimates, funding sources, and timing of past and projected expenditures for planned projects.410 The CIP does not show recent expenditures for completed projects. Cost of Service/Rate Study – The City adopted water and wastewater rates based on a rate study prepared in 2016, which was revisited and revised in 2017.411 Financial Forecasts – The City prepares and updates a long-range financial forecast,412 however, it only forecasts General Fund revenues and expenditures and does not include utility finances. The City’s rate studies include long-range utility forecasts. Other Financial Planning – The City has completed a review of its General Fund using the League of California Cities diagnostic tools; however, these diagnostic indicators did not include the City’s utilities.413 405 City of St. Helena FY18 CAFR, Statement of Net Position, Proprietary Funds, pg. 21. 406 City of St. Helena FY18 CAFR, Statement of Net Position, Proprietary Funds, pg. 22. 407 City of St. Helena FY18 CAFR, Statement of Net Position, Proprietary Funds, pg. 21. 408 City of St. Helena FY18 CAFR, Statement of Net Position, Proprietary Funds, pg. 22. 409 http://www.ci.st-helena.ca.us/bc-citycouncil/page/council-adopted-policies 410 City of St. Helena Operations & Capital Budget FY 2018/19 FY19 Budget, pg. 196 (water system capital improvements) and pg. 205 (wastewater system capital improvements). 411 City of St. Helena (2016) Water and Wastewater Study, Final, October 31, 2016, Hansford Economic Consulting. 412 General Fund Long Range Financial Forecast, City of St. Helena, 2018-2028, Updated March 27, 2018. 413 California Municipal Financial Health Diagnostic Informational Report on the City of St. Helena, Report to the City Council Meeting of Dec. 12, 2017. CHAPTER 7: CITY OF ST. HELENA 205 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR WATER SERVICES The City of St. Helena conducts planning for its water services in its General Plan that was last updated in 2018. The City’s General Plan contains several policies related to water. These policies include: Land Use Element LU1.1 Require new development to occur within well-defined boundaries and be consistent with the ability to provide urban services. New development should mitigate infrastructure impacts by using sustainable, best management practices in green building and stormwater management and paying its share of development impact fees, while minimizing impacts on sewer, water, energy, and natural resources. LU1.2 Allow urban development to occur only within the Urban Limit Line. Consider an exception for on-site employee housing on Agricultural lands. Urban services, such as sewer, water, and storm drainage, will only be extended to development within the Urban Limit Line. LU1.5 Require new development to provide adequate infrastructure and urban services, including compliance with the policies and implementing actions affecting new development as set forth in the Public Facilities and Services Element. LU1.G Work with property owners and the Napa County Local Agency Formation Commission to study the benefits of annexing lands adjacent to the City of St. Helena, where the City owns and operates critical municipal infrastructure, including utility infrastructure, and/or provides municipal services, or where the provision of municipal services to replace wells and aging sceptic systems would improve public health. LU1.H In the event that unincorporated areas are annexed to the City, advocate for favorable tax-sharing agreements that ensure that the City receives the revenues necessary to support the municipal services and infrastructure required in those areas. LU5.6 Permit wineries and other agricultural-related industries to locate in the city if their location does not adversely impact surroundings, uses, or city services (water, traffic, etc.) or the quality and character of the community. LU6.1 Provide a wide range of high-quality public facilities, including parks, multi-use trails, schools, fire and police services, water and wastewater systems, and community centers. Public Facilities and Services Element PF1.1 Require that the approval of new development be contingent upon the ability of the City to provide water without exceeding the safe annual yield of its water supply system. PF1.2 Adopt and implement equitable water conservation measures for both residential and non-residential users so that the City can supply water within the safe yield of its water system. PF1.3 Prohibit water service to new customers outside the city limits unless a potential threat to health and safety can be demonstrated. CHAPTER 7: CITY OF ST. HELENA 206 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR PF1.4 Proactively reduce the City’s commitment to provide water to uses outside the city limits. PF1.5 Continue to implement and update as necessary the City’s Water Management Plan Ordinance and the City’s Ordinance containing the Water Use Efficiency Guidelines, along with other existing water conservation ordinances and measures. PF1.6 Aggressively promote adoption of “best practices” for reducing water usage in the existing housing stock through the City existing Ordinances and Water Conservation Plans. PF2.C Urban services such as sewer, water, and storm drainage will only be extended to development within the Urban Limit Line. Exceptions will be permitted when undue hardship can be demonstrated and when proposed improvements are not found to induce growth Additionally, the City plans for its water services in the Water Supply Plan (developed in 2010), Master Water Plan (2006) and the annually updated Capital Improvement Program (CIP). The City also participates in the Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (IRWMP). The City is encouraged to update its water service planning documents. Type and Extent of Services Services Provided The City of St. Helena provides potable water services to residential, commercial, institutional, industrial, and landscape irrigation customers within its service area. The City also provide non-potable water services to a few customers. Service Area The existing service area covers a large area inside and outside of the city limits. The network extends from Lodi Lane, two miles north of the City, to Niebaum Lane, in the unincorporated community of Rutherford, three miles south of the City.414 St. Helena currently provides water services to 361415 connections outside of its boundaries, all of which were connected before 2001 and therefore did not require prior LAFCO approval. Of these connections, 307 are residential and 54 are industrial, commercial and other. The City’s Municipal Code 13.04.050 (H) now precludes connections outside of the city limits except in the case of private fire service provision and to provide reclaimed water in accordance with city policies and procedures. Water customers who have contracts with the City for the service provision are typically commercial properties. These water agreements were put in place to limit the amount of water used by these commercial entities. If water use exceeds the contract amount, it results in higher rate charges for excess water. The amount of water used is monitored by city staff.416 Out-of-area service connections are shown in Figure 7-5. Additionally, the recent General Plan Update has precluded connections to the municipal water, sewer and storm drainage system outside of the City’s ULL (LU1.2). While there are 414 City of St. Helena, General Plan Update 2040, June 2019, p. 4-7. 415 City of St. Helena, Response Letter for the 2018-2019 Napa County Grand Jury Report “St. Helena: A Small Town with Big City Problems,” August 2019. 416 City of St. Helena, Response Letter for the 2018-2019 Napa County Grand Jury Report “St. Helena: A Small Town with Big City Problems,” August 2019. CHAPTER 7: CITY OF ST. HELENA 207 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR areas that are within the city limits but outside the ULL, these properties will not be eligible to connect to the City’s water system except when undue hardships can be demonstrated and when proposed improvements are not found to induce growth. Services to Other Agencies The City does not provide any water-related services to other agencies. CHAPTER 7: CITY OF ST. HELENA 208 City of St. Helena Figure 7-5 Bell Reservior H o w e ll M £¤ o u 29 n ta Lane R o a d in R o a Lodi a r k d P r ee D e n ue Conn Valley Road v A att r P Street A ve n ue Po pe Mills Lane a dr o n La ne S W p h ri i n te g S s u R l o p a h d ur M a C ran e A ven u e Chaix Zinfan del La ne Silverado Trail Legend City of St. Helena Jurisdictional Boundary Whitehall Lane £¤ 29 £¤ 128 City of St. Helena Sphere of Influence City of St. Helena Outside Water Connections 0 0.325 0.65Miles Calistoga Lake Yolo Angwin Calistoga December 31, 2019 St. Helena Prepared by LAFCO Staff Sonoma St. Helena Yountville Sonoma Napa Solano LAFCO of Napa County 1030 Seminary Street, Suite B Napa, California 94559 American Marin Canyon http://www.napa.lafco.ca.gov NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR Contracts for Services The City purchases significant water quantities from the City of Napa, having entered into a long-term water supply agreement for this purpose in September 2006. The delivery terms were materially revised in April 2009 (Amendment No. 1) and in November 2011 (Amendment No. 2). The initial term of the contract expires on December 31, 2035.417 Overlapping Service Providers There are no overlapping water service providers within the City of St. Helena; however, both the City of Napa and St. Helena provide water services to the Rutherford property (Beaulieu Vineyard), which is outside both cities. There is an opportunity for greater collaboration between the two cities to ensure that duplicative services to not occur in other locations. The City of St. Helena has indicated its support of greater collaboration between the two cities. Collaboration The City participates in the Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (IRWMP). The City also has a collaborative relationship with the City of Napa, from which St. Helena buys a portion of its water supply. The City additionally is participating in a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) among Napa County municipal water purveyors to develop a drought contingency plan. As part of this collaboration, participating agencies are evaluating opportunities for supplemental water supply and constraints of their current utility systems. Staffing The Water Treatment Division of the Public Works Department provides potable water to its customers. It is staffed by three licensed water treatment operators. This division is responsible for monthly, quarterly and annual monitoring of all water quality aspects of the system.418 The Water Distribution Division of the Public Works Department is responsible for the distribution portion of the City's water system, providing water to users at all times at pressures and quantities required. This division has one supervisor, one lead worker, and two maintenance workers that maintain all water distribution piping, and facilities within the system. The Water Distribution Division also performs all meter readings, provides customer service, responds to complaints and requests, and performs fire hydrant maintenance and water leak repairs.419 Water Supply The City of St. Helena provides potable water from three sources—Bell Canyon Reservoir, Stonebridge Wells, and water purchased from the City of Napa.420 Based on the City’s monthly 417 City of St. Helena, General Plan Update 2040, June 2019, p. 4-5. 418 https://www.cityofsthelena.org/publicworks/page/water 419 https://www.cityofsthelena.org/publicworks/page/water 420 https://www.cityofsthelena.org/publicworks/page/water CHAPTER 7: CITY OF ST. HELENA 210 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR water reports, roughly, about 50 percent of St. Helena water supply comes from Bell Canyon Reservoir, 20 percent from the Stonebridge Wells, and 30 percent from the City of Napa. The City’s water sources with the allotted amounts are shown in Figure 7-6. Figure 7-6: City of St. Helena Water Sources (acre-feet per year) Potable Water Supply by Source Source Normal Year Supply Dry Year Supply Bell Canyon Reservoir 1,000421 600422 Stonebridge Wells 450423 514424 City of Napa 600425 600 TOTAL 2,050 1,714 Source: City of St. Helena, General Plan Update 2040, 2019. City of St. Helena, Urban Water Management Plan, 2003. City of St. Helena, Water Supply Plan, 2010. In addition to the potable water service, the City provides non-potable water to RLS Middle School and Spring Mountain Vineyards and small areas near Pope Street, including Jacob Meily Park. The sources of non-potable water are Lower Reservoir on York Creek and a groundwater well. Bell Canyon Reservoir Bell Canyon Reservoir was formed in 1959 by the construction of Bell Canyon Dam on Bell Creek about two miles upstream of its confluence with the Napa River.426 Bell Canyon is an on-stream reservoir with a physical storage capacity of approximately 2,350 acre-feet (AF), of which the City has a storage right to 1,800 AF. This amount of water is physically available only when all hydrologic and hydraulic conditions are optimal for surface water diversions. In some years, lower amounts will be available due to low rainfall or rainfall occurring more episodically than continuously. Further, the amount that operationally can be withdrawn from storage in any year is less than the amount in true storage due to the need to carry significant storage over from one year to the next to augment total supply in dry years. At the same time, planned infrastructure improvements at Bell Canyon, including electronic equipment and related improvements that permit accurate monitoring of inflows and outflows in real time, could enhance the annual yield from the reservoir.427 In 2016, an activist group engaged in protecting fish habitats, Water Audit, filed a lawsuit against the City of St. Helena claiming that the City had historically diverted too much water from Bell Creek into Bell Canyon Reservoir thus endangering fish habitats. As part of the 421 Sustainable Yield of Bell Canyon Reservoir during Normal Year as estimated in the Water Supply Plan, 2010, p. 24. 422 Sustainable Yield of Bell Canyon Reservoir during Dry Year as estimated in the Water Supply Plan, 2010, p. 24. 423 Maximum capacity of the wells is 1,050; however, this is if operated continuously, which is not a best practice. Given that the City has noted declining groundwater levels, groundwater generally comprises just 20 percent of total water supplied in normal years. The Sustainable and Safe Yields of the wells is unknown. 424 City of St. Helena, Water Supply Plan, 2010, p. 26. 425 An additional 200 af may be purchased from City of Napa when available. 426 City of St. Helena, Bell Canyon Reservoir Watershed Sanitary Survey, February 2014, p. 2-1. 427 City of St. Helena, General Plan Update 2040, 2018, pp. 4-3, 4-4. CHAPTER 7: CITY OF ST. HELENA 211 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR lawsuit settlement, the City agreed to engage in further studies to ensure that it was complying with the bypass obligation in its State permit. Stonebridge Wells Another source of the City’s potable water supply is groundwater from the two Stonebridge Wells. The two wells have the ability to produce 1,050 AFY of potable water if both are operated continuously 24 hours per day for 365 days. The water from the wells is treated through a green sand pressure filter system at the small water treatment plant owned and operated by the City. The City typically operates both wells at the same time. A third well, also near the Napa River but just north of Pope Street, provides untreated water that is used for irrigation in Jacob Meily Park. The City routinely monitors the elevation of the aquifer in the area of the city wells. The spring and fall elevation levels have declined since Stonebridge Well No. 1 went into production in 1992. While the decline is disconcerting, the City is not able to assess the long- term significance without further study.428 In 2013, the City passed an ordinance preventing the drilling of wells to serve residential, commercial, and industrial uses within the city limits.429 When an application for an agricultural well is submitted, the applicant may be required to submit a study by the Public Works Director per SHMC 13.16.070 to determine the project’s actual effects on the groundwater system and provide for mitigation of any resulting negative impacts. City of Napa St. Helena maintains a connection to the City of Napa with a maximum capacity of 700 gallons per minute (gpm). This metered connection point is located in Rutherford and is known as the Rutherford connection. Under the most recent agreement update, Napa is required to deliver 600 AF of water per year to the City of St. Helena and the City is required to take and pay for 600 AF each year. The City has the option to purchase an additional 200 af of water from Napa (above the 600 AF) if Napa has the water available to sell.430 Water purchased from the City of Napa is more costly than water produced by the City from Bell Canyon or the city wells. In 2020, the annual cost of 600 AF was approximately $1.5 million. The price escalates at the rate of three percent per year (subject to some potential adjustment). At the same time, the reliability of Napa water (as Napa must deliver 600 AF in all years) provides much needed assurance that the City will receive significant water in drought years when relying mainly on water from Bell Canyon could be problematic and groundwater production would not otherwise be sufficient to avoid a serious or even extreme water shortage.431 The amount of water purchased from the City of Napa has been gradually increasing. 428 City of St. Helena, General Plan Update 2040, 2019, p. 4-5. 429 St. Helena Municipal Code, Chapter 13.16 Section 080 (B). 430 City of St. Helena, General Plan Update 2040, 2019, p. 4-5. 431 City of St. Helena, General Plan Update 2040, 2019, p. 4-5. CHAPTER 7: CITY OF ST. HELENA 212 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR Lower Creek Reservoir The City currently uses Lower Reservoir to supply non-potable water to Robert Louis Stevenson Middle School for irrigation of a portion of the playing fields, and to Spring Mountain Winery to serve a portion of their non-potable water demands. Additionally, the City makes the reservoir water available for trucking of non-potable water for irrigation and construction.432 In 2019, 11 customers pumped water from the reservoir via a pumping station at the middle school. Lower Creek Reservoir has the capacity of 161 af, of which 40 af must be retained in the reservoir. Annual metered water use for these customers is approximately 50 afy.433 Figure 7-7 shows the amount of water produced by the City from 2014 through 2018. Figure 7-7: Water Production (2014-2018), acre-feet Water Produced 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Groundwater 316.59 244 287.22 338.38 245.85 Surface Water 743.01 710.79 689.00 825.93 694.97 Purchased Water 540.00 582.60 559.73 616.57 653.04 Total Amount of Potable 1,569.60 1,537.51 1,535.92 1,780.88 1,593.87 Water Non-Potable Water NP NP NP NP NP Source: Annual Reports to the Drinking Water Program for 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, and 2018. Note: NP = Not provided Emergency Preparedness In case of emergency, the City of St. Helena has the ability to purchase additional water from the City of Napa, albeit depending on the availability. There are also new water sources that the City is considering adding in the near future to increase the reliability of supply especially in emergencies and dry years. These potential sources include recycled water and groundwater from the capped well on the Adams Street property. The Adams Street well may become a potential source of non-potable or potable (if treated) water. 434 The well underwent tests in 2011 and produces approximately 200 gallons per minute continuously. Recycled water is a potential new water supply source that is currently being considered by the City. However, the demand for recycled water is likely to be highest during the driest months when flows into the City’s Wastewater Treatment Plant are at their lowest. This means that under current conditions, recycled water could not be a meaningful factor in augmenting supply for non-potable use without the addition of substantial storage capacity. It would be necessary to provide recycled storage pumping and distribution facilities that 432 Municipal Code 13.04.080 B. Nontreated (Raw) Water from Lower Reservoir. City in its discretion may provide nontreated (raw) water from its lower reservoir to be used for grading, dust control, street, pipeline, or similar construction activities, as well as for irrigation. Nontreated (raw) water shall only be used within the St. Helena city limits, except for users of nontreated (raw) water pursuant to agreements with the city entered into prior to November 2016. A permit fee as established by council resolution is required for all persons utilizing nontreated (raw) water, unless otherwise stated under a separate water agreement. All persons utilizing nontreated water through the permit process are also required to pay the use fee as identified by council resolution. 433 City of St. Helena, Water Supply Plan, October 2010. 434 City of St. Helena, General Plan Update 2040, 2019, p. 4-3. CHAPTER 7: CITY OF ST. HELENA 213 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR include at a minimum 400 AF of storage. The City notes that it does not own land at a suitable location for such storage capacity and at this time the cost of purchasing land and constructing such storage may not be fiscally justifiable to water rate payers.435 Water Demand As of 2018, the City of St. Helena provided potable water services to 2,580 connections within the City and the surrounding area, including 2,135 single-family residential, 137 multi-family residential, 268 commercial, 19 industrial, 21 landscape irrigation, and 96 other types of connections (i.e., for fire suppression, street cleaning, construction, and line flushing).436 In 2018, the City of St. Helena delivered 519.801 mg or 1,595 af of water to its customers, which equates to 1.42 mgd average daily consumption.437 Total existing metered potable water demand averaged about 1,900 afy between 2000 and 2015 and has declined in recent years due to improved water use efficiency and short- term demand reductions. Meaningful savings have been observed in residential water consumption, which is also the largest category of user.438 General commercial and industrial (winery) usage, when added together, have also significantly declined in recent years, including in low rainfall years. Water demand for the years 2015 through 2018 is shown in Figure 7-8. Figure 7-8: Demand for Potable Water by Customer Type (acre-feet) Demand for Potable and Water User Type 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Single-Family Residential 597.76 588.06 551.08 643.80 641.74 Multi-Family Residential 158.36 147.08 143.42 179.78 182.42 Commercial/Institutional 330.66 302.65 292.60 307.34 287.71 Industrial 242.86 233.41 237.72 246.18 229.42 Landscape Irrigation 17.95 9.90 16.40 20.16 103.67 Other 69.89 84.18 0.57 0.55 3.33 TOTAL DEMAND 1,417.48 1,365.28 1,241.79 1,397.81 1,448.29 Source: Annual Reports to the Drinking Water Program for 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, and 2018. The City is largely developed and is not likely to grow outwards due to land use restrictions. The City has not developed up to date water demand projections but is in the process of updating the master utility plan, which will include demand projections. Consequently, for the purposes of this study, it is assumed that water demand will grow in 435 City of St. Helena, General Plan Update 2040, 2019, p. 4-10. 436 City of St. Helena, Annual Report to the Division of Drinking Water, 2018, p. 7. 437 City of St. Helena, Monthly Water Reports, 2018. 438 City of St. Helena, General Plan Update 2040, 2019, p. 4-7. CHAPTER 7: CITY OF ST. HELENA 214 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR conjunction with the projected population growth as identified by LAFCO through 2030. The City’s projected demand for potable water is depicted in Figure 7-9. Figure 7-9: Projected Demand for Potable Water (acre-feet) Projected Demand for Potable Water Use Type 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 Single-Family Residential 653.08 682.33 712.89 Unknown Unknown Multi-Family Residential 185.64 193.96 202.64 Unknown Unknown Commercial/Institutional 292.80 305.91 319.61 Unknown Unknown Industrial 233.48 243.93 254.85 Unknown Unknown Landscape Irrigation 105.50 110.23 115.16 Unknown Unknown Other 3.39 3.54 3.70 Unknown Unknown TOTAL POTABLE 1,473.89 1,539.89 1,608.85 Unknown Unknown Source: Based on LAFCO’s population growth projections of 0.88 percent annually through 2030 and 2018 water use. Demand/Supply Analysis Recently, City of Napa water supply has become an increasing percentage of St. Helena’s total supply. St. Helena is also seeking to reduce its withdrawal of groundwater in non- drought years, in order to give the aquifers in the area of the Stonebridge Well Complex an opportunity to recharge.439 Residential, commercial, and industrial customers have made great progress in recent years in reducing their water usage.440 However, experience has shown that the City has inadequate water to supply customer demand without imposition of water emergency restrictions in some years, which has led to the establishment of a “Safe Annual Yield” of the Water System. Often “safe yield” is thought of as the supply that can be reliably delivered under worst-case (drought) conditions. However, it was also apparent that under such an approach, the demand on the City’s water system, even at the reduced levels during recent drought years (2015-2017), exceeded the “safe annual yield.”441 The City established its own definition of “ safe annual yield,” as follows: “The safe annual yield of the St. Helena water supply system is that quantity of water which can be reliably delivered on an annual basis through most rainfall years, including a Dry Year, without undue hardship442 on water customers through water shortage restrictions.”443 It is recognized that the annual safe yield, as so defined, could place significant hardship on water customers in a Critically Dry Year (rainfall at 21.9” or less) or in periods of two or more consecutive Dry Years.444 439 City of St. Helena, General Plan Update 2040, 2019, p. 4-6. 440 City of St. Helena, General Plan Update 2040, 2018, p. 4-19. 441 City of St. Helena, General Plan Update 2040, 2019, p. 4-8. 442 The City defined “undue hardship” as “three or more consecutive months of Phase II water restrictions or Phase III water restrictions.” The water restriction phases are those as stated in a water emergency ordinance adopted by the City in the fall of 2011. 443 City of St. Helena, General Plan Update 2040, 2019, p. 4-9. 444 City of St. Helena, General Plan Update 2040, 2019, p. 4-9. CHAPTER 7: CITY OF ST. HELENA 215 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR In estimating the safe yield, it is assumed that groundwater withdrawals will not exceed 450 af in normal years (ideally withdrawals should be significantly less than 450 af). It assumes that the City will purchase 600 AF each year from the City of Napa, in accordance with its contractual commitment, as described above. The safe yield also takes into account the storage and bypass requirements that the City must follow at Bell Canyon. On the demand side, the estimated demand equals total water actually supplied (including water losses) averaged over the past five years.445 The annual safe yield would increase if the City were to acquire a significant new source of water supply. The annual safe yield could decrease if the City finds that it cannot sustainably withdraw water from the City production wells at current levels.446 The City needs to obtain new water supplies and/or achieve more water savings, even under current conditions in order to reliably meet the current and future water demand. At the same time, the City recognizes that any new water supply, even if forthcoming, is likely to be expensive, potentially increasing the unit cost of potable water. Thus, the main emphasis going forward will be on conservation, seeking to reduce demand by all classes of users.447 The City plans to assess the feasibility of production of reclaimed water as a potential water source. The City’s wastewater treatment upgrades will bring the treatment level up to tertiary water fit for reclaimed uses for irrigation and landscaping. After the plant is in place, the City will be conducting a feasibility study to determine those properties that would benefit from a recycled water system. Additionally, the City plans to identify the volume of reclaimed water that would be available on a regular basis during the dry season. Water Infrastructure and Facilities The City’s water infrastructure consists of the reservoirs, wells, the water treatment plant, distribution system, and storage facilities. Supply Infrastructure Bell Canyon Reservoir Bell Canyon Reservoir was built in 1959. The reservoir is owned and operated by the City and has a storage capacity of 2,350 af, of which the City has a storage right to 1,800 af.448 Water is conveyed by gravity from Bell Canyon Reservoir by a 24-inch diameter steel pipeline that travels 0.17 mile to where it ties into an 18-inch concrete lined steel pipeline. The 18-inch pipeline runs 0.32 miles and connects to the influent structure at the Louis Stralla Water Treatment Plant (WTP).449 The dam (National ID No. CA00149) is under the jurisdiction of the State of California. The dam is certified and considered to be in satisfactory condition by the State. The dam is considered a high-risk dam, as the downstream hazard is categorized as high, and is 445 City of St. Helena, General Plan Update 2040, 2019, p. 4-9. 446 City of St. Helena, General Plan Update 2040, 2019, p. 4-9. 447 City of St. Helena, General Plan Update 2040, 2019, p. 4-10. 448 City of St. Helena, General Plan Update 2040, 2018, pp. 4-3, 4-4. 449 City of St. Helena, Bell Canyon Reservoir Watershed Sanitary Survey, February 2014, p. 2-4. CHAPTER 7: CITY OF ST. HELENA 216 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR continuously being watched for leakage. The base of the dam is presently under review, and the City is in the design phase of replacing the intake tower. Lower Reservoir The City owns and operates the Lower Reservoir for non-potable irrigation and construction water requirement. Limited irrigation water is supplied by a single distribution pipeline along Spring Mountain Road. A connection for construction water is also available from this pipeline on Elmhurst Avenue. Lower Reservoir is an off-stream reservoir with a physical capacity of between 200 and 225 af. The City has a pre-1913 claim to store up to 160 af in this reservoir. However, the City has no facility to treat water from it. Currently, about 50 afy from the reservoir is used for irrigation.450 Stonebridge Wells The City owns a well field known as the Stonebridge Wells located near the end of Pope Street next to Wappo Park. The existing system includes three wells (two of which are active) and a filtration facility, including filtration tanks, chlorination facilities and a backwash return system.451 Well #1 was installed in 1992 with a rated capacity of 425 gpm. Well #2 was installed in 1996 with a rated capacity of 225 gpm. The City operates a filter system for iron and manganese removal for both active wells and provides chlorination prior to introduction of groundwater into the distribution system.452 Both wells are considered to be in good condition with minimal needs. A third well, also near the Napa River but just north of Pope Street, provides untreated water for irrigation. The City did not report the capacity of this well. Treatment Water from Bell Canyon Reservoir is treated at the Louis Stralla WTP. The WTP began operation in 1980 and was upgraded in 1995. The plant provides complete conventional treatment including chemical addition, flash-mixing, dual train flocculation and sedimentation, multi-media rapid sand filtration, and disinfection.453 The WTP is owned and operated by the City and was reported to be predominantly in good condition as it is well maintained but has certain infrastructure needs, in particular the roof is in need of replacement. The plant has a treatment capacity of 4.3 million gallons per day (mgd), but typically operates at 3.5 mgd.454 The WTP has sufficient capacity to treat the available water supply from Bell Canyon Reservoir. The City also owns and operates a small water treatment plant with green sand pressure filter system to treat groundwater for iron and manganese removal from the Stonebridge Wells prior to introduction into the City’s distribution system. The filter has two filter trains, 450 City of St. Helena, General Plan Update 2040, 2019, p. 4-4. 451 City of St. Helena, Water Master Plan, 2006, p. 3-1. 452 City of St. Helena, Water Master Plan, 2006, p. 3-1 453 City of St. Helena, Bell Canyon Reservoir Watershed Sanitary Survey, February 2014, p. 2-3. 454 City of St. Helena, General Plan Update 2040, 2019, p. 4-4. CHAPTER 7: CITY OF ST. HELENA 217 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR a backwash collection and return system and a chlorination system.455 The well treatment is reportedly in good condition. Distribution The existing water distribution system consists of pump stations, pipelines and source connections. There are four distribution zones within the City, including the Main Zone, Spring Mountain Zone (Zone 2), Holmes Zone (Zone 3), and Madrone Zone (Zone 4). Zones two through four serve only residential customers. The City has five pump stations within its water distribution system, with a total of eight pumps. Distribution pipelines range from 1.25 to 24 inches in diameter.456 There are 50 miles of water mains.457 Unaccounted for water loss, specifically the amount of water lost due to system breaks and leaks, as well as illegal connections, is a measure of the water system’s integrity. Water losses can include “real losses”, which are physical losses from the water distribution system and the supplier’s storage facilities as well as “apparent losses”, which represent losses due to metering inaccuracies, data handling errors and/or unauthorized consumption. The City- reported total real losses in 2018 were 146 acre-feet or 9.1 percent of the water produced in that year. Breaks and leaks in the mains and service connections account for some of the loss experienced in the system. In 2018, St. Helena distribution system experienced 30 service connection breaks or leaks and two main breaks or leaks. The City averaged about 1.75 water main breaks per year between 2015 and 2018, which averages to about 3.5 breaks per 100 miles of main per year. This is significantly lower than the national average of between 21 and 27 breaks per 100 miles of pipe per year.458 As the City has completed replacement of customer meters and undertaken significant meter improvements at the Louis Stralla Water Treatment Plant, St. Helena believes that the majority of the water loss is occurring under the streets in its aging distribution system. The City considers it a “difficult, expensive and long-term issue to resolve.”459 Storage Facilities The City’s storage facilities are shown in Figure 7-10. The City has six storage facilities that constitute 4.36 mg of storage. Tank 1A was built in 2014 and is consequently considered to be in excellent condition. Tank 2 is presently in fair condition but is in the design phase of a rehabilitation. Following the refurbishment, the tank is anticipated to be in good condition. The three tanks are constructed of redwood, have leakage, and are considered to be in poor condition. The City identified funding for replacement of the Meadowood tanks in its FY 19- 20 CIP. The Water Master Plan (2006) identified water storage expansion needs. Since that time Tank 1A has been constructed. The City plans to reassess its storage capacity and prioritize needs in a storage evaluation; however, the evaluation is not yet part of the five-year CIP. 455 City of St. Helena, Water Master Plan, 2006, p. 5-1. 456 City of St. Helena, Water Master Plan, 2006. 457 City of St. Helena, Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, June 30, 2018, p. 143. 458 WaterRF, Knowledge Portals, 2017. 459 City of St. Helena, General Plan Update 2040, 2019, p. 4-7. CHAPTER 7: CITY OF ST. HELENA 218 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR Figure 7-10: City of St. Helena Storage Facilities Storage Capacity Condition Treatment Plant Reservoir (1A) 1.4 mg Excellent Tank 2 2.7 mg Fair Meadowood Tanks (1,2,3) 0.2 mg Poor Holmes Tank 0.06 mg Not provided Source: City of St. Helena, Water Master Plan, 2006. Shared Facilities St. Helena shares an interconnection with the City of Napa through which the City of St. Helena buys potable treated water from Napa on a regular basis and in case of emergencies. In conjunction with the cities of Napa and Calistoga, St. Helena is looking for grant funding to make improvements to the Dwyer booster pump station in order to ensure reliable and adequate pressure for fire protection purposes. Given the separation of municipal systems, further opportunities for facility sharing are limited. Infrastructure Needs Water infrastructure needs are discussed in the City of St. Helena Capital Improvement Program (CIP). The CIP has a planning horizon of five years and is updated annually. The FY 2023 CIP lists the following long-term planned projects pertaining to water infrastructure: 1) an installation of a new raw water metering station, 2) replacement of a 12-inch water transmission main, 3) replacement of one percent of all water mains throughout the water distribution system, and 4) possible upgrade of storage depending on evaluation. In addition, the CIP identifies the following unfunded projects 1) construction of recycled water infrastructure, 2) installation of smart meters, and 3) software upgrade for meters.460 Projects to be implemented in the next five years include dam removal, tank upgrades, Bell Canyon Reservoir improvements, pump station improvements, valve replacements, Lower Reservoir rehab, intake tower repairs, pump upgrades, WTP condition assessment, SCADA improvements, spill containment at the wells, updates to water system maps, water master plan update, main replacements, and Bell Canyon phreatic surface assessment and stability assessment.461 Additionally, the City is involved in the removal of the Upper York Creek Dam project. This earthen dam was built by the City in the early 1900s and is composed of approximately 12,670 cubic feet of material that came from soil excavated to create the three-acre Upper Reservoir. The 50-foot-high, 140-foot-long structure once impounded water to form the reservoir, which had a 10 mg storage capacity and was used for municipal water supply. The use of the reservoir has since been abandoned due to sedimentation.462 The City has been working since 2015 on the project of removing the dam to allow for the passage of fish to 460 City of St. Helena, Capital Improvement Program, Fiscal Years 2018/19 – 2022/23, Adopted on May 8, 2018, p. 35. 461 City of St. Helena, Capital Improvement Program, Fiscal Years 2018/19 – 2022/23, Adopted on May 8, 2018. 462 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers San Francisco District, Upper York Creek Ecosystem Restoration Project Feasibility Report Engineering Appendix, August 2006. CHAPTER 7: CITY OF ST. HELENA 219 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR their historical breeding grounds upstream of the dam. The dam removal is planned to be completed by the end of 2020. Water Quality The State Water Resources Control Board Division of Drinking Water (DDW) implements the Safe Drinking Water Act in California. DDW requires public water systems to perform routine monitoring for regulated contaminants. To meet water quality standards and comply with regulations, a water system with a contaminant exceeding a maximum contaminant limit (MCL) must notify the public and remove the source from service or initiate a process and schedule to install treatment for removing the contaminant. Health violations occur when the contaminant amount exceeds the safety standard (MCL) or when water is not treated properly. In California, compliance is usually determined at the wellhead or the surface water intake. Monitoring violations involve failure to conduct or to report in a timely fashion the results of required monitoring. Source Water The Bell Canyon watershed is geographically small and contains few contaminant sources. The most significant potential sources of contaminants in the watershed are wildfires and vineyards.463 Overall, Bell Canyon Reservoir provides good quality water. The raw water is treated to meet all primary drinking water standards using conventional filtration processes. The only constituent present in the raw water that consistently requires additional treatment is manganese. 464 Stonebridge Wells are considered vulnerable to activities located near the drinking water source. The source in both wells is considered most vulnerable to contaminants from the sewer collections system.465 Treated Water Quality of treated water can be evaluated according to several measures. For the purposes of this report, the following indicators are used: the number of violations as reported by the EPA since 2008 and the number of days in full compliance with Primary Drinking Water Regulations in 2018. According to the EPA report the City had one health-based violation in 2017 and two health-based violations in 2016, all for exceeding the total allowed amount of haloacetic acids (HAA5). The City of St. Helena contracts with independent Alpha Analytics Laboratories to test water samples from eight specified locations. The City also uses Eurofins Scientific for disinfection byproduct testing, and Caltest Analytical Laboratories for lead testing. The drinking water provided to the Madrone Knoll and Meadowood areas had a running annual average measurement of HAA5 that did not meet SWRCB standards. The levels found were just over the safe water limit, restricted to one test period, and localized. 463 California Department of Health Services, Drinking Water Source Assessment: Bell Canyon Reservoir Intake, November 2002. 464 City of St. Helena, Bell Canyon Reservoir Watershed Sanitary Survey, February 2014, p. 3-1. 465 California Department of Health Services, Drinking Water Source Assessment: Stonebridge Well 01 and Stonebridge Well 02, April 2002. CHAPTER 7: CITY OF ST. HELENA 220 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR Since water sourced from the City of Napa did not exceed HAA5 levels at that time, the source of the contamination was likely water processed at the Louis Stralla WTP.466 As required by California State Law, St. Helena notified its residents of these results in letters sent by the DPW. To mitigate future issues, St. Helena Public Works undertook a series of additional steps: 1) added Powder Activated Carbon at the WTP, 2) increased mixing and aeration at the City’s three water holding tanks, and 3) set aside funds to replace the obsolete redwood tanks that serve the Madrone Knoll area and Meadowood resort.467 In 2018, the City was in compliance with primary drinking water regulations 100 percent of the time, with no violations. By comparison, the industry standard for compliance with Primary Drinking Water Regulations is 99 percent (361 days) of the year. In 2018, water tested above secondary drinking water standards for odor; however, secondary standards are based on aesthetics only. 466 Napa County Grand Jury, Napa County Water Quality: It’s a Matter of Taste, June 14, 2019, pp. 14-15. 467 Napa County Grand Jury, Napa County Water Quality: It’s a Matter of Taste, June 14, 2019, pp. 14-15. CHAPTER 7: CITY OF ST. HELENA 221 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR WASTEWATER SERVICES The City of St. Helena conducts planning for its wastewater services in its General Plan that was last updated in 2018. The City’s General Plan contains several policies related to water in various elements. These policies include: Land Use Element LU1.1 Require new development to occur within well-defined boundaries and be consistent with the ability to provide urban services. New development should mitigate infrastructure impacts by using sustainable, best management practices in green building and stormwater management and paying its share of development impact fees, while minimizing impacts on sewer, water, energy, and natural resources. LU1.2 Allow urban development to occur only within the Urban Limit Line. Consider an exception for on-site employee housing on Agricultural lands. Urban services, such as sewer, water, and storm drainage, will only be extended to development within the Urban Limit Line. LU1.5 Require new development to provide adequate infrastructure and urban services, including compliance with the policies and implementing actions affecting new development as set forth in the Public Facilities and Services Element. LU1.G Work with property owners and the Napa County Local Agency Formation Commission to study the benefits of annexing lands adjacent to the City of St. Helena, where the City owns and operates critical municipal infrastructure, including utility infrastructure, and/or provides municipal services, or where the provision of municipal services to replace wells and aging sceptic systems would improve public health. LU1.H In the event that unincorporated areas are annexed to the City, advocate for favorable tax-sharing agreements that ensure that the City receives the revenues necessary to support the municipal services and infrastructure required in those areas. LU5.6 Permit wineries and other agricultural-related industries to locate in the city if their location does not adversely impact surroundings, uses, or city services (water, traffic, etc.) or the quality and character of the community. LU6.1 Provide a wide range of high-quality public facilities, including parks, multi-use trails, schools, fire and police services, water and wastewater systems, and community centers. Public Facilities and Services Element PF2.1 Ensure adequate sewage treatment capacity at the City treatment plant to meet the needs of population growth, taking into account the City’s Growth Management System, the Regional Housing Needs Allocation, and the needs of non-residential users. PF2.2 Require the extension of the City sewer to areas that are dependent upon septic systems prior to approval of future growth in these areas. PF2.3 Reduce pumping costs and increase plant capacity by mitigating sewer system infiltration problems and explore alternate energy sources. CHAPTER 7: CITY OF ST. HELENA 222 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR PF2.4 Increase sewer collection system efficiency by ensuring proper maintenance of sewer pipes. Additionally, the City plans for its wastewater services in the Sewer Flow Isolation Study (2007), Wastewater Facilities Evaluation Update (2015), Sewer System Management Plan (2014), and the annually updated Capital Improvement Program (CIP). Type and Extent of Services Services Provided The City of St. Helena provides wastewater collection and treatment services within its boundary area. Service Area All sewer connections are located within the city boundaries, with no out-of-agency sewer services provided.468 However, Meadowood, which is to the north of St. Helena, has expressed interest in connecting to the City’s. Services to Other Agencies No wastewater services are provided to other agencies by the City of St. Helena. Contracts for Services The City does not receive contract wastewater services from other agencies. Overlapping Service Providers No other agencies provide services that overlap with the City of St. Helena. However, several properties rely on private septic systems. Within the City, about 300 dwelling units and three wineries are on individual disposal systems, most of which are too remote to reach the City’s sewer system.469 These properties lie along Big Rock Road, Spring Mountain Road, and Sulphur Springs Avenue. A majority of these properties are in rural areas; however, there are approximately 15 properties along Main Street in downtown St. Helena that continue to rely on septic systems. Collaboration At present, there is not a collaborative relationship amongst the Napa agencies regarding wastewater services, as the service areas are distant and distinct from one another. Staffing The Public Works Director usually establishes policy, plans strategy and leads staff. Sewer System Supervisor supervises, evaluates and participates in the work of crews responsible for construction, repair, maintenance and operational work in the Sewers Operational Unit of the Public Works Department.470 Collection System Operation Team performs field operations and maintenance activities, provides relevant information to 468 City of St. Helena, General Plan Update 2040, 2019, p. 4-12. 469 City of St. Helena, General Plan Update 2040, 2019, p. 4-12. 470 City of St. Helena, Sewer System Management Plan, 2014, pp. 2-1 – 2-4. CHAPTER 7: CITY OF ST. HELENA 223 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR agency management, prepares and implements contingency plans, leads emergency response, investigates and reports SSOs, and performs preventive maintenance.471 The City has three wastewater treatment operators. Additionally, the three licensed water treatment operators who are employed in the Water Treatment Division of the Public Works Department are also licensed in wastewater treatment and provide standby operation of the City’s Wastewater Treatment Plant.472 The goal is to have overlapping licenses to have reciprocal backup. Wastewater Flow The City provides sewer service to approximately 1,726 connections, of which 75 percent are residential.473 The City did not provide its average dry weather flow (ADWF) for the last five years. Figure 7-11: Average Dry Weather Flows 2014-2018 and Buildout Conditions (mgd) City of St. Helena Sewer Flows 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Buildout 0.364 0.337 0.379 0.410 0.359 Unknown Source: City of St. Helena MSR Request for Information. NP = Not provided In 2017 and 2018, the City experienced peak wet weather flows of 3.77 mgd and 1.48 mgd, respectively. The peaking factor, which is the ratio of peak wet weather flow to average dry weather flow, was 9.2 in 2017 and 4.1 in 2018. A peaking factor of 9.2 is indicative of a high rate of infiltration and inflow. The wet weather season of 2017 was significant and impacted most wastewater providers. Utilizing ABAG projected population growth, the average dry weather flow (ADWF) could stay relatively flat at 0.424 mgd. Otherwise, considering a conservative assumption, the estimated ADWF might rise to 0.496 mgd by 2030.474 As recommended by the RWQCB2, a 25 percent buffer should be added to the estimated projection, which increases the projected 2030 ADWF to slightly less than 0.65 mgd.475 Wastewater Infrastructure and Facilities The City’s wastewater infrastructure consists of the wastewater collection system and the wastewater treatment plant. Treatment Plant The City’s wastewater treatment plant (WWTP), including its integrated pond system, is located in the southeast corner of the City, near the Napa River. There are a series of ponds that treat the effluent to a secondary level, and the treated effluent is then sprayed onto a 471 City of St. Helena, Sewer System Management Plan, 2014, pp. 2-1 – 2-4. 472 https://www.cityofsthelena.org/publicworks/page/water 473 City of St. Helena, General Plan Update 2040, 2019, p. 4-12. 474 City of St. Helena, Department of Public Works, Wastewater Treatment and Reclamation Plant/Collection System: Facilities Status and Planning, 2014. 475 City of St. Helena, Department of Public Works, Wastewater Treatment and Reclamation Plant/Collection System: Facilities Status and Planning, 2014. CHAPTER 7: CITY OF ST. HELENA 224 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR field owned by the City just south of the ponds. While the City’s permit allowed for the discharge into the Napa River under limited conditions, the City seeks to minimize discharges directly into the river.476 Secondary treated effluent is discharged to the Napa River during the wet weather period of December 1 through April 30, while maintaining a river to wastewater dilution flow ratio of at least 50 to 1. The final effluent is chlorinated and dechlorinated prior to discharge to the river. When these conditions cannot be met, wastewater is stored in the on- site storage ponds and/or used for irrigation at the City’s disposal fields directly to the southeast of the WWTP.477 Irrigation disposal is operated under the provisions of the permit by WWTP operations staff.478 The WWTP consists of Type 1 and Type 2 Advanced Integrated Pond Systems (AIPS), which include in-pond up-flow anaerobic digesters for waste contact and treatment followed by natural aerobic and facultative pond treatment processes.479 The WWTP has a design average dry weather flow of 0.5 mgd and a peak wet weather flow of nearly 3 mgd.480 When operated under design conditions, the existing WWTP pond system has sufficient capacity to meet (and exceed) the 0.65 MGD (conservative flow projection for 2030) design flows under all anticipated load conditions. This means all ponds are in service and operating under near ideal conditions and solids/sludge build-up is not excessive.481 In order to achieve reliable operation of the WWTP at design capacity, the facilities evaluation study conducted in 2015 recommends three sets of improvements, including 1) constructing adequate solids management systems outside the treatment train in order to maintain treatment units’ solids accumulation within design recommendations; 2) installing analyzers and automation at the WWTP disinfection and de-chlorination facility for improved operation and monitoring during river discharge; and 3) constructing rock filter system for improved algal total suspended solids (TSS) reduction between Pond 3 and disinfection facility.482 In the past, wastewater discharges to the Napa River have exceeded the established limits for biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) and TSS. Constructed in the 1960s, the WWTP is required to meet new wastewater treatment standards set forth by the RWQCB2 in 2016, which mandate additional treatment of wastewater in order to meet stricter environmental requirements. Under a Cease and Desist Order from the RWQCB2, the City is required to phase in the improvements to the wastewater treatment plant by December 1, 2021.483 The Cease and Desist Order contains interim BOD and TSS effluent limits, required report submittals and a schedule for the City to make modifications to the WWTP in order to meet the new effluent limits. As a first step, the Order required the submittal of a Draft Feasibility Study by September 1, 2016, with which the City complied.484 Based on the completed feasibility study by the consultant GHD, city staff recommends installing a trickling filter system ($8.14 million) with an infiltration pond ($543,900), 476 City of St. Helena, General Plan Update 2040, 2019, p. 4-12. 477 City of St. Helena, Wastewater Treatment and Reclamation Plants Improvements, Draft Feasibility Study, 2016, p. 1. 478 Bennet Engineering Services, City of St. Helena, Wastewater Facilities Evaluation Update, March 2015, p. 2. 479 Bennet Engineering Services, City of St. Helena, Wastewater Facilities Evaluation Update, March 2015, p. 4. 480 City of St. Helena, Wastewater Treatment and Reclamation Plants Improvements, Draft Feasibility Study, 2016, p. 1. 481 Bennet Engineering Services, City of St. Helena, Wastewater Facilities Evaluation Update, March 2015, p. 13. 482 Bennet Engineering Services, City of St. Helena, Wastewater Facilities Evaluation Update, March 2015, p. 22. 483 City of St. Helena, General Plan Update 2040, 2019, p. 4-12. 484 City of St. Helena, Wastewater Treatment and Reclamation Plants Improvements, Draft Feasibility Study, 2016, p. 1. CHAPTER 7: CITY OF ST. HELENA 225 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR tertiary filtration ($1.5 million), electrical upgrades ($1.1 million), and a disinfection system ($849,100). In addition to those Phase 1 improvements, staff is also recommending reclamation field improvements, facilities automation, a new well, and Phase 2 upgrades that would add another $2 million, for a total of $14.1 million. The City has submitted plans for the plant upgrades to the RWQCB2 as required. The City has determined a funding plan consisting of a combination of a general fund loan, bonds, and a USDA rural fund loan, and is in the design, bid, and build phase of the project, in order to stay on track to meet the required deadlines. Collection System With the exception of the original town site, which has four-inch sewer lines, most of the City is served by pipes sized for dry weather flows. During the winter rainy season, surface and ground water infiltration increases flows by eight times. In several areas of the City, the sewer system suffers from defects, which prevent free flow of sewage, resulting in backwater in the system. There is one lift station at the Crinella development in the northeast quadrant east of Main Street. The remaining system operates by gravity.485 As of 2018, the City had 18.61 miles of wastewater mains.486 The City has a goal to adequately maintain the collection system and prevent sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs). Currently, the City performs about 80 percent of inspections in response to a problem and 20 percent as routine maintenance in areas which have previously had a problem. All manholes are visited systematically.487 To provide more details regarding the integrity of the City’s sewer system and adequacy of its services this report includes the analysis of sanitary sewer overflow information and regulatory compliance data. All wastewater agencies are required to report SSOs to SWRCB. Sewer overflows are discharges from sewer pipes, pumps and manholes. Overflows reflect the capacity and condition of collection system piping and the effectiveness of routine maintenance. The sewer overflow rate is calculated as the number of overflows per 100 miles of collection piping per year. Over the last six years (2014-2019) there were 27 SSO events, consisting of one in 2014, two in 2016, nine in 2017, seven in 2018, and eight (through October) in 2019. In 2018 (the last full calendar year), the City’s SSO rate was 38 spills per 100 miles of sewer mains. Averaged over the five-year period between 2014 and 2018 (there was no data for the entirety of 2019 as of the drafting of this report), the City’s SSO rate was about 20 spills per 100 miles of mains. By comparison, other wastewater agencies in California average 4.73 SSOs per 100 miles per year.488 In 2019, all of the spills in St. Helena recorded through the month of October were Category 1 spills; a total of 369,318 gallons of spilled sewage reached surface water. The SSOs in 2019 were all due to gravity main failure. 485 City of St. Helena, General Plan Update 2040, 2019, p. 4-12. 486 City of St. Helena, Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, June 30, 2018, p. 143. 487 City of St. Helena, Sewer System Management Plan, 2014, p. 4-3. 488 SWRCB, Sanitary Sewer Overflow Reduction Program Annual Compliance Report, March 26, 2015, p 16. CHAPTER 7: CITY OF ST. HELENA 226 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR The City has a settlement agreement with River Watch to reduce infiltration and inflow (I/I) that leads to the SSOs. The City is in the process of conducting CCTV inspections of the system to prioritize those areas that are most in need of rehabilitation. The City is allocating $150,000 a year to do pipeline rehabilitations to address those areas most in need. The RWQCB2 enforces the Clean Water Act, permit conditions and other requirements of wastewater providers. Violations of State requirements for wastewater providers and treatment facilities are recorded by SWRCB. The Board may levy fines or order the provider to take specific actions to comply with water quality regulations. The City has both a permit for treatment and discharge at the WWTP and a general permit for its collection system. For its collection system the City encountered one regulatory measure in 2006 and one violation in 2017. There were no priority violations. St. Helena received a total of three enforcement actions in 2010, 2012 and 2017. With regard to the WWTP, there were 10 regulatory measures, all of which occurred in or before 2016. The two regulatory measures, from 2013 and 2016 are still active and are related to the NPDES permit. There was a total of 46 violations at the WWTP, none of which were priority violations. Most of the violations in 2019 were related to BOD and TTS limits in the effluent. Other issues included exceeding maximum levels of coliform, copper, cyanide, and chlorine. The City’s WWTP encountered 12 enforcement actions, one of which (the Cease and Desist Order discussed in the previous section) is still active. Infrastructure Needs The City plans for wastewater infrastructure needs in its Capital Improvement Program (CIP). The CIP has a planning horizon of five years and is updated annually. 489 The FY 2023 CIP lists the following long-term planned projects pertaining to wastewater infrastructure: 1) upgrade to chemical storage facilities at the WWTP, 2) assessment (will be conducted in FY 2022) and necessary improvements associated with the recycled water treatment at the WWTP (unfunded project), and 3) storm drain replacement (unfunded project). Projects planned for the next five years include WWTP upgrades, reclamation field improvements, plant facilities automation, new well at WWTP, sewer main replacement (one percent annually), pump station upgrades, SCADA upgrades, wet weather flow monitoring, sewer map update, sewer master plan, recycled water feasibility study, and replacement of the operations building and shop. 490 The potential improvements to the WWTP, which would put the City in legal compliance, were discussed previously in the Treatment Plant section. Shared Facilities The City does not share wastewater infrastructure with other agencies. Due to the distance between the municipal systems, no opportunities for further facility sharing were identified. 489 City of St. Helena, Capital Improvement Program, Fiscal Years 2018/19 – 2022/23, Adopted on May 8, 2018. 490 City of St. Helena, Capital Improvement Program, Fiscal Years 2018/19 – 2022/23, Adopted on May 8, 2018. CHAPTER 7: CITY OF ST. HELENA 227 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE OPTIONS Over the course of this review, several governance structure options were identified with respect to the City of St. Helena and its water and wastewater services, including possible service structure modifications and reorganizations with other agencies. The feasibility of each of these options is generally assessed in this report; however, more in-depth review would be required to refine specifics of process and structure should the affected agencies or LAFCO choose to move forward. Countywide Water Agency There are several challenges to water and wastewater services around the County that could be potentially addressed by alternative governance structures: v Some County water resources not being used to the fullest extent possible, v A need for greater oversight of all jurisdictions providing water and wastewater services in the County, v A need for support buying on the spot market, v Certain redundancies with several smaller systems around the County, which could be eliminated, v A need for occasional technical expertise and support, and v A lack of economies of scale in the smaller water and wastewater systems. Given these challenges, there may be a need for a single agency to conduct water supply management on a regional or countywide level, such as a county water agency and/or an agency to provide management and operational support to the smaller utility systems that could benefit from the consolidation of certain services (i.e., lab testing) or from fully transitioning to operations by a regional agency, such as a county water district or a sanitation district. As these options may affect all of the water and wastewater service providers reviewed here, these governance structure options are discussed and assessed in further detail in the Overview chapter (Chapter 3) of this report. Expansion of Services to Outside Connections 29 Business Corridor The City has received interest from businesses south of the City in connecting to the City’s wastewater system. The area generally encompasses businesses along the 29 business corridor from the City limits to the Zinfandel Lane (including the subdivision in the County served on City water west of SR 29 and bordered between Zinfandel Lane, Stice Lane, and Mountain View Avenue). This area is comprised mostly of commercial uses and currently relies on septic. The area has been subject to discussions for many years, regarding transitioning the properties from individual septic systems to the City wastewater collection and treatment system. The City has indicated it is willing to serve the area. Expansion of the City of St. Helena’s SOI to include the SR 29 Business Corridor is not considered feasible, at least in the short term. Extension of needed services to the already CHAPTER 7: CITY OF ST. HELENA 228 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR developed area through provisions in Government Code §56133.5 is an option that would allow for needed wastewater services to the defined developed area. Any extension of wastewater service under Government Code §56133.5 would need to be authorized by the Commission as a separate action in response to a formal request in accordance with the Section. In order for the City to extend wastewater services to the area, further analysis would be required to determine what infrastructure is necessary to ensure adequate capacity. Meadowood The Meadowood Resort is located outside of the City of St. Helena’s city limits to the northeast. The property is comprised of the Meadowood Resort, Meadowood Golf Club, and approximately 20 single-family residences, all of which rely on a small community septic system. The Resort and residents of Meadowood have indicated an interest in receiving wastewater services from the City of St. Helena in lieu of replacement of the system. The City already provides retail water services to the area. Expansion of the City of St. Helena’s SOI to include the Meadowood area was considered in 2017 and was deemed not timely or feasible. Extension of needed services to the already developed area through provisions in Government Code §56133.5 is an option that would allow for needed wastewater services to the defined developed area. Any extension of wastewater service under Government Code §56133.5 would need to be authorized by the Commission as a separate action in response to a formal request in accordance with the Section. City of St. Helena has indicated that it is willing to extend services to the area. The Meadowood community has expressed interest in connecting to the City’s system. In order for the City to extend wastewater services to the area, further analysis would be required to determine what infrastructure is necessary to ensure adequate capacity. CHAPTER 7: CITY OF ST. HELENA 229 Figure 7-12 City of St. Helena Legend City of St. Helena Jurisdictional Boundary City of St. Helena Sphere of Influence Meadowood Properties d R n Meadowood ai nt u o P M ra tt A w ell v o e H Silverado Trl S ta rr A ve St A v e o p e nt P u H O M S a t k A ve ain S t s m a A d g St n pri S e Av on Valley View St Gr ays 0 0.1 0.2Miles Calistoga Lake Yolo Angwin Calistoga November 16, 2017 St. Helena Prepared by BF Sonoma St. Helena Yountville Sonoma Napa Solano LAFCO of Napa County 1030 Seminary Street, Suite B American Napa, California 94559 Canyon www.napa.lafco.ca.gov NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR RECOMMENDATIONS During the process of this review, the following recommendations are made to the City of St. Helena regarding its water and wastewater service delivery. 1) The City of St. Helena plans for its water services in the Water Supply Plan (2010), and Master Water Plan (2006). These documents do not provide the most up-to-date representation of the City’s water operation and do not represent the projected demand for water services in the relevant future. The City is encouraged to update its water service planning documents. Identifying this need, the City has undertaken an Integrated Utility Master Plan addressing water, wastewater and stormwater needs. 2) The City is in need of further water supply studies assessing future use of existing sources and identifying potential new sources. The City’s 2017 MSR recommended that the City of St. Helena prepare a brief study of potential for future water supply alternatives. Ideally, this study should be submitted to LAFCO within the next five years, prior to preparation of the next MSR. While the City is collaborating with the other municipalities on the Napa Valley Drought Contingency Plan, there is a continued need for the City to identify other sustainable water sources. 3) The City requires that properties in need of City wastewater services annex to the St. Helena Municipal Sewer District No. 1.491 Municipal Sewer District No. 1 appears to be a relic of previous circumstances and no longer provides a benefit to the City’s operations but instead creates an extra layer of unnecessary process. It is recommended that the District be eliminated in 2020, and its functions continued as part of the City’s Finance and Public Works Departments, similar to other cities. 4) Both the Cities of Napa and St. Helena provide water services to the Rutherford Road area, which is outside both cities. It is recommended that the two cities create a communication structure to ensure that duplicative services do not occur in other locations. St. Helena indicated it supports this recommendation; however, because the City does not allow new water service connections outside of its city limits, the chances of duplicative services occurring are minimal. 5) It has been Napa LAFCO’s practice to not include city-owned property within a city’s SOI pursuant to Government Code §56742, which is specific to noncontiguous territories. LAFCO may wish to consider including the noncontiguous city-owned properties in the City of St. Helena’s SOI during its next update, or if LAFCO wishes to continue the practice of excluding these properties from the City’s SOI, then it may consider clarifying its intent in its policies. 491 Municipal Sewer District No. 1 is codified in Chapter 13.20 Section 040 of the City’s Municipal Code, where annexation fees are established. CHAPTER 7: CITY OF ST. HELENA 231 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR CITY OF ST. HELENA DETERMINATIONS Growth and Population Projections v The City of St. Helena’s population, as of 2019, was approximately 6,133. v Growth within the City is limited by an Urban Limit Line, designated Urban Reserve Areas, and the Residential Growth Management System, which limits the number of building permits available for residential growth each year. That limit, as of 2018, was nine residential units a year, with exceptions. v LAFCO anticipates a continued increase in population over the period from 2019 to 2030 at an annual rate of 0.88 percent, with an anticipated population of 6,728 in 2030. The Location and Characteristics of Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities Within or Contiguous to the Agency’s SOI v According to Napa LAFCO’s definition of disadvantaged unincorporated communities (DUCs), there are currently no DUCs in Napa County. Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities and Adequacy of Public Services, Including Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies v Experience has shown that the City has inadequate water to supply customer demand without imposition of water emergency restrictions in recent years The City needs to obtain new water supplies and/or achieve more water savings, even under current conditions in order to reliably meet current and future water demand. v There are new water sources that the City is considering adding in the near future to increase the reliability of supply, especially in emergencies and dry years, including recycled water and groundwater from the capped well on the Adams Street property. v The level of water services offered by the City were found to be adequate based on integrity of the water distribution system and compliance with drinking water requirements. The integrity of the City’s water distribution system is moderate; although the City experiences a relatively high rate of water loss, there are few main breaks and leaks. The City was in full compliance with Primary Drinking Water Regulations in 2018 and has addressed the three violations reported by the EPA since 2008. v The City appropriately plans for its infrastructure needs in the Capital Improvement Plan. Long-term significant water infrastructure needs consist of identification of a supplemental water source, construction of recycled water infrastructure, and replacement of aged portions of the distribution system susceptible to high rates of loss. CHAPTER 7: CITY OF ST. HELENA 232 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR v St. Helena has more than adequate capacity to accommodate existing and projected demand at its wastewater treatment plant beyond 2030 under all anticipated load conditions. v The level of wastewater services offered by the City were found to be marginally adequate based on integrity of the wastewater collection system and regulatory compliance. The City has struggled with a higher than statewide average rate of sanitary sewer overflows, as a result of infiltration and inflow during wet weather periods. Additionally, the City has had numerous violations and enforcement actions at its WWTP. The City is in the midst of addressing the regulatory issues at the WWTP. v The most significant infrastructure need for the wastewater system is improvement to the WWTP to meet the requirements set forth in the Cease and Desist Order. The City is in the process of developing a funding plan for the improvements. Financial Ability of Agencies to Provide Services v The City of St. Helena has the ability to continue providing water and wastewater services. The FY19 budget’s positive annual utility balances indicated that its utilities were beginning to stabilize due to recently adopted rate increases, after several years of financial stress. v The City appears to have adequate reserves, although in FY19 it was not meeting its adopted reserve targets. The unrestricted net position of both utilities were significantly positive. v Combined utility rates are well below maximum standards. The City adopted new rate schedules in December 2017 to address anticipated water operations shortfalls and to fund needed wastewater improvements and regulatory requirements. v Recent and planned capital improvement expenditures equal or exceed average annual depreciation, indicating that the City is keeping pace with infrastructure depreciation. v The City based its updated utility rate schedule adopted in December 2017 on a revised 2016 cost of service study that included long-range forecasts of operating and capital needs. Status of, and Opportunities for, Shared Facilities v St. Helena shares an interconnection with the City of Napa through which the City of St. Helena buys potable treated water from Napa on a regular basis and in case of emergencies. v In conjunction with the cities of Napa and Calistoga, St. Helena is looking for grant funding to make improvements to the Dwyer booster pump station in order to ensure reliable and adequate pressure for fire protection purposes. v Given the separation of municipal systems, further opportunities for facility sharing are limited. However, the City is open to collaboration and resource sharing with regional municipal water purveyors as demonstrated by its participation in the Napa Drought Contingency Plan. CHAPTER 7: CITY OF ST. HELENA 233 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR Accountability for Community Service Needs, Including Governmental Structure and Operational Efficiencies v The City Council holds regular appropriately noticed meetings. v St. Helena makes available most documents on its website, including minutes, agendas, and financial and planning reports. The City is compliant with the agenda- posting requirements outlined in AB 2257. Relationship with Regional Growth Goals and Policies v St. Helena aims to control and limit development in order to contain development and preserve open space and agricultural lands in and adjacent to the City. To accomplish this goal, the City has adopted an Urban Limit Line, designated Urban Reserve Areas, and developed the Residential Growth Management System. These growth-limiting practices align with the County’s Agricultural Preserve policy. v The City of St. Helena and four other municipalities of Napa County participate in the Napa Valley Transportation Authority (NVTA), which functions as the region’s Congestion Management Agency and provides input to the Bay Area-wide Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s (MTC) 20-year Regional Transportation Plan. Plans applicable to Yountville include Napa Countywide Pedestrian Plan, Vision 2040 Moving Napa Forward – A Countywide Transportation Plan, Countywide Bicycle Plan, SR 29 Gateway Corridor Implementation Plan, and Plan Bay Area. v The City of St. Helena provides outside water services to 361 residential, commercial and industrial connections. Water service to these unincorporated properties was established prior to G.C. §56133 and is specifically exempt given that the service was extended prior to January 1, 2001. New water connections to parcels located outside the City’s jurisdictional boundary are not prohibited by municipal code, which aligns with State legislation and LAFCO policy. CHAPTER 7: CITY OF ST. HELENA 234 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR 8. TOWN O F YO UNTV I L L E AGENCY OVERVIEW Town of Yountville Profile Contact Information Contact: Steve Rogers, Town Manager 6550 Yount Street, Address: Yountville, CA 94599 Website: h ttp://www.townofyountville.com/ Phone: 707-944-8851 Email: srogers@yville.com Formation Information Date of Incorporation: 1965 City type: General Law Governing Body Governing Body: Town Council Members: 4 Council Member and 1 Mayor Length of Manner of Selection: Election at large term: 4 years Council Chambers at 6550 Meeting First and third Tuesday of each Meetings Location: Yount Street date: month at 6:00 p.m. Mapping and Population Population GIS Date: December 2019 (2019): 2,916 Purpose Enabling Empowered Legislation: California Constitution XI Services: All municipal services Municipal Services Water, wastewater, parks and recreation, law enforcement (sheriff’s office), fire Provided (directly and EMS (County Fire Department), solid waste (Upper Valley Disposal & or by contract) Recycling), street cleaning (Commercial Power Sweep), library (County) Area Served Size: 1.5 square miles (966 acres) Location: Central Napa County Most recent Current SOI: 1.5 square miles (975 acres) SOI update: 2017 Municipal Service Reviews 2017 Revised Final Municipal Service Review and Sphere of Influence Update Town of Yountville Past MSRs: 2007 Town of Yountville Municipal Service Review 2005 Comprehensive Sanitation and Wastewater Treatment Study 2004 Comprehensive Water Service Study CHAPTER 8: TOWN OF YOUNTVILLE 235 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR Boundaries The Town of Yountville encompasses about 1.5 square miles or 966 acres in the central part of Napa County along SR 29, as shown in Figure 8-1. There have been no boundary reorganizations since 2010. The Town’s business district and residential neighborhoods lie to the east of SR 29, while the Veterans Home, which is property owned and operated by the State of California, is to the west. Sphere of Influence The Town of Yountville sphere of influence (SOI) was last updated in 2017 concurrently with the completion of an MSR. The SOI was expanded to include an 8.8-acre area492 that contains the commercial portion of the Domaine Chandon site, where the Town has been providing wastewater services since 1991. The Town’s current sphere of influence, shown in Figure 8-1, is 975 acres in size. 492 Napa LAFCO, Resolution 2017-1. CHAPTER 8: TOWN OF YOUNTVILLE 236 Figure 8-1 Town of Yountville d a o R oss r C W e £¤ 29 ashington Street Yo u nt vill Road Finnell W a s h in g to n e Drive n S tr e e t L a n d L a P r e s id California e n ts C ir c le w Drive Vie Vineyard £¤ 29 ne La n ma Hoff Legend Town of Yountville Jurisdictional Boundary Town of Yountville Sphere of Influence 0 0.125 0.25Miles Lake Yountville Yolo Calistoga December 11, 2019 St. Helena Prepared by LAFCO Staff Sonoma Napa Yountville Napa Solano LAFCO of Napa County 1030 Seminary Street, Suite B Sonoma Napa, California 94559 American Marin Canyon http://www.napa.lafco.ca.gov NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR ACCOUNTABILITY AND GOVERNANCE The Town of Yountville is governed by a four-member Council and one Mayor, all elected at large to staggered four-year terms.493 The Council meets every first and third Tuesday of the month at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. Agendas and minutes are posted on the website along with other information pertaining to Town services and operations. Council meetings are streamed live on the website.494 In 2016, the State Legislature enacted Assembly Bill 2257 (Government Code §54954.2) to update the Brown Act with new requirements governing the location, platform and methods by which an agenda must be accessible on the agency’s website for all meetings occurring on or after January 1, 2019. The Town of Yountville complies with the new agenda posting requirement. The Town maintains a dedicated webpage with the required agenda information with the direct link to this webpage posted on the Town Council page. To report complaints, especially related to water quality, a customer generally calls Town staff on the main Town Hall line or the emergency after hours number listed on the Town’s website. A customer also has an option of using a “MYville App” to report issues and complaints. All “MYville App” requests and phone calls are followed up by Town staff. The Town created a new draft policy to address water quality complaint reporting and tracking with the option of receiving a copy of the completed report upon request by the customer. The Town demonstrated accountability and transparency in its disclosure of information and cooperation with Napa LAFCO. The Town responded to the questionnaires and cooperated with the document requests. GROWTH AND POPULATION PROJECTIONS According to the California Department of Finance (DOF), the Town’s population as of 2019 was approximately 2,916, with about 30 percent living at the Veteran’s Home.495 Yountville’s population decreased by approximately one percent over the 10-year period since 2009, partially due to decline in the Veteran’s Home population. The Town of Yountville is nearly built out. There are three remaining large parcels of undeveloped land within its boundaries. A 30-acre agricultural parcel at the north end of town on Yountville Crossroad is currently planted with vineyards and is expected to remain in agricultural use. The other two parcels are also in agricultural use but will likely be developed over the next 20 years. The three-acre French Laundry garden site is designated for commercial development, and the 17-acre St. Joan of Arc Catholic Church site is designated for mixed residential development. This last site will require construction of a flood wall to fully realize its development potential. Additionally, there are four areas in the Town that will require revised land use designations to be developed, including: 1) West side of Washington street, 2) Humboldt street, 3) North Washington street, and 4) Vista Condominiums.496 The current list of development projects at various stages of approval and construction consists of 37 projects. These projects mostly include remodels, construction 493 http://www.townofyountville.com/town-council 494 https://townofyountville.legistar.com/Calendar.aspx 495 Town of Yountville, Draft General Plan, Envision Yountville, 2018, p. 33. 496 Town of Yountville, Draft General Plan, Envision Yountville, 2018, Land Use Element. CHAPTER 8: TOWN OF YOUNTVILLE 238 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR of new single-family residences and exterior modifications. Figure 8-2 shows a list of the largest development projects. Figure 8-2: Town of Yountville Development Projects Project Name Description Status Master Development Plan for new Stewart Cellars tasting room café and bookstore. Completed Master Development Plan for RH Gallery construction of 3 new structures Completed Master Development Plan for construction of a new complex with a wine tasting room, a retail space Handwritten and an apartment Completed Use Permit and Master Development Bardessono Hotel Three Plan Amendment for Bardessono Suite Lodging Unit Hotel Three-Suite Lodging Unit Completed S ource: http://www.townofyountville.com/departments-services/planning-building Projections conducted by the Town of Yountville show that at buildout the Town (excluding the Veteran’s Home) will contain 1,252 single-family residential units (an increase of 155 units since 2017), 273 multi-family residential units (an increase of 76 units since 2017) and 658,658 square feet of commercial space (an increase of 169,555 square feet since 2017). However, actual development will depend on future market conditions, property owner preferences, site-specific constraints, and other factors.497 The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) projects that the population of Yountville will grow by about 10 percent from 2020 to 2030. Thus, the average annual population growth in the Town is anticipated to be approximately one percent. Based on these projections, the Town’s population would increase from 2,916 in 2019 to approximately 3,240 in 2030. About half of the growth is expected to be allocated to the Veteran’s Home.498 As a State-owned property, local land use regulations generally do not apply to the Veterans Home.499 Napa LAFCO has developed its own population projections. To project future growth, LAFCO calculated the annual percentage change between 2012 and 2017 based on DOF population estimates for these years.500 The population growth was projected in five-year increments through 2030. According to LAFCO’s projections, the population of Yountville in 2025 will be about 2,860 and approximately 2,813 in 2030. LAFCO projects that between 2019 and 2030 the population of Yountville will be decreasing at an annual rate of about 0.32 percent. 497 Town of Yountville, Draft General Plan, Envision Yountville, 2018, p. 75. 498 Town of Yountville, Draft General Plan, Envision Yountville, 2018, p. 34. 499 Town of Yountville, Draft General Plan, Envision Yountville, 2018, p. 40. 500 The change in population, especially unincorporated area, between 2017-2018 was significant due to the wildfires and loss of homes. Therefore, LAFCO used the timeframe from 2012 to 2017. CHAPTER 8: TOWN OF YOUNTVILLE 239 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR DISADVANTAGED UNINCORPORATED COMMUNITIES LAFCO is required to evaluate disadvantaged unincorporated communities as part of this service review, including the location and characteristics of any such communities. Yountville is incorporated and does not serve any DUC in the unincorporated area. According to Napa LAFCO’s definition of DUCs, there are currently no disadvantaged unincorporated communities in Napa County. Based on the adopted policy, the Commission annually reviews Census Bureau American Community Survey data to determine if local and/or statewide median household income levels have changed.501 501 Napa Local Agency Formation Commission, Policy on Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities, 2018. CHAPTER 8: TOWN OF YOUNTVILLE 240 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR FINANCIAL ABILITY TO PROVIDE SERVICES The Town of Yountville provides water and wastewater services as Town enterprise (“business-type” activities). Town departments provide administrative and overhead services to the water and wastewater enterprises which allocate staff positions to Town departments.502 The enterprises are supported by rate revenues and charges; no property tax revenue accrues directly to the enterprises, and no General Fund revenues support those enterprises. The Town’s CAFR reports Town financials. The CAFR provides financial information separately for the water and wastewater “business-type” activities. The Town’s annual budget reports revenues and expenses separately for water and wastewater enterprises; several funds segregate operating and special revenues. Figure 8-3: Summary of Selected Financial Information, Town of Yountville Water Operations Town of Yountville Water Operations FY18-19 Water Budget Net $60,000 Operating Revenues $1,330,000 Operating Expenditures (exc. debt) $1,270,000 Ending Fund Balance as % of Operating Revenues 27% Ending Fund Balance $365,000 Debt Service as a % of Operating Revenues 0.0% Total Debt Outstanding $0 Monthly Water Rates as a % of Household Income 1.7% Typical Monthly Rate $102 Median Household Income (2017) $70,938 Pension+OPEB Total Payments % of Revenues 6.4% Pension+OPEB Total Payments $80,000 Unfunded Pension Liability $280,000 Unfunded OPEB Liability $140,000 2019-08-30 502 Staff allocations are reported in the FY19 budget, pg. 250 (Water Fund) and pg. 270, 274. CHAPTER 8: TOWN OF YOUNTVILLE 241 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR Figure 8-4: Summary of Selected Financial Information, Town of Yountville Wastewater Operations Town of Yountville Wastewater Operations FY18-19 Wastewater Budget Net $350,000 Operating Revenues $1,900,000 Operating Expenditures (exc. debt) $1,550,000 Ending Fund Balance as % of Operating Revenues 16% Ending Fund Balance $300,000 Debt Service as a % of Operating Revenues 0.7% Total Debt Outstanding $2,423,000 Monthly Rates as a % of Household Income 1.0% Typical Monthly Rate $56 Median Household Income (2017) $70,938 Pension+OPEB Total Payments % of Revenues 9.7% Pension+OPEB Total Payments $180,000 Unfunded Pension Liability $690,000 Unfunded OPEB Liability $340,000 2019-08-30 Balanced Budget A Balanced Budget requires that an agency have sufficient funds to pay for its expenditures. Recurring operating deficits are a warning sign of fiscal distress. In the short- term, reserves can backfill deficits and maintain services. However ongoing deficits eventually will deplete reserves. While the Town’s utility operations have experienced deficits in recent years (after funding debt service and capital improvements), a recent schedule of five-year rate increases should provide adequate revenues to cover expenditures over the five-year period. Water Services The Town’s water operating revenues exceeded operating expenditures for FY16 through FY19 (before capital improvements and capital recovery).503 The net revenues helped fund capital projects in each of those years but fell short of covering total capital improvements in FY17 through FY19. Rate increases of seven percent annually, which began in FY18, are anticipated to be sufficient to cover all capital projects and maintain adequate reserves over the five-year period of rate increases.504 The rate increases are intended also to cover increasing costs for water acquisition, a primary factor in the Town’s water operating costs (total water acquisition cost represented about 50 percent of the budget in FY19). Over the ten-year period from FY08 to FY18 water acquisition costs per acre-foot 503 Town of Yountville Adopted Operating Budget Fiscal Year 2018-19, Water Funds Summary (pg. 243). 504 Water and Wastewater Rate Study Presentation to the Yountville Town Council, Dec. 15, 2017 (slide 10). CHAPTER 8: TOWN OF YOUNTVILLE 242 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR increased an average of 8.7 percent annually. More recently, from FY16 to FY18 the cost per acre-foot increased nearly 70 percent. Wastewater Services The Town’s wastewater operating revenues exceeded operating expenditures for FY16 through FY19 (before capital improvements and treatment capital recovery).505 The net revenues helped fund capital projects in each of those years but fell short of covering total capital improvements and treatment capital recovery in FY18 and FY19. Rate increases of 12 percent annually, which began in FY18, are anticipated to be sufficient to cover all capital projects, meet debt service coverage requirements and maintain adequate reserves over the five-year period of rate increases.506 Fund Balances, Reserves and Liquidity Reserves, including Fund Balances, provide cushions for contingencies and capital needs. The Town Council has established targets for its Emergency Reserve Fund (20 percent of General Fund expenditures) and Revenue Stabilization Fund (29 percent of projected TOT revenue), which the adopted FY19 budget meets.507 The Town has not created reserves specific to its utility operations, other than its utility fund balances. Town policy requires that fund balance reserves will only be used for non-recurring one-time projects, and their use must be approved by the Town Council.508 Water Services The Water Utility Operations’ projected FY19 ending fund balance of $365,000509 equals 27 percent of annual revenues, providing a cushion for cash flow needs and short-term contingencies.510 The Water Utility Operations’ liquidity ratio, which is significantly positive (current assets exceed current liabilities by $3.6 million), indicates the short-term (less than one year) availability of these funds if needed. Wastewater Services The Wastewater Utility Operations’ projected FY19 ending fund balance of $299,000511 equals 16 percent of annual revenues, providing a minimum 2-month cushion for cash flow needs and short-term contingencies.512 The Wastewater Utility Operations’ liquidity ratio, which is significantly positive (current assets exceed current liabilities by $4.1 million), indicates the short-term (less than one year) availability of these funds if needed. 505 Town of Yountville Adopted Operating Budget Fiscal Year 2018-19, Wastewater Funds Summary, pg. 263. 506 Water and Wastewater Rate Study Presentation to the Yountville Town Council, Dec. 15, 2017 (slide 25). 507 Town of Yountville Adopted Operating Budget Fiscal Year 2018-19, pg. 26, pg. 39. 508 Town of Yountville Adopted Operating Budget Fiscal Year 2018-19, pg. 76. 509 Town of Yountville Adopted Operating Budget Fiscal Year 2018-19, Water Utility Operating Fund Summary pg. 245. 510 See Yountville Water Operations Financial Profile. 511 Town of Yountville Adopted Operating Budget Fiscal Year 2018-19, Wastewater Utility Operating Fund Summary pg. 265. 512 See Yountville Water Operations Financial Profile. CHAPTER 8: TOWN OF YOUNTVILLE 243 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR Net Position The Town’s utility enterprises have a positive Net Position and positive Unrestricted Net Positions, indicating that net assets, other than capital assets, exceed total liabilities. Water Services The Water Utility Operations Fund has a net position of $5.1 million, which represents the value of assets in excess of liabilities. The net position is primarily invested in capital assets; unrestricted funds total about $3.3 million.513 Wastewater Services The Wastewater Utility Operations Fund has a net position of $10 million, which represents the value of assets in excess of liabilities. The net position is primarily invested in capital assets; unrestricted funds total about $3.4 million.514 Rates and Charges Water and wastewater operations are primarily funded by service charges. Enterprises are allowed to establish charges sufficient to fund their cost of service. Rates typically are expected to not exceed 2-2.5 percent of household income, for each utility;515 Yountville’s rates for water equal 1.7 percent of median household incomes, and wastewater typical rates equal 1.0 percent of median household incomes.516 The Town collects sewer and water connection impact fees to pay for system improvements required to serve new development. The rates are based on a 2005 fee study.517 The Town offers a reduced rate program for low-income households funded by the Town’s General Fund ($10,000 appropriated in FY20).518 The program provides $25 reduction in monthly combined water and wastewater fixed fee charges.519 Water Services The Town prepared a water rate study update in 2017 that established rates to fund operations, debt service and capital improvements through FY22.520 The Town Council adopted rate increases of seven percent annually, which began in FY18. 513 Town of Yountville FY18 CAFR, Statement of Net Position, Proprietary Funds, pg. 34. 514 Town of Yountville FY18 CAFR, Statement of Net Position, Proprietary Funds, pg. 34. 515 Teodoro, et al, (2018) cite USEPA’s Financial Capability Guidebook (USEPA 1984) as original source for the use of personal income as a measure, although it was not applied to rates in the 1984 document. 516 Based on median household income of $70,938 according to the American Community Survey 2017, DP03, 5-Year estimates. See appendix for detailed estimate of typical household charges. 517 Town of Yountville Development Impact Fee Study, Bartle Wells Associates, May 2005. 518 PCA interview with Town of Yountville, 9/18/19. 519 Town of Yountville media release June 27, 2018, Utility Rate Assistance Available to Qualified Customers Beginning July 1, 2018. 520 Town of Yountville Water Rate Study Update 2017/18, Bartle Wells Associates, 11/22/2017. CHAPTER 8: TOWN OF YOUNTVILLE 244 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR Wastewater Services The Town prepared a wastewater rate study update in 2017 that established rates to fund operations, debt service and capital improvements through FY22.521 The Town Council adopted rate increases of 12 percent annually, which began in FY18. Long-term Debt Excessive long-term debt incurs interest charges that consume financial resources that could otherwise fund needed services and capital improvements. Studies indicate that a majority of debt-paying water and wastewater agencies surveyed spent between 10 percent and 30 percent of their total operating revenues on debt service.522 Yountville wastewater services spend less than one percent of revenues for debt service. Water services have no loans or debt. The Town’s debt, budget and reserves contribute to Yountville’s stable Fitch Rating, ‘AA-’ for the Town and ‘A+’ for the Lease Revenue Bond Series.523 Water Services Water services have no loans or debt. Wastewater Services The Town’s wastewater services has a loan from the State’s revolving fund with a balance outstanding of $2.3 million. Pension and OPEB Liabilities Unfunded pension and OPEB liabilities present one of the most serious fiscal challenges facing many cities and districts. However, current costs and potential increases in Yountville pension and OPEB costs do not appear to be a significant adverse factor relative to its total budget. The Town’s total unfunded liability for all services is $3.7 million; its combined plans are about 77 percent funded (not contract services including law enforcement and fire protection).524 CalPERS projects the Town’s payments towards unfunded liabilities to grow a total of about 12 percent from FY19 to FY25.525 In FY18, the Town established and funded a Pension Rate Stabilization Plan (PRSP) Section 115 Trust Fund with PARS.526 Water Services Unfunded pension and OPEB liabilities allocated to the water system total $420,000; payments toward these liabilities total about 6.4 percent of total revenues.527 521 Town of Yountville Water Rate Study Update 2017/18, Bartle Wells Associates, 11/22/2017. 522 http://efc.web.unc.edu/2014/02/17/napshot-debt-service-as-percent-of-total-operating-revenues/ 523 Town of Yountville Adopted Operating Budget Fiscal Year 2018-19, pg. 12 524 CalPERS Actuarial Valuation as of June 30, 2017 for the Town of Yountville, Plans’ Funded Status, pg. 5 (three tiers). 525 CalPERS Actuarial Valuation as of June 30, 2017 for the Town of Yountville, Projected Employer Contributions, pg. 5. 526 Town of Yountville Adopted Operating Budget Fiscal Year 2018-19, pg. 150. 527 Town of Yountville Adopted Operating Budget Fiscal Year 2018-19, Water, pg. 244,* and pg. 249. *Includes adjustment for GASB 68. See also Town of Yountville Fiscal Profile, Appendix A, Table A-8. CHAPTER 8: TOWN OF YOUNTVILLE 245 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR Wastewater Services Unfunded pension and OPEB liabilities allocated to the wastewater system total $1,030,000; payments toward these liabilities total about 9.7 percent of total revenues.528 Capital Assets Capital assets must be adequately maintained and replaced over time and expanded as needed to accommodate future demand and respond to regulatory and technical changes. The value of the Town’s depreciable utility assets declined from FY17 to FY18, as described below. Water Services The value of depreciable capital assets declined about 2.1 percent from FY17 to FY18. FY18 financial reports show no additions to depreciable “business-type activity” asset value to offset annual water system depreciation of $64,000.529 The Town’s Five-Year CIP Summary shows an average of about $386,000 annually budgeted towards ongoing expenditures for replacement of water distribution facilities and for other programs.530 These costs are in addition to other periodic charges programmed for various main and lateral repair and other special projects. Wastewater Services The value of depreciable capital assets declined about 3.0 percent from FY17 to FY18. FY18 financial reports show no additions to depreciable “business-type activity” asset value to offset annual wastewater system depreciation of $313,000.531 The Town’s Five-Year CIP Summary shows an average of about $593,000 annually budgeted towards ongoing expenditures for infiltration reduction, and system repair and replacement for wastewater and reclamation facilities.532 These costs are in addition to other periodic charges programmed for various pump, main and replacement of other components. Financial Planning and Reporting Achieving transparency and public accountability standards dictates that cities and agencies provide easily accessible and clear documentation of their activities, including financial information. Website — The Town’s website includes descriptions of and access to current and past water and wastewater financial documents. 528 Town of Yountville Adopted Operating Budget Fiscal Year 2018-19, Wastewater, pg. 264*, pg. 273. *Includes adjustment for GASB 68. See also Town of Yountville Fiscal Profile, Appendix A, Table A-8. 529 Town of Yountville FY18 CAFR, Statement of Net Position, Proprietary Funds, pg. 35. 530 Town of Yountville 5-Year CIP Summary FY18-FY23, pdf pg. 8 of 9. 531 Town of Yountville FY18 CAFR, Statement of Net Position, Proprietary Funds, pg. 35. 532 Town of Yountville 5-Year CIP Summary FY18-FY23, pdf pg. 6-7 of 9. CHAPTER 8: TOWN OF YOUNTVILLE 246 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) — The Town includes its water and wastewater operations in its CAFR, which is published in a timely manner within six months of the end of the fiscal year. Capital Improvement Program — The Town creates a Five-Year CIP and updates the CIP for each budget year as a part of its annual budget process. Asset Management Plan (AMP) — Although the Town does not prepare an AMP, the Town considers elements of an AMP when updating its CIP. An AMP includes the desired service level, the estimated economically useful life, operating, energy, insurance, maintenance and disposal costs. Expected rehabilitation costs are estimated and scheduled in the life cycle budget. Water Services Cost of Service/Rate Study – The Town updated its rates and created a five-year schedule of rate increases, which took effect beginning FY18. 533 Impact fees studies were last prepared in 2005 and revised to current rates. Financial Forecasts – The Town’s 2017 rate study included a five-year financial forecast. The Town indicated that in FY18 it began preparation of a five-year General Government Long-Range Financial Forecast, however, that forecast apparently will not include updates to utility financial forecasts.534 Wastewater Services Cost of Service/Rate Study – The Town updated its rates and created a five-year schedule of rate increases, which took effect beginning FY18. 535 Financial Forecasts – The Town’s 2017 rate study included a five-year financial forecast. The Town indicated that in FY18 it began preparation of a five-year General Government Long-Range Financial Forecast, however, that forecast apparently will not include updates to utility financial forecasts.536 533 Town of Yountville Water Rate Study Update 2017/18, Bartle Wells Associates, 11/22/2017. 534 Town of Yountville Adopted Operating Budget Fiscal Year 2018-19, pg. 37, pg. 150. 535 Town of Yountville Water Rate Study Update 2017/18, Bartle Wells Associates, 11/22/2017. 536 Town of Yountville Adopted Operating Budget Fiscal Year 2018-19, pg. 37, pg. 150. CHAPTER 8: TOWN OF YOUNTVILLE 247 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR WATER SERVICES The Town of Yountville plans for its water and recycled water services through goals and policies in its General Plan last updated in 2018. The Town’s General Plan includes a range of policies and programs to ensure that water supplies meet the demands of existing and future development, are adequately funded, that new development funds its fair share of services, and that the provision of water supplies to new projects does not adversely affect the supply and reliability for existing customers.537 These goals and policies related to adequacy and capacity include: v HO-2.1 Public Services. Ensure that public services, particularly for sewage disposal and water supply, are adequate to accommodate potential housing increases. v HO-2.1a Adequate Water Capacity. The Town shall continue to ensure adequate water capacity for new residential projects. v HO-10.1 Energy and Water Conservation. Encourage energy and water conservation in the design or modification of housing units. The General Plan also includes infrastructure and public services policies and programs aimed to ensure that service levels are adequate. For example, Policy LU-3.6 aims to provide and maintain adequate public infrastructure and services to meet the needs of existing and future development. Policy LU-3.6a requires analysis of project impacts on infrastructure capacity and services as part of CEQA review, and Policy LU-3.7 requires payment of the fair share fee of infrastructure improvements and public service costs to the Town. Additionally, Policy OS-6.1 aims to ensure that there is adequate water supply and infrastructure to meet the needs of existing and future development. Subsequent development projects proposed within the General Plan area would be subject to these policies.538 Policy OS-6.2 aspires to preserve and protect open space and, where appropriate, other natural areas that assist in the recharge of groundwater basins, and Policy OS-6.3 aims to properly manage and conserve the Town's water supply.539 Additionally, the Town of Yountville adopted a Climate Action Plan where it outlined recommended community actions related to water and wastewater services. These broad water use goals include reducing indoor and outdoor water use and reducing potable water use for landscape irrigation.540 Type and Extent of Services Services Provided The Town of Yountville provides potable water services to residential, commercial, industrial, and agricultural customers and recycled water services to agricultural, public golf 537 Town of Yountville, Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Yountville General Plan Update, 2018, p. 3.15-28 538 Town of Yountville, Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Yountville General Plan Update, 2018, p. 3.15-27 539 Town of Yountville, Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Yountville General Plan Update, 2018, p. 3.15-27 540 Town of Yountville, Climate Action Plan, 2016, pp. 50-53. CHAPTER 8: TOWN OF YOUNTVILLE 248 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR course and construction customers within its service area. Water supply and treatment are primarily provided by the California Department of Veterans Affairs (CDVA).541 Service Area The water system for the Town is limited to the distribution of domestic water to its customers in the eastern part of Town. The CDVA provides water service directly to residents at the Veterans Home.542 The Town of Yountville also provides water services to 35543 customers outside of its boundary area. When the Town incorporated, it took responsibility for the existing water customers served by a water transmission line along Silverado Trail and Yountville Crossroad. Because the properties may access groundwater via private on-site wells to utilize for landscape and vineyard/agriculture, the Town prohibits use of municipal water for these outdoor purposes. The Town indicates that on a per-unit basis, the out-of-boundary customers utilize a greater quantity of water as compared to in-town customers. Additionally, during the drought, water was conserved at a lower rate by the out-of- boundary customers. New water connections to parcels located outside the Town’s jurisdictional boundary have been prohibited since 1977, although three new connections were allowed in 1993 due to hardship situations. The Town has adopted several resolutions to provide strict policies governing out-of-boundary water customers.544 The recycled water service area encompasses the Town’s municipal boundaries, including the Yountville Veterans Home, and approximately 4,000 acres of vineyards in unincorporated Napa County within a five-mile radius of its existing recycled water pipelines.545 In total, there are five connections to the recycled water system outside of the Town of Yountville’s boundaries. Recycled water services are exempt from requiring LAFCO approval prior to extension of services beyond an agency’s boundaries under Government Code §56133. The Town makes its recycled water available for trucking through a filling station at the Wastewater Reclamation Facility (WWRF). There are no limitations on who may make use of the recycled water for trucking. Users must sign up and pay the associated fee as well as receive training on the proper use of recycled water and filling procedures. There are approximately 10-15 trucked water users. The trucked water used for soil compaction/dust control is less than one percent of total annual recycled water use for the Town. 541 Town of Yountville, Draft General Plan, 2018. 542 Town of Yountville, Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Yountville General Plan Update, 2018, p. 3.15-19. 543 Joe Tagliaboschi, Town of Yountville, Public World Director, email from July 31, 2019. 544 Town of Yountville, Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Yountville General Plan Update, 2018, p. 3.15-19. 545 Town of Yountville, Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Yountville General Plan Update, 2018, p. 3.15-6. CHAPTER 8: TOWN OF YOUNTVILLE 249 Town of Yountville Figure 8-5 Legend Town of Yountville Jurisdictional Boundary Town of Yountville Sphere of Influence Town of Yountville Outside Water Connections S Town of Yountville ta te Outside Sewer Connections L a n e Y o u n t M o a d £¤ 29 ill R o a d ville Cr oss R S ilv Yo u nt F in n e r a d o T ell R r a il o a d ne W L a a sh in L a n d g to n S tr Drive e e t nia Califor Lane man Hoff £¤ 29 0 0.2 0.4Miles Lake Yountville Yolo Calistoga December 31, 2019 St. Helena Prepared by LAFCO Staff Sonoma Napa Yountville Napa Solano LAFCO of Napa County 1030 Seminary Street, Suite B Sonoma Napa, California 94559 American Marin Canyon http://www.napa.lafco.ca.gov NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR Services to Other Agencies The Town does not provide any water-related services to other agencies. Contracts for Services Yountville has an agreement with CDVA to provide the Town with 500 acre-feet (af) of potable water per year from Rector Reservoir and more when it is available.546 The Town has had an agreement with CDVA for water supply for over 55 years. The current contract is for the period July 1, 2004 to June 30, 2024. According to the contract, the Veterans Home and other State users have first and prior right to all water in Rector Reservoir. The Towns rate of purchase includes a set percentage of treatment costs at the Rector Reservoir treatment facility regardless of the amount purchased. On April 1 of each year, CDVA must notify the Town of the amount of water available for delivery. Based on the agreement, the Town must purchase a minimum of 250 af each year. In an emergency, the Town has agreements to purchase treated water from the City of Napa, Napa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (State Water Project water) and from two Domaine Chandon wells.547 There is also an agreement with the City of Napa to provide 20 hours of water conservation education in Yountville, which includes a booth at Yountville Days.548 Overlapping Service Providers Although the Town’s water service area does not overlap with another water service provider, CDVA provides water delivery services within the Town’s boundary area at the Veteran’s Home. The roles of the two agencies are clearly defined and there is no duplication of services. Collaboration Yountville collaborates with CDVA, from which the Town obtains a majority of its water.549 The Town also has collaborative relationships with the City of Napa and Napa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District. Staffing The Public Works Department operates the Town’s water distribution system. The Water Fund Operations Division of the Public Works Department is used to account for the operation and maintenance of water distribution for residential, commercial, public and other properties in the Town and 35 accounts outside of the Town boundaries.550 The Utility Operations Manager works with Public Works staff and contractors as necessary to operate and maintain the physical water distribution system. The Water Fund Operations Division utilizes the Badger/Beacon electronic meter reading system to remotely read water meters on a monthly billing cycle. The use of meter reading technology allows for 546 Town of Yountville, Draft General Plan, Envision Yountville, 2018, p. 154. 547 Town of Yountville, Draft General Plan, Envision Yountville, 2018, p. 154. 548 Town of Yountville, Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Yountville General Plan Update, 2018, p. 3.15-20. 549 Town of Yountville, Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Yountville General Plan Update, 2018, p. 3.15-19. 550 Town of Yountville, Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Yountville General Plan Update, 2018, p. 3.15-19. CHAPTER 8: TOWN OF YOUNTVILLE 251 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR the cellular network to completely read all of the water meters in the Town’s system with little to no staff time for reading of meters. This is compared to the hand read meters which took up to three days. The Utility Operations Manager and three wastewater treatment plant operators maintain the WWRF. The Utility Operations Staff (including the Water Service Worker) also operate the emergency municipal water well including the water treatment, so that the emergency well will be ready in case of an emergency. Town staff takes weekly, monthly, annual and semi-annual water samples from the distribution system and the well for testing and reporting to the California Department of Public Health and customers.551 Water Supply The Town obtains its water supply from the CDVA, which has rights to water from Rector Reservoir. Rector Reservoir is located on Rector Creek, a tributary to the Napa River. The Reservoir was formed following the construction of Rector Dam in 1946 and was subsequently raised in 1985, resulting in a total storage capacity of approximately 4,600 af. The Reservoir’s safe yield is estimated to be 1,670 acre-feet per year (afy). An additional amount of raw water is bypassed (to in-stream releases) to meet the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) requirements.552 CDVA administers operations at Rector Reservoir and the Rector Reservoir Water Treatment Plant (RRWTP). The RRWTP has a daily treatment capacity of 4.5 million gallons (mg). A one-million-gallon treated water storage tank is located near the Treatment Plant. In addition to the Town of Yountville, RRWTP provides potable water to the following: Veterans Home of California Yountville, State Department of Fish and Wildlife Silverado Fisheries, Napa County Corp Yard located on Silverado Trail, Vintner’s Golf Course (Potable Water Only for Clubhouse), Napa Valley Museum (on Veterans Home Grounds), Paraduxx Vineyards (Potable Water Only), and Vyborny Vineyards (Potable Water Only). In addition, Rector Reservoir provides raw water (untreated) to the State Department of Fish and Wildlife fish hatchery operations. The CDVA provides the Town with an allocation of 500 afy through the contract, which is set to expire in 2024. The Town’s agreement with CDVA allows the Town to purchase more than their annual allocation amount when surplus water is available. The availability of surplus water supply from Rector Reservoir has continued to be reliable for the Town during the last four years of drought conditions. From FY 10-11 to FY 17-18, the Town purchased an average of 548.5 afy from the CDVA, as shown in Figure 8-6. In recent years, the cost of purchasing this water has increased by 50 percent.553 551 Town of Yountville, Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Yountville General Plan Update, 2018, p. 3.15-20. 552 Town of Yountville, Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Yountville General Plan Update, 2018, p. 3.15-16. 553 Town of Yountville, Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Yountville General Plan Update, 2018, p. 3.15-16. CHAPTER 8: TOWN OF YOUNTVILLE 252 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR Figure 8-6: Purchased Water FY 10-11 through FY 17-18 Amount of CDVA Water Purchased Fiscal Year Water (AFY) FY 10-11 514 FY 11-12 559 FY 12-13 581 FY 13-14 612 FY 14-15 604 FY 15-16 614 FY 16-17 429 FY. 17-18 475 Average 548.5 Town of Yountville, Draft Environmental Impact Report for Envision Yountville General Plan Update, 2018, p. 3.15-17. The Town of Yountville also has the ability to purchase water from the City of Napa, which serves as an exporter to the cities of American Canyon, St. Helena, and Calistoga, and the Town of Yountville and the Veteran’s Home as residential customers. While St. Helena is contractually obligated to purchase a minimum amount of water from the City of Napa each year, Yountville and the Veteran’s Home purchases are rare and minimal due to their own sufficient local supply sources;554 however, shutdowns at CDVA’s water treatment plant in the recent year has required higher than usual use of City of Napa supply. The City of Napa has rights to three major sources including Lake Hennessey and Milliken Reservoir, which are local surface water reservoirs along tributaries of the Napa River, and the State Water Project water delivered through the North Bay Aqueduct. The Town established a Water Drought Reserve Fund from the proceeds of the sale of the Town’s SWP water rights in 2009 to the City of Napa. This reserve fund provides approximately $2,000,000 for the purchase of additional water supply of up to 200 af on the “spot market”555 from Napa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District in the event of an extended drought or other emergency situations.556 The Town, however, is not guaranteed that it would receive the entire 200 af.557 Another source of Yountville’s water supply is its own groundwater well, which was built in 2005 for use in emergency or drought situations. The well has a capacity of 700 gallons per minute (gpm) or up to 300 afy and is treated for iron and manganese. Domaine Chandon groundwater wells are also a potential future emergency water supply source, although the infrastructure to connect them to the Town has not yet been developed.558 Although the Town considers its groundwater well its emergency water source, the Napa 2050 Study indicates that basin demands could exceed supply during dry years by 6,000 af in 2020 and by 10,000 554 Town of Yountville, Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Yountville General Plan Update, 2018, p. 3.15-17. 555 The City of Napa serves as the Town’s broker for the purchase of water on the “spot market” during drought. 556 Town of Yountville, Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Yountville General Plan Update, 2018, p. 3.15-17. 557 Town of Yountville, City of Santa Rosa, Economics of Sustainable Water Reuse in the Napa Valley. 558 Town of Yountville, Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Yountville General Plan Update, 2018, p. 3.15-17. CHAPTER 8: TOWN OF YOUNTVILLE 253 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR af in 2050. For preliminary planning purposes, the Town estimated that its study area559 could experience shortages of 600 to 1,000 af.560 There is the potential for a small shortfall in the urban water supply during critically dry years. However, more importantly, as indicated in the Napa 2050 Study, dry years can challenge the groundwater basin which supports both municipal and agricultural supplies. The Town’s ability to provide additional recycled water supply could provide an important element of reliability in critically dry years and reduce projected groundwater shortfalls during these periods.561 The Town’s water sources with allotted amounts are shown in Figure 8-7. Figure 8-7: Town of Yountville Water Sources (afy) Water Supply by Source Source Normal Year Supply Dry Year Supply Rector Reservoir (CDVA) 500 125 Varies by year, depending on Rector Reservoir (CDVA) Surplus surplus availability - City of Napa 25 - Yountville Municipal Emergency Well 300 300 SWP Spot market purchases 200 200 TOTAL 1,025 625 Source: Town of Yountville, Draft Environmental Impact Report for Envision Yountville General Plan Update, 2018, p. 3.15-16. In 2018, the State Water Resources Control Board raised the alarm about potentially low water supply in Rector Reservoir in the summer months despite the end of the statewide drought in 2017. The Town is unaware how this issue is being addressed or how it will affect future flows as CDVA has reportedly not been communicative about the issue. The Town reported that in the past Rector Reservoir has generally been a reliable supply source. Additionally, there have been issues with unplanned repairs at the CDVA water treatment plant that have forced outages. The Town of Yountville is typically able to purchase the needed amount of water from the City of Napa during outages at the water treatment plant or periods of limited flow. The Town reported little advance warning is given during these outages, which have lasted up to three months. Greater collaboration on the part of CDVA is recommended to keep customers informed about issues at the reservoir and treatment plant, potential for water delivery impacts, and the manner in which the issues are being addressed. CDVA’s most recent planning and assessment report of the Reservoir was conducted in May of 2013; the Rector Reservoir Water Yield Study was completed as an update to the 2000 study. This document is used to shape the management of operations of the reservoir and water treatment plant. Currently, an on-going comprehensive study is being conducted 559 The Town has defined a study area that includes its municipal boundaries, the California Department of Veterans Affairs Yountville Veteran’s Home and approximately 4,000 acres of vineyards within a five-mile radius of its existing recycled water pipelines. 560 Town of Yountville, City of Santa Rosa, Economics of Sustainable Water Reuse in the Napa Valley. 561 Town of Yountville, City of Santa Rosa, Economics of Sustainable Water Reuse in the Napa Valley. CHAPTER 8: TOWN OF YOUNTVILLE 254 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR looking at the instream flow of Rector Creek, the overall condition of the stream, and model water delivery capacities based on wet and dry years scenarios. This report is estimated to be completed by March 2022. While drought is always a concern for area water providers, CDVA reported that the characteristics of the Rector watershed allow it to fill rapidly with one or two good storms. CDVA reported that long-term solutions are being explored for better water management, that include alternate sources of water, and responsible management and stewardship of the Rector watershed. In addition to the aforementioned study that is in progress that will contain a drought contingency component, CDVA has recently joined the Napa County Water Resources Technical Advisory Committee to partner and hear from other agencies in the valley to look at drought scenarios and possible responses. Rector Reservoir is also one of three Napa County reservoirs that was targeted by Water Audit California—an activist group engaged in protecting fish habitats. In 2016, Water Audit filed a lawsuit against CDVA and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife to force these agencies to coordinate a proper release of water from Rector Dam into streams to protect the downstream fish habitat. The settlement, which included the requirement to bring the operation of Rector Dam and Reservoir into compliance with California Fish and Game Code §5937, was reached in the spring of 2019. While CDVA has not indicated to the Town if this settlement agreement will have any impact on water availability for the Town, it reported during the process of this report that it was not anticipated that the settlement with Water Audit would have any significant effect on water supply. 562 A study is being conducted to evaluate the stream flow and fish habitat of Rector Creek and Rector Reservoir. This study will provide information on the true capacity of the reservoir, and the amount of water to be released in the stream to provide good conditions for native fish species. This study will ultimately help determine the amount of bypass releases, the best time for these releases, and the capacity of this water supply for potable water uses. 563 Recycled water The Town of Yountville currently delivers tertiary treated recycled water to a golf course and 770 acres of vineyards. The Town established a General Plan area for the Recycled Water Expansion Project which encompasses the Town’s municipal boundaries, including the Yountville Veterans Home, and approximately 4,000 acres of vineyards within a five-mile radius of its existing recycled water pipelines.564 According to the 2018 Annual Report to the Drinking Water Program, that year the Town delivered 382 acre-feet of recycled water for irrigation and agricultural activities, which equates to beneficial reuse of 93 percent of the total wastewater treated. Initiated in 1979, the original intent of the Town’s reclamation program was to reduce storage requirements for treated wastewater when discharge to the Napa River is prohibited by the RWQCB2. In 2010, the Town completed a $1.2 million upgrade to the WWRF, which improved the quality of the recycled water from advanced secondary treated recycled water to Tertiary Title 22 unrestricted recycled water. Subsequently, the Town received state grant funding and loan financing to construct a recycled water distribution system to provide up 562 California Department of Veterans Affairs, Response to request for information, December 5, 2019. 563 California Department of Veterans Affairs, Response to request for information, December 5, 2019. 564 Town of Yountville, Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Yountville General Plan Update, 2018, p. 3.15-6. CHAPTER 8: TOWN OF YOUNTVILLE 255 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR to 268 af to two new and three current recycled customers. In 2013, new recycled water agreements were executed. Construction of the Recycled Water Expansion Project was completed in August 2015.565 The Town currently provides recycled water for irrigation and landscaping uses to seven non-residential customers. During the summer and fall, recycled water is delivered to customer holding ponds, and used on the Vintner’s Golf Course and transported to six vineyards. The six vineyards currently served in the unincorporated Napa County area include Chimney Rock, Regusci, Stag's Leap Wine Cellars, Clos du Val, Mondavi/Wappo Hill, and Beringer. The Town maintains approximately 5.5 miles of irrigation lines to provide service to these facilities. Under the contract with the Veterans Home, an amount of recycled water equivalent to the volume of wastewater that is generated by the Veterans Home must be delivered and used on the Vintners Golf Course.566 Emergency Preparedness During an emergency, up to 25 af of potable water can be drawn through two interconnections with the City of Napa’s Conn Dam Transmission Line, which runs parallel to SR 29.567 The Town may also purchase up to 200 af per year from spot purchases of State Water Project water through the Town’s agreement with the Napa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, and excess water from two Domaine Chandon wells.568 The Town is also able to use its own municipal well.569 As of the drafting of this report, there has not yet been an emergency that required the well to be used.570 Water Demand In 2018, the Town’s potable water system served 644 single family residential connections, 83 multi-family residential connections, 82 commercial/institutional connections, one industrial connection, and 23 landscape irrigation connections. All of the aforementioned 833 connections were metered. There were additionally 36 unmetered connections that included fire suppression, street cleaning, line flushing, construction meters, and temporary meters.571 From FY 06-07 through FY 17-18, the Town’s annual water demand ranged from 472 to 612 af, with an average of approximately 475 acre-feet per year over the last three years. Although annual water demand has exceeded the Town’s contractual allocation from the CDVA at times, the Town has been able to purchase additional water from the CDVA, as was previously mentioned. Given the willingness of CDVA to sell surplus water to the Town and the Town’s designated emergency water supplies, the water supply is adequate to meet Yountville’s current needs. The Town’s water conservation programs help the Town to reduce overall demand on potable water supplies.572 565 Town of Yountville, Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Yountville General Plan Update, 2018, p. 3.15-6. 566 Town of Yountville, Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Yountville General Plan Update, 2018, p. 3.15-6. 567 Town of Yountville, Draft General Plan, Envision Yountville, 2018, p. 70. 568 The connection to the Domaine Chandon wells has not yet been constructed. 569 Town of Yountville, Draft General Plan, Envision Yountville, 2018, p. 69. 570 Town of Yountville, Draft General Plan, Envision Yountville, 2018, p. 152. 571Town of Yountville, Small Water System Annual Report to the Drinking Water Program, 2017. 572 Town of Yountville, Draft General Plan, Envision Yountville, 2018, p. 154. CHAPTER 8: TOWN OF YOUNTVILLE 256 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR The 2015, 2016, 2017, and 2018 demand for potable and recycled water in the Town’s water service area is shown in Figure 8-8. Figure 8-8: Demand for Potable and Recycled Water by Customer Type, 2015-2018 (af) Demand for Potable and Recycled Water User Type 2015 2016 2017 2018 Single-Family Residential 179.54 174.53 201.55 199.32 Multi-Family Residential 86.32 76.42 75.92 80.45 Commercial/Industrial/Institutional 199.55 203.68 196.99 193.12 Landscape (Recycled) 5.99 4.95 4.17 3.18 Agricultural Irrigation (Recycled) 31.93 28.86 26.42 35.52 Other Miscellaneous 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 465.41 454.63 474.46 472.89 Source: Reported by the Town of Yountville. The Town assessed the possibility of offsetting some of its urban water uses with recycled water; however, due to the Town’s recycled water agricultural customers there isn’t enough additional capacity from the treated effluent to provide recycled water in the summer season to any additional customers, as was reported by Yountville. The Town used its water billing database to identify urban water uses that could be offset with recycled water. The Town is largely developed and is not likely to grow outwards due to land use restrictions. The estimated water demand at buildout is 679 af per year, which is slightly over eight percent greater than the Town’s dry year supplies573 and 11 percent over the highest water demand amount (612 af) between FYs 06-07 and 17-18. Since the projected demand at buildout is only slightly higher than the current demand, and supply sources have been reliable and adequate to accommodate demand, it is anticipated that the Town’s current water supply will be able to accommodate future needs. However, this assertion relies heavily on the sustainability of services offered by the CDVA at the reservoir and the treatment plant. The Town’s projected demand for potable and recycled water is depicted in Figure 8-9. 573 Town of Yountville, City of Santa Rosa, Economics of Sustainable Water Reuse in the Napa Valley. CHAPTER 8: TOWN OF YOUNTVILLE 257 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR Figure 8-9: Projected Demand for Potable and Recycled Water, 2020-2040 (acre-feet) Projected Demand for Potable and Recycled Water Use Type 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 Single-Family Residential 251 256 261 267 272 Multi-Family Residential 32 32 33 33 34 Other- Commercial/Industrial/Institutional 171 175 178 182 185 Landscape* - - - - - Agricultural Irrigation 0 0 0 0 0 Other- Miscellaneous 25 26 26 27 27 TOTAL POTABLE 479 489 489 508 519 Recycled Water NP NP NP NP NP Source: Reported by the Town of Yountville. *Billing system tracks landscape by class, so data is included in Single Family, Multifamily, or Commercial user type. NP- Not Provided In order to better weather a drought or other outage, the Town is participating in the Napa Drought Contingency Plan and is considering other water sources, such as its own well source. Water Infrastructure and Facilities The Town’s water infrastructure consists of the distribution systems for potable and recycled water. The Town does not own or operate a water treatment plant or any storage facilities. Distribution System The water system for the Town is limited to the distribution of domestic water to its customers in the eastern part of Town. The CDVA provides water service directly to residents at the Veterans Home. The Town’s distribution system is gravity fed and is under a single pressure zone. Since Yountville operates without treated water storage facilities, the distribution system is continually drawing potable water from its two interconnections with the Veterans Home. During an emergency, potable water can be drawn through two interconnections with the City of Napa’s 36-inch Conn Dam Transmission Line.574 If pressure drops to 55 psi or lower in the Yountville distribution system, the Napa intertie that provides additional water automatically opens.575 The Town reported that approximately 90 percent of the system mains are in good condition and require minimal maintenance, while approximately 1,200 feet is in poor condition and in need of replacement. All meters have been recently replaced and are in excellent condition. Similarly, one pressure regulator was replaced in 2020 and is in excellent condition, and the other was replaced five years ago and 574 Town of Yountville, Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Yountville General Plan Update, 2018, p. 3.15-20. 575 State Water Resources Control Board, Inspection Report for Town of Yountville Public Water System ID# 2810007, 2018. CHAPTER 8: TOWN OF YOUNTVILLE 258 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR is considered to be in good to excellent condition. Figure 8-10 provides a summary of the Town’s distribution infrastructure and its condition. Figure 8- 10: Water Distribution Infrastructure Infrastructure Type Description Condition 90% good, Distribution Mains 6.9 miles 10% poor Municipal Emergency Well 1 well Excellent/Good Meters 846 service connections and meters Excellent Pressure Regulator 2 between the State's transmission line Stations and Yountville's distribution system Excellent Unaccounted for water loss, specifically the amount of water lost due to system breaks and leaks, as well as illegal connections, is a measure of the water system’s integrity. Water losses can include “real losses”, which are physical losses from the water distribution system and the supplier’s storage facilities) as well as “apparent losses”, which represent losses due to metering inaccuracies, data handling errors and/or unauthorized consumption. To ensure water delivery to customers the Town calculates non-revenue water, which is the difference between the amount of water produced and the amount of water billed. Unaccounted for water loss, specifically the amount of water lost due to system breaks and leaks, as well as illegal connections, is a measure of the water system’s integrity. The Town’s goal is to have total water loss of less than 10 percent of what is purchased/produced.576 The Town-reported total losses in 2018 were 1.2 percent of water purchased in that year. Figure 8-11: Water Loss Summary (2014-2018) Water Loss Summary Year Water loss as % of purchased water 2014 5.4% 2015 5.47% 2016 3.6% 2017 0.61% 2018 1.2% Breaks and leaks in the mains and service connections account for some of the loss experienced in the system. The Town experienced one main breaks in 2014, one in 2015, zero in 2016, zero in 2017, and two in 2018, which averages to 0.8 main breaks annually and eight breaks per 100 miles of main. This is significantly lower than the national average of between 21 and 27 breaks per 100 miles of pipe per year.577 Over the five-year period, the Town experienced little fluctuation in the number of breaks experiences. 576 Town of Yountville, Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Yountville General Plan Update, 2018, p. 3.15-20. 577 WaterRF, Knowledge Portals, 2017. CHAPTER 8: TOWN OF YOUNTVILLE 259 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR Treatment While not operated by the Town, the condition of the Rector Reservoir Water Treatment Plant affects the operations of the Town’s water system. The plant was upgraded in 2000- 2001 to better accommodate water treatment based on the water quality in the reservoir. CDVA identified the treatment plant as being for the most part in good condition, operating within design parameters with day to day routine maintenance. On occasion, major overhauls of filtration systems, pumps systems, tank systems, is required which may take the plant off-line for an extended period of 30 days or more.578 CDVA reported there are no major infrastructure needs at RRWTP at this time. Capital planning for the RRWTP is accomplished through the Capital Assets Division in the headquarter offices located in Sacramento. Projects are identified through a review and scheduled process. Services from a design and engineering firm are retained to evaluate projects, assign priority, estimate cost, and explore funding options. Major projects are funded through the State budgeting process subject to legislative review and approval, and ratification from the Governor. Specific projects are funded through a Budget Change Proposal for a designated fiscal year budget. CDVA reported that the five-year CIP plan is a confidential document and is not subject to public review until each project has been reviewed and approved through the legislative process. 579 The Town has reported that often the plant is taken offline for routine maintenance with minimal notice to the Town. As mentioned, there is a need for enhanced communication efforts on the part of CDVA to keep the Town apprised of upcoming outages, in order to appropriately plan for backup water supply. Recycled Water The Town’s recycled water system is a component of the WWRF. Recycled water from the Town’s WWRF is delivered to six vineyards and the golf course through 5.5 miles of recycled water pipeline.580 Of the pipeline system, approximately three miles is considered to be in good condition, while the other two miles were recently constructed and are considered to be in excellent condition.581 Recycled water is produced at the Yountville WWRF owned and operated by the Town. Wastewater operations are subject to two permits issued by the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board, one of which permits the Town to discharge highly treated effluent to the Napa River and another regulates water recycling activities.582 As flow volume increases, there may be a need to develop additional storage facilities and/or additional irrigation capacity for the wastewater effluent that is generated during the dry season when there is no discharge to the Napa River.583 578 California Department of Veterans Affairs, Response to request for information, December 5, 2019. 579 California Department of Veterans Affairs, Response to request for information, December 5, 2019. 580 Town of Yountville, Draft General Plan, Envision Yountville, 2018, p. 70. 581 Interview with Joe Tagliaboschi, Public Works Director, 10/1/19. 582 Town of Yountville, Draft General Plan, Envision Yountville, 2018, p. 70. 583 Town of Yountville, Draft General Plan, Envision Yountville, 2018, p. 70. CHAPTER 8: TOWN OF YOUNTVILLE 260 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR Shared Facilities Yountville shares two interconnections with the Veterans Home and two interconnections with the City of Napa. Additionally, the Town makes use of and pays for a portion of operations at the CDVA owned and operated Rector Reservoir and water treatment plant. Due to the distance of other water providers, there are limited options for further facility sharing. However, the Town is open to collaboration and resource sharing with regional municipal water purveyors as demonstrated by its participation in the Napa Drought Contingency Plan. Infrastructure Needs The Towns plans for its infrastructure needs in the Capital Improvement Plan The planned projects for the next five fiscal years through FY 22-23 include regulator pit relocation project, main and lateral repairs, water distribution assessment, water meter replacements, and hydrant and main flushing.584 Construction and expansion of water supply and treatment facilities to accommodate additional demand at buildout have been planned for in the Town’s Water Use Efficiency Plan. 585 Water Quality The State Water Resources Control Board Division of Drinking Water (DDW) implements the Safe Drinking Water Act in California. DDW requires public water systems to perform routine monitoring for regulated contaminants. To meet water quality standards and comply with regulations, a water system with a contaminant exceeding a maximum contaminant limit (MCL) must notify the public and remove the source from service or initiate a process and schedule to install treatment for removing the contaminant. Health violations occur when the contaminant amount exceeds the safety standard (MCL) or when water is not treated properly. In California, compliance is usually determined at the wellhead or the surface water intake. Monitoring violations involve failure to conduct or to report in a timely fashion the results of required monitoring. Source Water The Town’s main source of water is supplied from Rector Reservoir, which is owned and operated by the California Department of Veterans Affairs. They take all the required water sampling of the water source supply. Chlorine is added to the water to help ensure that the water is safe to use by customers. The source water assessment reveals that the most significant potential sources of contaminants are from fires and vineyards.586 CDVA reported that expanding development upstream is always a concern to the watershed and the reservoir. Increases in vineyard development have resulted in increased silt, increases in the presence of bacteria in the raw water, and larger algae blooms due to increased nutrients in the water. While mitigation measures have been taken by developers, 584 Town of Yountville, Capital Improvement Plan. 585 Town of Yountville, Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Yountville General Plan Update, 2018, p. 3.15-27. 586 Town of Yountville, Water Quality Report, 2017. CHAPTER 8: TOWN OF YOUNTVILLE 261 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR not all impacts have been addressed in these efforts. In turn, additional water treatment technologies are being utilized to address the degradation of water quality in the reservoir.587 The quality of water drawn from wells from the Napa-Sonoma Valley Groundwater Basin, Napa Valley Sub basin is generally good; however, select areas along the Napa Valley floor have elevated levels of nitrates and boron.588 Treated Water Quality of treated water can be evaluated according to several measures. For the purposes of this report, the following indicators are used: the number of violations as reported by the EPA since 2008 and the number of days in full compliance with Primary Drinking Water Regulations in 2018. According to the EPA report the Town had no violations during the 10-year period. In 2018, the Town was in compliance with drinking water regulations 100 percent of the time, with no violations. By comparison, the industry standard for compliance with Primary Drinking Water Regulations is 99 percent (361 days) of the year. The CDVA’s Rector WTP utilizes the independent Alpha Analytical Laboratories service to take water samples at five locations. The Town of Yountville contracts with the independent Caltest Analytical Laboratory to analyze water samples collected by Town employees that are Certified Water Distribution Operators at four locations for water delivered from the Rector WTP. In the past three full years, from 2016-2018, both the Rector WTP and the Town of Yountville have achieved all SWRCB water standards.589 However, the Rector WTP and the Town of Yountville experienced significant taste and odor (T&O) issues in April and May 2019. During an initial event in April, water Threshold Odor Number (TON) readings registered a score of 40, 10 times the normal measure of 4 as a result of filtration issues at the plant. Yountville discontinued water service from Rector and switched to City of Napa water. The Rector WTP filtration issue reoccurred in early May and the Rector WTP was again put off-line in order to resolve the issue by replacing the sand media and rehabilitating the “roughing filters.” These filters are large tanks filled with various sizes of sand into which water flows and sediment is removed. Their service lifetime can be 20+ years if properly maintained. Replacing them is a significant and expensive task and usually takes four to eight weeks to complete. Yountville uses City of Napa water when Rector water is unavailable.590 Recycled Water The Town currently provides Tertiary Title 22 unrestricted recycled water for irrigation and landscaping uses.591 In 2018, the Town beneficially reused 93 percent of its wastewater flows.592 587 California Department of Veterans Affairs, Response to request for information, December 5, 2019. 588 Town of Yountville, Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Yountville General Plan Update, 2018, p. 3.15-18. 589 Napa County Grand Jury Report, Napa County Water Quality: It’s a Matter of Taste, June 14, 2019, p. 13. 590 Napa County Grand Jury Report, Napa County Water Quality: It’s a Matter of Taste, June 14, 2019, p. 13. 591 Town of Yountville, Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Yountville General Plan Update, 2018, p. 3.15-6. 592 Provided by the Town of Yountville as part of the MSR request for information. CHAPTER 8: TOWN OF YOUNTVILLE 262 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR WASTEWATER SERVICES Similar to water services, the Town of Yountville plans for its wastewater services by adopting goals and policies in its General Plan. The goals and policies include: v LU-9.3 Annexation of Domaine Chandon. Consider the annexation of the commercial component of the Domaine Chandon property served by the Town’s wastewater system. v HO-2.1 Public Services. Ensure that public services, particularly for sewage disposal and water supply, are adequate to accommodate potential housing increases. v Policy LU-3.6 Public Infrastructure and Services. Provide and maintain adequate public infrastructure and services to meet the needs of existing and future development. v Policy LU-3.7 Development to Pay Fair Share. Require new development, additions, and conversion of use to pay its fair share of infrastructure improvements and public service costs to the Town, to the extent allowed by law and except as provided by other policies and programs in the Plan. v Policy OS-8.3 Wastewater Treatment. Provide adequate wastewater treatment and transmission to meet the needs of existing and future development. In the Climate Action Plan the Town’s broad wastewater service goals include reducing greenhouse gas emissions associated with the treatment of wastewater and increasing water-efficient landscaping. 593 The Town also periodically reviews and updates the Sewer System Management Plan, and as growth continues to occur within the General Plan area, the Town identifies necessary system upgrades and capacity enhancements to meet growth, prior to the approval of new development.594 Type and Extent of Services Services Provided The Town of Yountville provides wastewater collection and treatment for residential, commercial, public, and other properties. A majority of the collected wastewater is reused through the recycled wastewater program. In 2018, the Town beneficially reused 93 percent of its wastewater flows.595 Service Area The collection system includes all residential and commercial customers in the Town’s boundaries. The internal collection system for the State of California (operated and maintained by the Veterans Home of California), the guard station on California Drive, the 593 Town of Yountville, Climate Action Plan, 2016, pp. 50-53. 594 Town of Yountville, Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Envision Yountville General Plan Update, 2018, p. 3.15- 12. 595 Provided by the Town of Yountville as part of the MSR request for information. CHAPTER 8: TOWN OF YOUNTVILLE 263 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR Napa Valley Museum, the CAL FIRE Station 12, Vintner’s Golf Course, and the Domaine Chandon tasting room, are maintained by others.596 On-site septic systems within the Town are allowed in areas where certain conditions are met. If a building in Yountville abuts a right-of-way in which there is a public sewer, the public sewer is within 200 feet of the nearest point of the building, and the topography is not such as to make it impossible to connect to the public sewer, the owner shall connect the building with the public sewer at his or her expense after notice from the Town to do so. If these conditions do not exist, then the owner of the building may install a septic tank in compliance with the County of Napa’s rules, regulations and ordinances governing septic tank installation and connection.597 The only property served by the Town outside of its boundaries is the Domaine Chandon parcel. Yountville entered into an agreement with Domaine Chandon in 1991 to start serving the parcel with the understanding that it would then be annexed into the Town’s boundaries. The annexation, however, was never concluded. 598 Services to Other Agencies The Town of Yountville owns and operates the WWRF through an agreement with the Veterans Home. The agreement was first entered into in 1977 when the State sold its wastewater treatment plant to the Town. The Veterans Home is allocated a maximum daily flow of 1 mgd. The State covers the portion of the operating costs based on its ratio of effluent flow contributed to the total flow at the plant and the ratio of biochemical oxygen demand and suspended solids contributed by the State. Based on the agreement, each of the two signatories is responsible for their respective share of treated effluent during those periods when discharge to the Napa River is prohibited.599 Contracts for Services The Town of Yountville hauls dried sludge from its WWRF to Clover Flat Landfill for use as daily cover of refuse. Overlapping Service Providers As was already mentioned in the Service Area section, several properties within the Town’s boundaries, including the Veterans Home, the guard station, the Napa Valley museum, the Domaine Chandon tasting room, Vintner’s Golf Course, and the CAL FIRE station are privately served. All these customers are located on the Veterans Home campus property and have private sewer lines connected to the Town’s Wastewater Treatment Plant. Collaboration As mentioned, the Town collaborates with the Veterans Home per the agreement for the operations of the Yountville WWRF. 596 Town of Yountville, Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Envision Yountville General Plan Update, 2018, p. 3.15- 2. 597 Town of Yountville, Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Envision Yountville General Plan Update, 2018, p. 3.15- 7. 598 Joe Tagliaboschi, Town of Yountville, Public World Director, email from July 31, 2019. 599 Agreement between Town of Yountville and California Department of Veteran Affairs, For Construction and Operation of a Joint Wastewater Treatment Facility, February 22, 1977. CHAPTER 8: TOWN OF YOUNTVILLE 264 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR Staffing Yountville's Public Works Department is responsible for operating the Town’s wastewater collection and treatment systems.600 The Utility Operations Division of the Town’s Public Works Department operates and maintains the sewer collection system under the streets of the Town, the force main to the WWRF and the recycled water pipeline across the floor of the Napa Valley.601 The Utility Operations Division also operates and maintains the Floodwall Pump Station and retention basin.602 The WWRF is staffed seven days per week by four California certified wastewater treatment operators.603 The Utility Operations Division staff also coordinates the design and construction of capital improvement projects, such as the Inflow and Infiltration Reduction Program, Sewer Main Replacement Program and the Pump Station Equipment Replacement Program. These projects ensure the wastewater collection system operates in a manner consistent with State and Federal NPDES regulations. The collection system is cleaned annually by use of a Vactor Hydro Truck purchased in 2004.604 The Utility Operations Manager is responsible for implementing, managing and updating the Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP) under the direction of the Public Works Director. The Public Works Director is responsible for leading staff, leading emergency responses, managing procedures, delegating responsibilities, preparing planning documents, managing the capital improvement program, enforcing standards, approving design projects, approving development project conditions of approval, and managing construction, consultants, and staffing.605 Wastewater Flow The Town’s sewer collection system serves residential and commercial customers.606 Flows for the last five complete years and the buildout conditions are shown in Figure 8-12. Figure 8-12: Wastewater Flows and Buildout Conditions, 2014-2018 (mg) Town of Yountville Sewer Flows Year 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Buildout Flow (mg) 144.168 131.58 150.993 167.057 118.774 156.95607 % Recycled 83 89 69 56 93 75 Source: Town of Yountville Request for Information, February 7, 2019. Effluent flows to the wastewater treatment plant generally increased through 2017, then had a significant decrease in 2018. In 2018, the plant experienced a peak day flow of 1.638 600 Town of Yountville, Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Envision Yountville General Plan Update, 2018, p. 3.15- 1. 601 Town of Yountville, Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Envision Yountville General Plan Update, 2018, p. 3.15- 1. 602 http://www.townofyountville.com/departments-services/public-works/wastewater 603 http://www.townofyountville.com/departments-services/public-works/wastewater 604 http://www.townofyountville.com/departments-services/public-works/wastewater 605 Town of Yountville, Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Envision Yountville General Plan Update, 2018, p. 3.15- 2. 606 GHD, City of American Canyon, Sewer Master Plan, 2016, p. 9. 607 Based on General Plan average daily buildout flow of 0.4305 mgd. CHAPTER 8: TOWN OF YOUNTVILLE 265 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR mgd and an average dry weather flow (ADWF) of 0.36 mgd. The plant has an ADWF design capacity of 0.55 mgd for normal flows and a hydraulic capacity of 2.8 mgd during wet weather. Flows in excess of the WWRF’s secondary treatment capacity are stored in a holding pond for later treatment. After a storm, water from the pond is routed back through the plant for treatment and eventual discharge or recycled use.608 Flows to the plant in 2018 were well within the permitted capacity of the plant; however, flow on one occasion from the Veterans Home (0.87 mgd) was close to meeting its allocated maximum flow of 1 mgd. Between 2014 and 2017, the average daily treatment was 0.3655 mgd, while the highest maximum daily effluent flow rates are estimated at 1.76 mgd, both of which are within the design parameters.609 The Town has not had any sanitary sewer overflows at the WWRF. Yountville contributes about 60 percent of the flow with about 40 percent coming from the Veterans Home.610 In 2015, the Town through a consultant prepared a report that analyzed projected wastewater treatment demand and considered the potential addition of Domaine Chandon to the Town’s Planning Area. Based on the analysis, Domaine Chandon adds minimal flow of about 0.01 mgd. The consultant estimated that the plant has adequate capacity to treat flows from the service area to the Town’s projected buildout, based on an estimated increase in flows of 0.043 mgd. 611 By comparison, the Town’s General Plan concluded that the buildout of the General Plan would result in a wastewater flow increase of approximately 0.065 mgd or 0.023 mgd more than anticipated by the consultant. The generation of 0.065 mgd associated with General Plan buildout combined with existing flows (average daily treatment of 0.3655 mgd discussed above) would result in approximately 0.4305 mgd average daily flows. This is within the 0.55 mgd treatment capacity of the WWRF. 612 In a situation where the Veterans Home site gets redeveloped, the Town has an operating agreement with the State that if additional treatment capacity at the treatment plant is required the State will bear responsibility for the cost of the improvements. Otherwise, the Town does not have any pending service commitments and does not anticipate extending municipal services outside the Town limits, except for the continued service to Domaine Chandon.613 Wastewater Infrastructure and Facilities The Town’s wastewater infrastructure consists of the wastewater treatment plant and wastewater collection system. 608 Town of Yountville, Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Envision Yountville General Plan Update, 2018, p. 3.15- 4. 609 Town of Yountville, Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Envision Yountville General Plan Update, 2018, p. 3.15- 4. 610 California Regional Water Quality Control Board San Francisco Bay Region, NPDES Permit No. CA0038121, 2004. 611 Town of Yountville, Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Envision Yountville General Plan Update, 2018, p. 3.15- 5. 612 Town of Yountville, Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Envision Yountville General Plan Update, 2018, p. 3.15- 10. 613 Town of Yountville, Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Envision Yountville General Plan Update, 2018, p. 3.15- 5. CHAPTER 8: TOWN OF YOUNTVILLE 266 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR Wastewater Treatment Plant The WWRF is located at 7501 Solano Avenue and is owned and operated by the Town. Wastewater operations are subject to two permits issued by the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board, one of which permits the Town to discharge to the Napa River and another regulates water recycling activities.614 Facilities include the WWRF, storage ponds, and recycled water facilities. Expenses are shared with the Veterans Home based on flow volumes, solids loading, and strength of influent determined by weekly testing consistent with the agreement.615 The treatment process consists of an aerated grit chamber, comminution, primary settling basin, primary trickling filter, intermediate settling basin, secondary trickling filter, aeration basin/solids contact, final sedimentation, filtration, chlorination, and dechlorination. After treatment, the flow can be distributed to the Recycled Water customers, discharged to the Napa River or stored in the 2.7-million-gallon effluent storage pond. A flow equalization pond (3.8-million-gallon capacity) is also operated at the treatment facility. Flow can be diverted to this pond after the primary settling basin and after the final clarifier to manage the flow stream during wet weather periods.616 The NPDES permit allows discharge to the Napa River under flow conditions that are sufficient to achieve a 45 to one dilution factor for highly treated effluent that meets advanced secondary treatment standards. Discharge to the Napa River is generally prohibited from May 16 through September 30 of each year. When discharge to the River is not allowed, the Town utilizes a recycled water program.617 Collection System All collected wastewater drains by gravity to the Peter J. Bardessono Memorial Pump Station, where it is then pumped to the WWRF for treatment. The wastewater system consists of:618 v 8.5 miles of sewer collection piping (primarily gravity fed); v Approximately 772 sewer lateral connections, which includes 695 residential service connections, 77 commercial service connections, and one connection to the Veterans Home619 (which serves about 1,000 residents and 900 employees); v 0.75 miles of force main from the pump station to the WWRF; v 1.5 miles of gravity discharge piping from the WWRF to the Napa River; v 5.5 miles of recycled water force main lines; and v A duplex (two pumps) wastewater pump station and associated level control and other equipment. 614 Town of Yountville, Draft General Plan, Envision Yountville, 2018. 615 Town of Yountville, Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Envision Yountville General Plan Update, 2018, p. 3.15- 3. 616 Town of Yountville, Recycled Water Program Manual and Notice of Intent, Updated 2006, p. 1. 617 Town of Yountville, Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Envision Yountville General Plan Update, 2018, p. 3.15- 4. 618 Town of Yountville, Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Envision Yountville General Plan Update, 2018, p. 3.15- 1. 619 Veterans Home owns and operates its own collection system. CHAPTER 8: TOWN OF YOUNTVILLE 267 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR The average age of the Town’s collection system is approximately 45 years.620 The Town considers its collection system to be in generally good condition. The Town’s has a consistent maintenance and repair program, which includes regular repair of pipes and manholes. As flow volumes increase, there may be a need to develop additional storage facilities and/or additional irrigation disposal capacity for the wastewater effluent that is generated during the dry season when there is no discharge to the Napa River. The Wastewater Treatment Plant Master Plan Update found that the most cost-effective effluent reuse and disposal program includes a combination of storage ponds, discharge to the Napa River, and irrigation of golf courses and other crops.621 To provide more details regarding the integrity of the Town’s sewer system and adequacy of its services this report includes the analysis of sanitary sewer overflow information and regulatory compliance data. All wastewater agencies are required to report sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs) to SWRCB. Sewer overflows are discharges from sewer pipes, pumps and manholes. Overflows reflect the capacity and condition of collection system piping and the effectiveness of routine maintenance. The sewer overflow rate is calculated as the number of overflows per 100 miles of collection piping per year. Over the last six years (2014-2019) there were five SSO events, including one in 2015, two in 2017 and two (up to March 31, 2019) in 2019. In 2018 (the last full calendar year), the Town’s SSO rate was zero spills per 100 miles of sewer mains. Averaged over the five- year period (there was no data for the entirety of 2019 as of the drafting of this report), the Town’s SSO rate was about seven spills per 100 miles of mains. By comparison, other wastewater agencies in California average 4.73 SSOs per 100 miles per year.622 The two spills in 2019 were category 1 spills; 14,160 gallons of spilled sewage reached surface water. RWQCB2 enforces the Clean Water Act, permit conditions and other requirements of wastewater providers. Violations of State requirements for wastewater providers and treatment facilities are recorded by SWRCB. The Board may levy fines or order the provider to take specific actions to comply with water quality regulations. The Town has both a permit for treatment and discharge at the WWRF and a general permit for its collection system. For its collection system, the Town encountered one regulatory measure in 2006 and two violations in 2016, both for missing SSO certification statements. There were no priority violations. Yountville received three enforcement actions in 2004, 2008 and 2016. In regard to the treatment plant, there have been four regulatory measures, one violation and no enforcement actions since 2009. The violation occurred in 2017 and was related to infiltration and inflow (I/I) issues. To reduce the amount of I/I, the Town rehabilitated several locations of sewer main that were contributing to the additional flow. There have been no priority violations associated with the WWRF for at least 10 years. I/I has been a focus of the Town’s improvements over the last five years. The Town has slip lined approximately 6,500 feet of 6-, 8- and 10-inch pipe and installed approximately 20 620 California Water Boards, Order No. R2-2015-0029, NPDES No. CA0038121. 621 Town of Yountville, Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Envision Yountville General Plan Update, 2018, p. 3.15- 4. 622 SWRCB, Sanitary Sewer Overflow Reduction Program Annual Compliance Report, March 26, 2015, p 16. CHAPTER 8: TOWN OF YOUNTVILLE 268 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR point repairs, resulting in reductions in flows during large storm events. In 2018, the Town had a peaking factor of 4.55, while flow from the Veterans Home had a peaking factor of 6.81. The collection system at the Veterans Home continues to face I/I issues. CDVA is responsible for operations and maintenance of the collection system at the Veteran’s Home. CDVA indicated that the system was generally in fair condition. The sewer collection system throughout the home has been in place for several years. Design standards have changed since the original installation. There are places in the system where storm water and wastewater comingle as they are fed into the sewage treatment facility. As shown by the peaking factor of 6.81, I/I continues to be a challenge for the system. Due to the I/I in the system, there have been times when flow from the Veteran’s Home has neared its allocation at the wastewater treatment facility. CDVA did not indicate specific plans to address this issue but reported that as new construction is implemented and comes on-line, the sewer collection system is upgraded as much as is reasonably possible. This includes design for mitigating infiltration and inflow. 623 Similar to the water system capital improvement planning, major projects are funded through the State budgeting process subject to legislative review and approval, and ratification from the Governor. Specific projects are funded through a Budget Change Proposal for a designated fiscal year budget. The 5-year CIP is a confidential document and is not subject to public review until each project has been reviewed and approved through the legislative process. 624 Infrastructure Needs The Town Council adopts an annual operating and capital improvement program budget allocating resources for the operation, maintenance, and repair of the collection system. Preventive maintenance activities that are not addressed in the operating budget are prioritized in the capital improvement program budget.625 Town staff use a combination sewer cleaning truck to keep the collection system clean and maintains the equipment at the pump station on a regular basis. The entire sanitary sewer collection system is cleaned annually.626 The Town has a Sewer System Map that is updated as new facilities are constructed. The map shows the location of all sewer mains, manholes, pumping stations and pressurized sewer lines (force mains). The map also has reference numbers to the particular construction plans that were used to build each portion of the system. The map is used in conjunction with the sewer line capacity calculations as a planning tool for the yearly capital improvement program.627 The Peter J. Bardessono Memorial Wastewater Pump Station has undergone several upgrades and improvements recently. These improvements include installation of a new level control system, new variable frequency drives that control the pump speed based on incoming flow conditions, removal of an “interlock” that prevented the two pumps from operating simultaneously, and the installation of a new pump control system that has Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) functionality that can be integrated into 623 California Department of Veterans Affairs, Response to request for information, December 5, 2019. 624 California Department of Veterans Affairs, Response to request for information, December 5, 2019. 625 Town of Yountville, Sewer System Management Plan, Updated May 2016, p. 5. 626 Town of Yountville, Sewer System Management Plan, Updated May 2016, p. 7. 627 Town of Yountville, Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Envision Yountville General Plan Update, 2018, p. 3.15- 1. CHAPTER 8: TOWN OF YOUNTVILLE 269 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR the new Town-wide SCADA system. In addition, two of the older 47 horsepower submersible pumps were recently replaced with a more efficient 45 horsepower pump that is also less prone to plugging. These improvements will reduce the risk of sanitary sewer overflows and reduce the potential for damage to the Napa River ecosystem. In addition to the improvements at the pump station, three manholes were repaired or replaced to prevent infiltration of groundwater into the system.628 Development under the proposed General Plan would result in increased wastewater flows, resulting in the need for additional or expanded wastewater treatment facilities and conveyance infrastructure. The infrastructure and facilities necessary to serve new growth would involve development of some facilities on-site, extension of some facilities off-site within roadway rights-of-way, and may also involve improvements to existing facilities and disturbance of existing rights-of-way. Wastewater conveyance infrastructure would need to be extended throughout the currently unserved portions of the General Plan area. The majority of the on-site wastewater conveyance infrastructure will be constructed in conjunction with future development in the Town.629 The planned projects for the next five fiscal years through FY 22-23 include SCADA upgrade projects, wastewater building remodel, trickling filter pump replacement at WWRF, video and repair outfall line at the WWRF, installation of a backup sludge heater at WWRF, cleaning and inspection of the primary and secondary digesters, rehabilitation of the slipline outfall to Napa River, epoxy line the interior walls and ceiling of the scum well, upsizing of the Town’s sewer force main, replacement of trickling filter media, replacement of the truck for the wastewater department, I/I reduction, sewer main replacement and repair, plant equipment replacement, and Town pump station equipment replacement.630 Shared Facilities Although the WWRF is owned and operated by the Town, it is also used to treat wastewater flows from the Veterans Home under a contract agreement. Due to separation of other wastewater systems, there is little opportunity for facility sharing. However, there may be potential for resource sharing at a staff level with other larger agencies. This option is discussed in further detail in the governance structure options. 628 Town of Yountville, Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Envision Yountville General Plan Update, 2018, p. 3.15- 2. 629 Town of Yountville, Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Envision Yountville General Plan Update, 2018, p. 3.15- 14. 630 Town of Yountville, Capital Improvement Plan. CHAPTER 8: TOWN OF YOUNTVILLE 270 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE OPTIONS Over the course of this review, several governance structure options were identified with respect to the Town of Yountville and its water and wastewater services, consisting of possible service structure modifications and the potential for greater collaboration. The feasibility of these options is generally assessed in this report; however, more in-depth review would be required to refine specifics of process and structure should the affected agencies or LAFCO choose to move forward. Countywide Water Agency The Town identified several challenges to services that could be potentially addressed by alternative governance structures: v Some County water resources potentially not being used to the fullest extent possible, such as Rector Reservoir, v A need for greater oversight of all jurisdictions providing water services in the County, including CDVA, v A need for support buying on the spot market, v Certain redundancies with several smaller systems around the County, which could be eliminated, v A need for occasional technical expertise and support, and v A lack of economies of scale in the smaller water and wastewater systems. Given these challenges, there may be a need for a single agency to conduct water supply management on a regional or countywide level, such as a county water agency and/or an agency to provide management and operational support to the smaller utility systems that could benefit from consolidation of certain services (i.e., lab testing) or from fully transitioning to operations by a regional agency, such as a county water district or sanitation district. As these options may affect all of the water and wastewater service providers reviewed here, these governance structure options are discussed and assessed in further detail in the Overview chapter (Chapter 3) of this report. The Town expressed support of formation of a countywide entity aimed at water resource management and operational support, and as such indicated it was interested in continuing the momentum of this study and expressed interest in appointing representatives to be part of a regional discussion or working group to move towards next steps. RECOMMENDATIONS During the process of this review, the following recommendations are made to the Town of Yountville regarding its water and wastewater service delivery. 1. The Town makes its recycled water available for trucking through a filling station at the reclamation facility. There are no limitations on who may make use of the recycled water for trucking. In order to ensure that trucked water does not promote development and growth in unincorporated areas where water supply is not sustainable and which may adversely affect agricultural uses, it is recommended that CHAPTER 8: TOWN OF YOUNTVILLE 271 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR approved uses for trucking of water be defined in the Town’s municipal code. . The intent of this code is to supplement the equivalent recommended specificity in County code as the land use authority in unincorporated areas. 2. In the 2017 MSR, it was recommended that Yountville collaborate with the Veterans Home to create a water management plan regarding the Rector Dam system, including funds for maintenance and repair of the distribution system. This recommendation is continued and expanded to include development of a means for joint planning and regular collaboration on issues of joint concern for both water and wastewater services. Enhanced communication and collaboration between CDVA and the Town are essential to ensuring sustainable water supply. It is also recommended that CDVA improve its process for dissemination of information to customers (including Yountville) to keep them informed about issues at the reservoir and treatment plant, the potential for water delivery impacts, and the manner in which the issues are being addressed. 3. The Town extended wastewater services to the Domaine Chandon property in 1991 with the agreement that the area would be annexed into the Town. In 2017, the area was added to the Town’s SOI, as the only territory within the SOI extending outside of the town limits, in anticipation of the annexation. The County has indicated concerns regarding the existing SOI as it does not follow existing property lines, does not account for existing buildings, and bisects the existing land use entitlement (i.e. – winery use permit), all of which represent issues that need to be addressed to enable annexation. It is recommended that the Town and County continue conversations regarding the potential annexation of the property and the related necessary tax sharing agreement in the interest of finalizing the agreement conditions and promoting logical boundaries. Further analysis is outlined in LAFCO’s SOI Update from 2017. CHAPTER 8: TOWN OF YOUNTVILLE 272 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR TOWN OF YOUNTVILLE DETERMINATIONS Growth and Population Projections v The Town of Yountville’s population, as of 2019, was approximately 2,916, with about 30 percent living at the Veteran’s Home. v Yountville’s population decreased by approximately one percent over the 10-year period since 2009. v The Town is nearing buildout of developable space, and the potential for growth is limited. The Town estimated there is space remaining for 155 single-family homes, 76 multi-family residential units, and 169,555 square feet of commercial space. However, actual development will depend on future market conditions, property owner preferences, site-specific constraints, and other factors. v LAFCO anticipates a continued decline in population over the period from 2019 to 2030 at an annual rate of 0.32 percent, with an anticipated population of 2,813 in 2030. The Location and Characteristics of Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities Within or Contiguous to the Agency’s SOI v According to Napa LAFCO’s definition of disadvantaged unincorporated communities (DUCs), there are currently no DUCs in Napa County. Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities and Adequacy of Public Services, Including Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies v Given the willingness of the California Department of Veterans Affairs (CDVA) to sell surplus water to the Town and the Town’s designated emergency water supplies, the water supply is adequate to meet Yountville’s current needs. v Since projected demand at buildout is only slightly higher than current demand, and supply sources have been reliable and adequate to accommodate demand, it is anticipated that the Town’s current water supply will be able to accommodate future needs. However, this assertion relies heavily on the sustainability of services offered by the CDVA at the reservoir and the treatment plant. Close coordination between the two agencies is essential to ensuring adequate supply to the municipality. v In 2018, the Town beneficially reused 93 percent of its wastewater flow. There is no additional recycled water capacity to further supplement/offset the Town’s water supply. v The level of water services offered by the Town were found to be more than adequate based on integrity of the water distribution system and compliance with drinking water requirements. The integrity of the Town’s water distribution system is excellent as measured by the degree of annual water loss and the rate of main breaks CHAPTER 8: TOWN OF YOUNTVILLE 273 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR and leaks per 100 miles of main. The Town was in full compliance with Primary Drinking Water Regulations in 2018 and has had no violations reported by the EPA since 2008. v The Town appropriately plans for its infrastructure needs in the Capital Improvement Plan. No substantial or unplanned for water infrastructure needs were identified. v Yountville has more than adequate capacity to accommodate existing and projected demand at its wastewater treatment plant. Over the last five years, the Town has made use of 66 percent on average of the available treatment capacity at its plant. v The level of wastewater services offered by the Town were found to be minimally adequate based on integrity of the wastewater collection system and regulatory compliance. The Town has struggled with a higher than statewide average rate of sanitary sewer overflows, as a result of infiltration and inflow during wet weather periods, which has been a focus of the Town’s capital improvement efforts in recent years. v As a result of infiltration and inflow reductions measures, the Town reported that it has seen decreases in flows during large storm events. However, the CDVA-operated collection system at the Veterans Home continues to have a high peaking factor and has neared its allocation at the wastewater treatment facility during wet weather events. There is a need for a proactive approach on the part of the CDVA to minimize the load on the treatment plant. Financial Ability of Agencies to Provide Services v The Town of Yountville has the ability to continue providing water and wastewater services. While the Town’s operating revenues exceed expenditures for FY16 through FY19, surpluses did not fully cover capital improvement and capital recovery costs. Rate increases beginning in FY18 were anticipated to cover capital projects and maintain reserves for the five-year period of rate increases. v Utility liquidity measures and unrestricted net positions are both positive. v Combined utility rates fall within accepted thresholds. The Town adopted new utility rate schedules implemented in FY18 based on cost of service studies that included operations, debt services and capital improvement needs. v FY18 financial reports showed a decline in utility net asset value, indicating that the Town was not keeping pace with infrastructure depreciation. However, rate increases beginning in FY18 should help to provide ongoing capital funding. Status of, and Opportunities for, Shared Facilities v Yountville shares two interconnections with the Veterans Home and two interconnections with the City of Napa. Additionally, the Town makes use of and pays for a portion of operations at the CDVA-owned and operated Rector Reservoir and water treatment plant. v Due to the distance of other water providers, there are limited options for further facility sharing. However, the Town is open to collaboration and resource sharing CHAPTER 8: TOWN OF YOUNTVILLE 274 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR with regional municipal water purveyors as demonstrated by its participation in the Napa Drought Contingency Plan. Accountability for Community Service Needs, Including Governmental Structure and Operational Efficiencies v The Town Council holds regular appropriately noticed meetings. v Yountville makes available most documents on its website, including minutes, agendas, and financial and planning reports. The website also provides a means to solicit comments and complaints from customers. The Town is compliant with the agenda-posting requirements outlined in AB 2257. v Enhanced communication and collaboration between CDVA and the Town are essential to ensuring sustainable water supply. It is recommended that CDVA improve its process for dissemination of information to customers (including Yountville) to keep them informed about issues at the reservoir and treatment plant, the potential for water delivery impacts, and the manner in which the issues are being addressed. Relationship with Regional Growth Goals and Policies v The Town has maintained a conservative SOI in the interest of “seeking to protect its small-town character through land use planning.” This objective protects agriculture within and surrounding the municipality, which aligns with the County’s Agricultural Preserve policy. v The Town of Yountville and four other municipalities of Napa County participate in the Napa Valley Transportation Authority (NVTA), which functions as the region’s Congestion Management Agency and provides input to the Bay Area-wide Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s (MTC) 20-year Regional Transportation Plan. Plans applicable to Yountville include Napa Countywide Pedestrian Plan, Vision 2040 Moving Napa Forward – A Countywide Transportation Plan, Countywide Bicycle Plan, SR 29 Gateway Corridor Implementation Plan, and Plan Bay Area. v The Town of Yountville provides outside water services to 36 rural residences. Water service to these unincorporated properties was established in the 1950s, prior to G.C. §56133 and is specifically exempt given that the service was extended prior to January 1, 2001. New water connections to parcels located outside the Town’s jurisdictional boundary have been prohibited by municipal code since 1977, which aligns with State legislation and LAFCO policy. v The Town of Yountville provides outside wastewater services to the Domaine Chandon property. Wastewater service to the unincorporated property was established prior to G.C. §56133 and is specifically exempt given that the service was extended prior to January 1, 2001. The Town extended services to the property with the understanding that the property would be annexed. The territory has been added to the Town’s SOI in anticipation of annexation, which is in alignment with regional planning objectives and LAFCO’s policies and mandate. It is recommended that the Town and County continue conversations regarding the potential annexation of the CHAPTER 8: TOWN OF YOUNTVILLE 275 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR property and the related necessary tax sharing agreement in the interest of finalizing the agreement conditions and promoting logical boundaries. v The recycled water service area encompasses the Town’s municipal boundaries, and approximately 4,000 acres of vineyards in unincorporated Napa County. Recycled water services are exempt from requiring LAFCO approval prior to extension of services beyond an agency’s boundaries under Government Code §56133. v The Town makes its recycled water available for trucking through a filling station at the reclamation facility. There are no limitations on who may make use of the recycled water for trucking. In order to ensure that trucked water does not promote development and growth in unincorporated areas where water supply is not sustainable and which may adversely affect agricultural uses, it is recommended that approved uses for trucking of water be defined in the Town’s municipal code. The intent of this code is to supplement the equivalent recommended specificity in County code as the land use authority in unincorporated areas. CHAPTER 8: TOWN OF YOUNTVILLE 276 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR 9. CI RCL E OA KS CO UNTY WATER DI STRI CT AGENCY OVERVIEW COCWD Profile Contact Information Contact: Paul Quarneri, General Manager 380 Circle Oaks Drive, Address: Napa, CA 94558 Website: www.cocwd.com Phone: 707-254-7796 Email: cocwd@circle-oaks.com Formation Information Date of Formation: 1962 District type: Independent Governing Body Governing Body: Board of Directors Members: 5 residents Registered resident-voter Manner of Selection: system Length of term: 4 years District office: 380 Circle 2nd Tuesday of every month Meetings Location: Meeting date: Oaks Drive at 6:45 p.m. Mapping and Population GIS Date: December 2019 Population (2019): 471 Purpose Water, wastewater, (active), fire protection, EMS, storm drainage, reclamation, California Water Code hydroelectric power Enabling 30000-33901 (County Water generation/transmission Legislation: District Act) Empowered Services: (latent) Municipal Services Provided (directly or by contract) Domestic water treatment and distribution, wastewater collection and treatment Area Served Size: 252 acres Location: Lake Berryessa Region Most recent SOI Current SOI: 216 acres update: 2016 CHAPTER 9: CIRCLE OAKS COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 277 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR Municipal Service Reviews 2016 Circle Oaks County Water District Past MSRs: 2005 Comprehensive Sanitation and Wastewater Treatment Study 2004 Comprehensive Water Service Study Boundaries Circle Oaks County Water District (COCWD) is located in the unincorporated area of northeastern Napa County, approximately halfway between the City of Napa and Lake Berryessa and west of Monticello Road (State Route 121). COCWD/District was established in 1962 to provide potable water and sewer services to a planned resort/residential community in Capell Valley. Since formation, LAFCO has processed two boundary changes for COCWD—an annexation of 843 acres in 1964 and detachment of 3,017 acres in 1984. More detail on the history of the District’s boundaries can be found in the 2016 Circle Oaks County Water District MSR. The existing boundary for the District is comprised of four non-contiguous, unincorporated areas consisting of approximately 252 acres, as shown in Figure 9-1. Sphere of Influence The COCWD sphere of influence (SOI) was first adopted by LAFCO in 1985, amended in 2007, and most recently updated in 2016, which added two non-contiguous properties totaling 1.64 acres that are within the Districts bounds and receiving services.631 The SOI is smaller than the COCWD’s boundaries encompassing 216 acres. The SOI includes all contiguous residential parcels in or adjacent to Circle Oaks Unit One, certain common open-space areas owned by the Circle Oaks Homes Association, and two non- contiguous properties where services are provided—Chance Ranch and the Welsh property. 631 LAFCO Resolution No. 2016-08. CHAPTER 9: CIRCLE OAKS COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 278 Figure 9-1 Circle Oaks County Water District (COCWD) Legend COCWD Jurisdictional Boundary COCWD Sphere of Influence M o n t ic e llo R C o irc le a d O a k s D riv e Ridgecrest Drive C o u n try C lu J u n b L a n e Zinnia Lane ip e r D r iv e Waters Road 0 0.075 0.15Miles Lake COCWD Yolo Calistoga December 11, 2019 St. Helena Prepared by LAFCO Staff Napa Sonoma Yountville Napa Solano LAFCO of Napa County 1030 Seminary Street, Suite B Solano American Napa, California 94559 Marin Canyon http://www.napa.lafco.ca.gov NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR ACCOUNTABILITY AND GOVERNANCE COCWD is governed by a five-member Board of Directors elected to four-year staggered terms. Directors must be residents of COCWD. Board Members may be appointed by the Napa County Board of Supervisors in lieu of election if there are insufficient candidates to require an election. The Board meets on the second Tuesday of every month at 6:45 pm at the District’s office at 380 Circle Oaks Drive. Agendas are made available on the District’s website and Circle Oaks Subdivision bulletin boards. COCWD’s primary means of outreach is the District’s website where it makes available most documents, fiscal reports, agendas, minutes, and complaint forms. The Special District Transparency Act (SB 929) signed into law in 2018 requires special districts in California to have websites be set up by January 1, 2020 and holds special districts accountable to the Brown Act, which mandates transparency. COCWD complies with SB 929 requirements. In 2016, the State Legislature enacted Assembly Bill 2257 (Government Code §54954.2) to update the Brown Act with new requirements governing the location, platform and methods by which an agenda must be accessible on the agency’s website for all meetings occurring on or after January 1, 2019. COCWD makes its agenda available on its primary homepage; it appears the COCWD complies with this requirement. COCWD demonstrated accountability and transparency in its disclosure of information and cooperation with Napa LAFCO. The District cooperated with requests for information and participated in an interview. GROWTH AND POPULATION PROJECTIONS Based on the number of households in the District and the average number of persons per household of 2.52, COCWD has an estimated population of 471.632 Land uses within the District boundaries are single-family residential, rural residential, agricultural, and open space. There are no commercial or industrial uses within the District. Land outside and adjacent to COCWD is primarily characterized by open-space with limited rural residential uses. COCWD is not a land use authority; the District’s boundary area is entirely unincorporated and subject to the land use policies and regulations of Napa County. The County designates land located within and adjacent to COCWD as Agriculture, Watershed and Open Space. The County General Plan specifies the intent of this designation as: “To provide areas where the predominant use is agriculturally oriented; where watershed areas, reservoirs, floodplain tributaries, geologic hazards, soil conditions and other constraints make the land relatively unsuitable for urban development; where urban development would adversely impact on all such uses; and where the protection of agriculture, watersheds, and floodplain tributaries from fire, pollution, and erosion is essential to the general health, safety, and welfare.” 632 Napa County Planning Department. CHAPTER 9: CIRCLE OAKS COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 280 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR Development densities for the County are identified within its Zoning regulations. All land located within Circle Oaks Unit One is zoned Residential Single: B-10 and requires a minimum parcel size of 10 acres. Based on the current average lot size of 0.25 acres, this zoning standard precludes additional subdivision and related growth from occurring in Unit One. All lands adjacent to Unit One are zoned Agricultural Watershed, which requires a minimum parcel size of 160 acres, and limits additional subdivision and related growth from occurring near COCWD. There is, however, a proposal for a vineyard development known as Walt Ranch Vineyard Development in the vicinity of COCWD. The proposed project calls for the planting of a vineyard on 209 acres. The water demand for this proposed new vineyard use has generated concern from the District related to potential groundwater impacts to the District’s water supply; COCWD’s water system is supplied by a single source well and seasonal springs. The property owners of the Walt Ranch Vineyard project are not proposing to connect to the District’s services. The project was approved by Napa County in 2016; however, it has undergone litigation from various entities opposing the project for a variety of reasons, including COCWD, which contends that the project has the potential to overdraft the shared groundwater basin. In October 2019, the State Appellate Court found for Napa County on 19 of the 20 arguments challenging the project and found that refinement was needed to address greenhouse gas emissions. Future growth within the District is limited to the 143 vacant lots of the 331 lots approved in the subdivision. At maximum build-out of the Circle Oaks Unit One subdivision, the community would hold an additional 360 persons.633 However, in the past 19 years, there has only been one permit to build a new home in the Circle Oaks residential community and COCWD anticipates a continued low demand for future housing. Additionally, many of the vacant lots have topography that may limit building opportunities. Future growth within the COCWD service area is expected to continue to be limited due to the continued slow rate of development within Circle Oaks Unit One and due to land use restrictions that effectively preclude new residential subdivisions near the Circle Oaks residential community. The development density established for land adjacent to COCWD limits additional subdivisions and related growth from occurring near COCWD. Further, the land use designation established for land adjacent to COCWD discourages Napa LAFCO from approving an expansion of COCWD’s service area 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. Although there are limitations to growth, COCWD is anticipating vineyard development outside its service area located on three sides of the Circle Oaks residential community for the Walt Ranch Vineyard Conversion proposal. The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) projects that the population of unincorporated Napa County and the entire County as a whole will grow by about six percent from 2020 to 2030. The California Department of Finance (DOF) has similar projections for Napa County. Thus, the average annual population growth in the unincorporated areas as well as Napa County as a whole is anticipated to be approximately 0.6 percent. Based on these projections, the District’s population would increase from 471 in 2019 to 503 in 2030. 633 Based on 2.52 persons per household CHAPTER 9: CIRCLE OAKS COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 281 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR Napa LAFCO has developed its own population projections, as the ABAG estimates appear to be higher than actual trends. To project future growth, LAFCO calculated the annual percentage change between 2012 and 2017, based on DOF population estimates for these years.634 Population growth was projected in five-year increments through 2030. According to the LAFCO’s projections, the population of unincorporated Napa County is expected to grow by about 0.21 percent a year. LAFCO projects that COCWD will grow from 471 people in 2019 to 477 residents in 2025 and to 482 people in 2030. DISADVANTAGED UNINCORPORATED COMMUNITIES LAFCO is required to evaluate disadvantaged unincorporated communities as part of this service review, including the location and characteristics of any such communities. COCWD is not considered a DUC. According to Napa LAFCO’s definition of DUCs, there are currently no disadvantaged unincorporated communities in Napa County. Based on the adopted policy, the Commission annually reviews Census Bureau American Community Survey data to determine if local and/or statewide median household income levels have changed.635 FINANCIAL ABILITY TO PROVIDE SERVICES The Circle Oaks Water District provides water and wastewater services; its budget and CAFR separate sewer revenues and expenses from those of its water operations; the documents consolidate administrative, overhead and other shared expenses. The District formed an assessment district to issue debt to fund capital improvements.636 The following table summarizes selected financial information for the Circle Oaks Water District’s combined water and wastewater operations. Figure 9-4: Summary of Selected Financial Information, Circle Oaks Water District Circle Oaks Water District - Water & Wastewater Operations FY18-19 Budget $108,000 Operating Revenues $448,000 Operating Expenditures (exc. debt) $340,000 Ending Unrestricted Position (FY18) as % of Rev. 60% Ending Unrestricted Net Position $270,000 Debt Service as a % of Operating Revenues N/A Total Debt Outstanding (exc. assessment bonds) $0 Monthly Rates as a % of Household Income 2.9% Typical Monthly Rate $191 Median Household Income (2017) $79,600 Pension+OPEB Total Payments % of Revenues no obligations 2019-12-19 634 The change in population, especially unincorporated area, between 2017-2018 was significant due to the wildfires and loss of homes. Therefore, LAFCO used the timeframe from 2012 to 2017. 635 Napa Local Agency Formation Commission, Policy on Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities, 2018. 636 CCWD Assessment District No. 2008-1, Final Engineers Report, July 12, 2010. CHAPTER 9: CIRCLE OAKS COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 282 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR Balanced Budget For any agency, recurring operating deficits are a warning sign of fiscal distress. In the short-term, reserves can backfill deficits and maintain services. However ongoing deficits eventually will deplete reserves. The District’s projected FY19 operating revenues exceed expenditures by a margin of about $108,000 before including depreciation expense. The District also receives about $50,000 in property taxes637 which is about 3.2 percent638 of each tax dollar from within its boundaries. The FY19 revenues, including property tax, fall short of covering operating expenses plus depreciation ($125,000) by a shortfall of about ($17,000).639 Although depreciation is a non- cash expense utilized for accounting purposes, it approximates “using up” capital assets over time; the shortfall indicates that the District may be unable to fund capital repair and replacement over the long-term unless revenues increase (or expenses decline). Fund Balances, Reserves and Liquidity Fund balances and reserves should include adequate funds for cash flow and liquidity, in addition to funds to address longer-term needs. The District’s FY18 financial reports show an unrestricted net position of $270,000 ($240,000 cash and investments in the bank), which was similar to the prior year and represented about 60 percent of revenues. These funds provide a cushion for cash flow needs, short-term contingencies and capital reserves. The District’s liquidity ratio is 8.8 (current assets compared to current liabilities), indicates the short-term (less than one year) availability of these funds if needed. Net Position An agency’s “Net Position” as reported in its CAFR represents the amount by which assets (e.g., cash, capital assets, other assets) exceed liabilities (e.g., debts, unfunded pension and OPEB liabilities, other liabilities). A positive Net Position provides an indicator of financial soundness over the long-term. The District’s net position at the end of FY18 was $3,690,773. The net position is primarily invested in $3.4 million of net capital assets. Unrestricted funds total about $270,000.640 637 Circle Oaks Water District Proposed Budget 2018-19. 638 County of Napa MPTS2010 Property System – Auditor Tax Increment Distribution Report 2018, TRA 072-031. 639 Circle Oaks Water District Proposed Budget 2018-19. 640 Circle Oaks County Water District Financial Statements FY17 and FY18 (no page number listed; see pdf pg. 7/27). CHAPTER 9: CIRCLE OAKS COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 283 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR Rates and Charges Combined water and wastewater rates typically are expected to not exceed 4-5 percent of household income;641 the District’s combined rates are about 2.9 percent of median household incomes.642 The District offers no discounts to low-income households. The District’s FY19 budget indicates no connection fee revenue. Long-term Debt Excessive long-term debt incurs interest charges that consume financial resources that could otherwise fund needed services and capital improvements. The District’s only long-term debts are assessment bonds secured by property assessments within the District; no District operating funds are required for debt service. In 2018 COCWD paid of its loan through the Municipal Finance Corporation for the District’s booster station and wastewater management project.643 The District’s two assessment bonds from the USDA total $3,587,925 as of the end of FY18. The District currently maintains $384,000 in its bond fund, or about 10 percent of outstanding debt. Pension and OPEB Liabilities The District does not provide pension or OPEB benefits and therefore has no pension or OPEB liabilities. Capital Assets Capital assets must be adequately maintained and replaced over time and expanded as needed to accommodate future demand and respond to regulatory and technical changes. The value of depreciable capital assets declined about 3 percent from FY17 to FY18. The District’s budget shows $125,000 annual depreciation expense. Total asset value, net of depreciation, was $3.4 million at the end of FY18.644 The District does not report or allocate to a separate capital reserve. The lack of a CIP makes it difficult to determine whether current unrestricted funds are sufficient to provide for capital replacement. 641 Teodoro, et al, (2018) cite USEPA’s Financial Capability Guidebook (USEPA 1984) as original source for the use of personal income as a measure, although it was not applied to rates in the 1984 document. 642 Based on median household income of $79,637 for the County of Napa, according to the American Community Survey 2017, DP03, 5-Year estimates. See appendix for detailed estimate of typical household charges. 643 Circle Oaks County Water District Financial Statements FY17 and FY18, Note 5. 644 Circle Oaks Financial Statements FY18 Statement of Net Position, pg. 4. CHAPTER 9: CIRCLE OAKS COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 284 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR Financial Planning and Reporting Achieving transparency and public accountability standards dictates that cities and agencies provide easily accessible and clear documentation of their activities, including financial information. Website – The District has no website. Financial Policies – The District provided no financial policies. Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR), Audited Financial Statements – The District prepares its financial statements every two years (within 2 months of the end of the second year). The reports separately allocate water and wastewater financial items and separately show the position of the assessment district. Capital Improvement Program – The District has no Capital Improvement Program or related plan. Cost of Service/Rate Study – No study was provided as a basis for current or future rates. Financial Forecasts – The District does not prepare long-term financial forecasts. Other Financial Planning – The District provided no financial documents other than its budget and its audited financial report. CHAPTER 9: CIRCLE OAKS COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 285 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR WATER SERVICES Well-operated public agencies conduct long-term planning activities for the services they provide. COCWD compiled an Engineer’s Report in 2010 for the water assessment district to guide capital improvement efforts at the time. Ongoing infrastructure improvement needs are not documented in a capital improvement plan and are performed on an as-needed basis. Some planning for the area of COCWD related to water services is performed by Napa County in its General Plan and the Environmental Impact Report, updated in 2008. Additionally, the area was included in the planning efforts conducted as part of the 2050 Napa Valley Water Resources Study in 2005. Type and Extent of Services Services Provided The District provides domestic water treatment and distribution. In addition, water is also provided as needed for fire suppression. Recycled water is not available within the District’s boundaries. Service Area The District does not provide any services to out-of-boundary customers and no requests for water services have been received from anyone outside the District boundaries. Services to Other Agencies The District does not provide services to other agencies under contract. Contracts for Services COCWD does not contract with other agencies for services. Overlapping Service Providers There are no overlapping providers within the District’s boundary area. Collaboration COCWD collaborates with Spanish Flat Water District by sharing a general manager and a part-time operator. Staffing The COCWD operates under the direction of the Board of Directors. Between 2001 and 2014, the operations of COCWD’s domestic water and wastewater systems were provided by an independent contractor, and the District employed one full-time General Manager and a part-time secretary who were responsible for day-to-day business on behalf of the Board. COCWD changed its business model in November 2014 to bring district operations in-house. The District Board approved three staff positions. The Manager position is filled by an independent contractor (as of November 2015), and the operators and secretary positions are filled by part-and full-time employees. The Manager is responsible for water and sewer systems, personnel, purchasing, accounts payable, and all plant functions. CHAPTER 9: CIRCLE OAKS COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 286 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR Water Supply COCWD’s water supply was originally generated from three wells located along the western edge of Circle Oaks Unit One and a seasonal spring source located along an easement on the northwestern edge of Unit One. Two of the three wells are no longer in production. The spring source is an underground aquifer comprised of three horizontal wells that flow into a common galley. Under normal conditions, the District draws water from its spring source during the summer and fall months, while the well is used primarily during the winter and spring months. Based on the Department of Water Resources Groundwater Basin Maps (Bulletin 118), COCWD is not located in a formally designated groundwater basin; however, it does directly utilize groundwater as its primary water source. COCWD is located in the Upper Putah Watershed. COCWD has limited water supply that marginally meets the needs of the community. The remaining well can provide a firm yield of 75 gallons per minute (gpm) or 39.4 million gallons per year and the spring wells can provide a firm yield of 10-50 gpm or 5.3 mg-26.2 mg per year. The firm yield is the maximum quantity of water that can be guaranteed during a critical dry period, it is not a sustainable rate of pumping long term. The District reported that its water tanks cannot be fully filled, as there is limited available water and it presently requires that the pumps be run 24 hours a day to fill the tanks. Several challenges further constrain the District’s water source capacity, including: v The District is looking into the possibility of putting in another well, but a suitable location has not been identified yet. v The spring water source is limited and can be drawn down quickly. v Additionally, the District has typically high usage per connection; however, the District has been able to supply all demand. v High iron content in wells causes the need to backwash, resulting in just enough water to meet demand. Emergency Preparedness The District has not identified any specific water supply hazards. The District does not have any interconnections with other providers to provide an emergency backup supply. COCWD does however benefit from having two sources of water supply, so if one source if offline the other source can enable the district to weather the outage. If both water sources were to go offline at the same time, then the District would have to rely on stored water. The District maintains 480,000 gallons of available stored water capacity, which is equivalent to 3.4 days of peak water use by the District. However, as mentioned, COCWD struggles to completely fill its water tanks. Water storage for fire emergencies is an important issue for the District. To boost their storage capacity for fire suppression operations, a new 176,000-gallon water storage tank (Tank 2) has been installed with a 600 gallon per minute rating. CHAPTER 9: CIRCLE OAKS COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 287 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR Water Demand The water system currently serves 188 metered residential connections.645 District demand is measured by the amount of water processed through the District’s WTP and supplied to households through metered connections. In 2018, COCWD delivered approximately 20,319,900 gallons (62.4 acre-feet) of potable water, resulting in a daily average of 55,671 gallons (0.17 acre-feet). The District’s peak water demand for the summer was 140,200 gallons (0.43 acre-feet). Figure 9-5: Demand for Potable Water (acre-feet) Demand for Potable Water 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 TOTAL DEMAND 52.9 47.4 72.1 59.1 62.4 Source: COCWD MSR Request for Information. Demand for water has fluctuated over the last five years, incongruously peaking in 2016. During the winter of 2015-2016, significant pipeline breaks and leakages resulted in approximately 400,000 gallons of water loss. Most of the breaks and leakages occurred to vacant homes/absentee owners, which resulted in identification and correction delays. The District has resolved these specific issues. Additionally, the District has initiated a plan to contact vacant landowners prior to the winter months to request they shut off their water so as to avoid breakages, which are often the result of burst pipes during winter months. Water Infrastructure and Facilities Water Treatment Plant COCWD provides treatment of raw water generated from local groundwater and spring sources at the Circle Oaks Water Treatment Plant (WTP). Constructed in 1995, the Circle Oaks WTP filters and disinfects raw water prior to entering into the District’s distribution system. The treatment process begins as raw water is conveyed to the Circle Oaks WTP through an integrated conveyance system consisting of four- and six-inch water lines. Alum, polymer (coagulants), and chlorine (disinfectant) are added and mixed as raw water is conveyed into a clarifier. Raw water is detained in the clarifier to facilitate the sedimentation of solids in the water. Solids are removed as water is cycled through a filtering tank and conveyed into a 104,000-gallon clearwell tank. The clearwell tank completes the disinfection process by allowing the treated water to complete its necessary contact time with the chlorine. Finished water remains in the clearwell tank until storage levels within the distribution system require recharge. The Circle Oaks WTP has a treatment capacity of approximately 100 gallons per minute, resulting in a daily treatment capacity of 144,000 gallons. In 2018 during peak day demand, the District made use of 97 percent of its treatment capacity, and on days of average demand made use of 39 percent of its treatment capacity. The water treatment system will need to be expanded should any new connections be considered, or 645 COCWD, Annual Report to the Drinking Water Division, 2018 p. 7. CHAPTER 9: CIRCLE OAKS COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 288 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR the District will need to institute greater conservation measures during summer months to address the high peak usage during those times. The District has a Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) system that allows staff to monitor the water system remotely from their computers and cell phones on the weekends and from home. Distribution and Storage System COCWD’s water distribution system receives and distributes treated water generated from the Circle Oaks WTP. The distribution system consists of a network of approximately 6.5 miles of 6-, 8-, 10-, and 12-inch water lines. The Distribution system was originally built in 1964 and is considered to be in fair to good condition.646 The distribution system consists of two water pressure zones and is served (recharge and system pressure) by two storage tanks. Due to the topography of the service area, a pump station is required to lift treated water from Circle Oaks WTP’s 104,000-gallon clearwell tank into the primary pressure zone, “Zone One.” The distribution system operates on a supply and demand basis and responds to storage levels within Zone One. Zone One includes 108 service connections and is served by a 200,000-gallon storage tank (Storage Tank 1). When storage levels within Storage Tank 1 fall below a designated operating level, treated water is discharged from the clearwell tank by means of a pump station. As water enters Zone One, water levels inside Storage Tank 1 are recharged. “Zone Two” includes 80 service connections and is served by a 176,000-gallon storage tank (Storage Tank 2). A second pump station is required to lift potable water from Zone One to Zone Two, which recharges Storage Tank 2. The two storage tanks work in conjunction with one another to maintain adequate pressure throughout the distribution system by utilizing gravity. Unaccounted for water loss, specifically the amount of water lost due to system breaks and leaks, as well as illegal connections, is a measure of the water system’s integrity. Water losses can include “real losses”, which are physical losses from the water distribution system and the supplier’s storage facilities) as well as “apparent losses”, which represent losses due to metering inaccuracies, data handling errors and/or unauthorized consumption. COCWD reported that it had no means to calculate the volume or rate of loss in the system, but that the system generally experienced substantial loss due to the need for backwashing as a result of high levels of iron. Breaks and leaks in the mains and service connections account for some of the loss experienced in the system. The COCWD experienced two main breaks in 2016, two in 2017, and one in 2018,647 which averages to 21 breaks per 100 miles of main per year. This is about equal to the national average of between 21 and 27 breaks per 100 miles of pipe per year.648 Shared Facilities The District practices resource sharing with other agencies by sharing a general manager and operator with Spanish Flat Water District. 646 Napa County, Planning, Building, and Environmental Services, Routine Inspection of COCWD System, July 5, 2018, p. 5. 647 The District reported that it did not have records of main breaks in 2014 in 2015, as the District was under different management. 648 WaterRF, Knowledge Portals, 2017. CHAPTER 9: CIRCLE OAKS COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 289 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR There are no facility sharing practices. Infrastructure Needs During the County’s annual inspection in 2018, no significant infrastructure needs were identified for the water system.649 Given that the District made substantial improvements to the water system in recent years, there are no known issues with the distribution system at this time. The water treatment system is in good condition; however, as mentioned, the water treatment system will need to be expanded should any new connections be considered, or the District will need to institute greater conservation measures during summer months. Additionally, another well will be necessary to meet future demand needs and to provide a second, redundant, and reliable source of water. COCWD’s continued operation with only one well and seasonal springs is a risk. Very little development is expected to occur within the District due to the continued slow rate of growth within Circle Oaks Unit One. The District has decided to defer development of a second reliable source of water until there is considerable new development in Circle Oaks that would warrant the expense. Water Quality The State Water Resources Control Board Division of Drinking Water (DDW) implements the Safe Drinking Water Act in California. DDW requires public water systems to perform routine monitoring for regulated contaminants. To meet water quality standards and comply with regulations, a water system with a contaminant exceeding a maximum contaminant limit (MCL) must notify the public and remove the source from service or initiate a process and schedule to install treatment for removing the contaminant. Health violations occur when the contaminant amount exceeds the safety standard (MCL) or when water is not treated properly. In California, compliance is usually determined at the wellhead or the surface water intake. Monitoring violations involve failure to conduct or to report in a timely fashion the results of required monitoring. Source Water COCWD has struggled with high iron and manganese content in its source water. High levels of these minerals can cause discoloration of the water even within the MCL and is safe for consumption. Heavy rains percolate through the soil and wash iron and manganese deposits into the water supply. In 2018, iron, color, manganese. and turbidity of the District’s raw water source exceeded the MCL limits. These samples are collected from the raw water source before any treatment. The treatment process is designed to substantially reduce these minerals in the finished water. Secondary drinking water MCLs are established based only on aesthetics.650 Treated Water Quality of treated water can be evaluated according to several measures. For the purposes of this report, the following indicators are used: the number of violations as 649 Napa County, Planning, Building, and Environmental Services, Routine Inspection of COCWD System, July 5, 2018, p. 5. 650 COCWD, Consumer Confidence Report, 2018, p. 5. CHAPTER 9: CIRCLE OAKS COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 290 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR reported by the EPA since 2008 and the number of days in full compliance with Primary Drinking Water Regulations in 2018. The EPA documents health and monitoring violations for each public water system in the U.S. Since 2008, COCWD has had no health violations and no monitoring violations as identified by the EPA. However, the Napa County Environmental Services noted delayed reporting manganese sampling for three quarters in 2017.651 In 2018, COCWD was in compliance with primary drinking water regulations 100 percent of the time, with no violations. By comparison, the industry standard for compliance with Primary Drinking Water Regulations is 99 percent (361 days) of the year. 651 Napa County, Planning, Building, and Environmental Services, Routine Inspection of COCWD System, July 5, 2018, p. 1. CHAPTER 9: CIRCLE OAKS COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 291 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR WASTEWATER SERVICES Well-operated public agencies conduct long-term planning activities for the services they provide. COCWD compiled an Engineer’s Report in 2010 for the water assessment district to guide capital improvement efforts at the time, including wastewater system improvements. Ongoing infrastructure improvement needs are not documented in a capital improvement plan and are performed on an as-needed basis. Some planning for the area of COCWD related to wastewater services is performed by Napa County in its General Plan and the Environmental Impact Report, updated in 2008. Type and Extent of Services Services Provided The primary wastewater services provided by COCWD are collection, treatment, and disposal. COCWD currently has a total of 187connections to its sewer system, all of which are residential connections. Service Area The District does not provide any services to out-of-boundary customers and no requests for wastewater services have been received from anyone outside the District’s boundaries. Services to Other Agencies The District does not provide services to other agencies under contract. Contracts for Services COCWD does not contract with other agencies for services. Overlapping Service Providers There are no overlapping providers within the District’s boundary area. Collaboration COCWD collaborates with Spanish Flat Water District by sharing a general manager and a part-time operator. Staffing As mentioned in the Water section of this chapter, COCWD changed its business model in November 2014 to bring district operations in-house. The Manager position is filled by an independent contractor, and the operators and secretary positions are filled by part-and full- time employees. The Manager is responsible for water and sewer systems, personnel, purchasing, accounts payable, and all plant functions. Wastewater Flow COCWD provides sewer service to 187 connections all of which are residential. CHAPTER 9: CIRCLE OAKS COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 292 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR The District’s average dry weather wastewater flows (ADWF) over time are depicted in Figure 9-6. Figure 9-6: ADWF Wastewater Flows 2014-2018 and Buildout Conditions, gallons COCWD ADWF Sewer Flows Year 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Buildout Average Dry Weather Flow 23,000 25,166 21,833 24,066 20,500 Unknown Source: COCWD MSR Request for Information. The District reported the peak wet weather flow in 2017 and 2018 was 121,000 gpd and 104,000 gpd, respectively. The District’s ratio of peak wet weather flow (PWWF) to average day weather flow (ADWF), or wet weather peaking factor was 5.1 in 2018, which is indicative of moderate infiltration and inflow. Wastewater Infrastructure and Facilities The wastewater treatment system was installed when the Circle Oaks subdivision was first built in the 1960’s and 1970’s and is categorized as a secondary treatment system. The collection system consists of approximately 6.5 miles of pipe, which depends on gravity flow to move wastewater to three percolation/evaporation ponds located on the eastern side of State Route 121. Sludge from the ponds degrades on site. The RWQCB 5 regulates water quality in the northeast portion of Napa County and this includes COCWD’s wastewater system. COCWD is subject to Waste Discharge Requirements Order No. 94-097, dated April 29, 1994. The facility is permitted and designed to have a monthly average dry weather flow (ADWF) not to exceed 72,000 gallons per day. Factors that can influence the District’s ability to deliver wastewater service to customers include treatment system capacity and RWQCB5 regulations. Capacity in the collection system far exceeds buildout projections, but the current treatment system limits service capacity. The wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal systems would require significant modifications to serve the buildout projection of 330 dwelling units. In 2005, the District was issued Cleanup and Abatement Order No. R5-2005-072020, dated December 16, 2005, from the RWQCB. COCWD submitted a plan to address the cleanup and abatement order and received a $350,000 loan from the California Special Districts Association (CSDA) to install monitoring wells around the sewer ponds and new pumps at the booster station. Additionally, in 2006, the District replaced approximately 1,500 feet of water line from the well to the raw water treatment plant, which was severely restricted. In 2007, the District upgraded the booster station which brought the upper zone into compliance with fire regulations, and in 2009 the District replaced the manual gas pumps with automated electric pumps at the ponds. These improvements were necessary for addressing critical restrictions in the sewer system. In 2005, the COCWD Board of Directors hired engineers to update the 2001 Engineering and Design Report. The Final Engineer’s Report was adopted on July 12, 2010 and this report confirmed that the District’s water and wastewater systems were originally designed to accommodate full buildout of the service area; however, a number of the components that comprise the systems were at or beyond their useful life, which impacted the District’s ability to provide reliable service in CHAPTER 9: CIRCLE OAKS COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 293 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR accordance with applicable State regulations and to maintain its obligation to serve the entire constituency. The Final Engineer’s Report identified facility upgrades that would help the District to continue to provide adequate water and wastewater services to its existing customers and to meet anticipated future demands in conformance with State and local health and safety requirements. The wastewater system improvements identified by the consultant included replacing sewer pipes and mains. An assessment district was formed by the voters on July 12, 2010 to secure improvement bonds financed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture-Rural Development in the amount of $3,147,894 for domestic water system improvements and $393,487 for wastewater system improvements to implement project upgrades The improvement projects were completed in 2013. As reported, in 2018, COCWD had an ADWF of 20,500 gallons, which equates to 28 percent of the treatment capacity of the system. As shown, during dry periods, the District is typically well within its treatment capacity. However, during wet weather periods the District reported that flows have reached levels of concern.652 The District has experienced some reduction in wet weather flows due to conservation and changes in weather patterns. Portions of the sewer collection system were prone to inflow and infiltration due to mainline and lateral breaks. Excessive inflow and infiltration stress the wastewater system to the point where there is a risk of a discharge violation and utilizes capacity in the treatment facilities that should otherwise be available for existing and future customers. The District replaced the most problematic portion of the collection system to reduce system inflow and infiltration. However, portions of the sewer collection system are still prone to inflow and infiltration due to mainline and lateral breaks. The original sewer lines were constructed of clay pipes and have substantially degraded, allowing stormwater to infiltrate the collection system and enter the three percolation/evaporation ponds. The ponds have berms to increase the holding capacity of wastewater, but there is a potential risk of the ponds filling up or overflowing after a large rainstorm. The District replaced the most problematic portion of the wastewater collection system as part of the COCWD Assessment District capital improvement project. The District will need to continue monitoring the areas where clay pipes remain, and ultimately, will need to plan a capital improvement project to upgrade all the pipes in the wastewater collection system. All wastewater agencies are required to report sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs) to SWRCB. Sewer overflows are discharges from sewer pipes, pumps and manholes. Overflows reflect the capacity and condition of collection system piping and the effectiveness of routine maintenance. The sewer overflow rate is calculated as the number of overflows per 100 miles of collection piping per year. COCWD had two SSOs over the five-year timeframe from 2014 through 2018, both of which occurred in 2014. This equates to 6.15 SSOs per 100 miles of main per year. By comparison, other wastewater agencies in California average 4.73 SSOs per 100 miles per year.653 652 Interview with Paul Quarneri, August 6, 2020. 653 SWRCB, Sanitary Sewer Overflow Reduction Program Annual Compliance Report, March 26, 2015, p 16. CHAPTER 9: CIRCLE OAKS COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 294 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR RWQCB5 enforces the Clean Water Act, permit conditions and other requirements of wastewater providers. Violations of State requirements for wastewater providers and treatment facilities are recorded by SWRCB. The Board may levy fines or order the provider to take specific actions to comply with water quality regulations. COCWD has both a permit for treatment and discharge (WDR Order No. 94-097) and a general permit for its collection system. Since 2009, COCWD has had 49 violations for its wastewater treatment facility, of which eight were for violation of order conditions such as positive coliform tests in the wells in 2015 and freeboard not meeting minimum height requirements. The remaining 41 violations were for deficient reporting, with 18 violations occurring in 2018. None of the violations were considered priority violations (Class A or Class 1). Over the 10-year time period, the violations have resulted in six enforcement actions—five notices of violation and one oral communication. Infrastructure Needs Capital improvement needs are planned for on an as needed basis. COCWD reported a need to reline more of the collection system to address root infiltration. The District has CCTV inspected and smoke tested the areas of concern and reported that I/I had not been a significant issue in recent years. The District did not identify infrastructure needs associated with the treatment facility. Shared Facilities Due to the remote location of the District in relation to other service providers, and the steep terrain characteristic of the service area which requires the use of costly pumps to provide service, the District has very limited opportunities to form partnerships with other agencies for the benefit of joint-use facilities and projects. The District does not currently jointly own or share facilities or services with other agencies. There are no areas in or near the District boundaries that would be better served by a different agency. The District does not participate in any mutual aid agreements. CHAPTER 9: CIRCLE OAKS COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 295 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE OPTIONS Over the course of this review, several governance structure options were identified with respect to COCWD, including possible service structure alteration and reorganization with other agencies. The feasibility of these options is generally assessed here; however, more in- depth review would be required to refine specifics of process and structure should the affected agencies or LAFCO choose to move forward. Contracting for Services COCWD may wish to consider contracting for services from a larger agency such as City of Napa or Napa Sanitation District (NapaSan) for a portion or all operational services. At present, both City of Napa and NapaSan provide contract services to other agencies and have been found to provide professional and well-managed services. Given that City of Napa provides only water services and NapaSan provides wastewater and recycled water services, contracting out to these agencies would require separate agreements with each agency for the specific service. In addition to COCWD, there are other small water and wastewater systems in Napa County which struggle to provide an adequate level of services. Smaller service providers in rural areas often must focus on day-to-day operations and do not have the staff capacity to conduct pre-planning and highly technical services. These agencies have expressed interest in either receiving support services or being fully taken over by a larger service provider. Should multiple agencies choose to contract with City of Napa and/or NapaSan, there is the potential for greater economies of scale and efficiency of services, which could result in cost savings. Contracting out services to agencies, or what also might be referred to as “functional consolidation,” allows for flexibility of service structure. COCWD could choose what degree of contract support is necessary ranging from occasional technical support to full service provision. The benefits of these agencies providing services by contract to interested agencies includes the following: 1. The provision of contract support services would allow for flexibility in the manner and nature of services to be provided to allow for tailoring to the needs of the contracting agency, which could include provision of specific or limited services or consist of all administration and operations. 2. Contracting to agencies for services outside of the boundaries of the respective agency does not require LAFCO approval. 3. A contract would allow service provider and the contracting agency to test out the alternative service structure without making a long-term commitment. 4. The contracting agency would continue to exist and maintain local control. 5. “Functional consolidation” would allow each agency to retain its identity while at the same time combining resources or specialty assets and improving efficiencies. 6. Contracting could result in a reduction in equipment needs and duplication of efforts. CHAPTER 9: CIRCLE OAKS COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 296 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR 7. Contracting for services would not face the labor concerns that may result from a “full consolidation.” 8. Customers of the contracting agency would receive a high level of services and broader expertise from a larger, professionally operated service provider. Reorganization with a Countywide Water District Another option identified during this review is the potential for a countywide county water district that could provide support or take on both water and wastewater services for interested agencies. This option would involve the formation of a countywide county water district to include COCWD and other small water and wastewater systems. The small agencies would either then contract with the countywide water district or dissolve and have the countywide agency be the successor agency and provide continued services to these areas. This governance structure option is discussed in more detail in the Overview chapter (Chapter 3) of this report. RECOMMENDATIONS During the process of this review, the following recommendations are made to COCWD regarding its water and wastewater service delivery. 1) While COCWD has an Engineer’s Report from 2010, there is not an up to date master plan for the District’s water and sewer systems. It is recommended that the District develop comprehensive master plans for both water and wastewater services. 2) Ongoing infrastructure improvement needs are not documented in a capital improvement plan and are performed on an as-needed basis. It is recommended that COCWD conduct capital planning at least on a two- to three-year basis. CHAPTER 9: CIRCLE OAKS COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 297 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR CIRCLE OAKS COUNTY WATER DISTRICT DETERMINATIONS Growth and Population Projections v Circle Oaks County Water District’s (COCWD) population, as of 2019, was approximately 471. v Future growth within COCWD is limited to the 143 vacant lots of the 331 lots approved in the subdivision. At maximum build-out of the Circle Oaks Unit One subdivision, the community would hold an additional 360 persons. However, in the past 19 years, there has only been one permit to build a new home in the Circle Oaks residential community, and COCWD anticipates a continued low demand for future housing. v LAFCO anticipates growth within COCWD to be similar to the most recent five-year trend of all unincorporated areas of Napa of 0.21 percent annually, with an anticipated population of 482 by 2030. The Location and Characteristics of Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities Within or Contiguous to the Agency’s SOI v According to Napa LAFCO’s definition of disadvantaged unincorporated communities (DUCs), there are currently no DUCs in Napa County. Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities and Adequacy of Public Services, Including Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies v COCWD has limited water supply and treatment capacity that marginally meets the needs of the community. v Several challenges constrain the District's water supply capacity, including 1) lack of a suitable location for another well, 2) the spring water source can be drawn down quickly, 3) high usage per connection, and 4) high iron content in wells requiring the need to backwash. v The level of water services offered by the COCWD were found to be adequate based on integrity of the water distribution system and compliance with drinking water requirements. The integrity of the District’s water distribution system has improved since 2016 when there were several breaks and leaks in the system. The District was in full compliance with Primary Drinking Water Regulations in 2018 and has had no violations reported by the EPA since 2008. v Given that COCWD made substantial improvements to the water system in recent years, there are no known issues with the distribution system at this time. The water treatment system is in good condition; however, the water treatment system will need to be expanded should any new connections be considered, or the District will need to institute greater conservation measures during summer months. CHAPTER 9: CIRCLE OAKS COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 298 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR Additionally, another well will be necessary to meet future demand needs and to provide a second, redundant, and reliable source of water. v During dry periods, the District is typically well within its treatment capacity. However, during wet weather periods flows have reached levels of concern. v The level of wastewater services offered by COCWD were found to be minimally adequate based on integrity of the wastewater collection system and regulatory compliance. The District has had no sanitary sewer overflows in the last five years, but has had 49 violations, a majority of which were for deficient reporting. Significant improvement can be made to the District’s reporting practices. v Capital improvement needs are planned for on an as needed basis. COCWD reported a need to reline more of the collection system to address root infiltration. The District did not identify infrastructure needs associated with the treatment facility. Financial Ability of Agencies to Provide Services v The Circle Oaks County Water District has the ability to continue providing water and wastewater services. The FY19 budget shows revenues exceeding operating expenditures; however, the surplus is not sufficient to cover depreciation expense, indicating that the District may have difficulty fully funding capital repair and replacement. v Combined utility rates are well below maximum standards. v The District’s positive liquidity ratio and unrestricted net position demonstrate adequate reserves, although declining net asset value and net annual surpluses that are less than depreciation (see above) indicate a potential need for increased capital funding. v The District has no capital improvement program, no cost of service or rate study, and no long-term projections to provide the basis for determining future operating and capital needs. Status of, and Opportunities for, Shared Facilities v COCWD practices resource sharing with other agencies by sharing a general manager and operator with Spanish Flat Water District. v An opportunity for facility sharing may be contracting with another agency for a portion or all operations, such as the City of Napa or Napa Sanitation District. Accountability for Community Service Needs, Including Governmental Structure and Operational Efficiencies v The District Board holds regular appropriately noticed meetings. v COCWD primarily conducts outreach via its website, which makes available comprehensive information and documents to the public. COCWD is fully compliant with the SB 929 and SB 2257 requirements. CHAPTER 9: CIRCLE OAKS COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 299 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR v Governance structure alternatives include contracting with another agency for services or reorganization with a countywide county water district. Relationship with Regional Growth Goals and Policies v COCWD is not a land use authority that takes part in regional planning efforts and therefore does not impact growth policy. v LAFCO’s adopted policies relating to special district spheres discourage any expansions of COCWD’s existing sphere to promote urban development based on current land use designations of lands located within close proximity to the District. CHAPTER 9: CIRCLE OAKS COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 300 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR 10. CO N G R ES S VA L L EY WATER DI STRI CT AGENCY OVERVIEW Congress Valley Water District Profile Contact Information Contact: Kiersten Bjorkman, District Secretary Napa County Land Trust 1700 Soscol Avenue, #20 Address: Napa, CA 94559 Website: None Phone: 707-256-0344 Email: kierstenlarae@yahoo.com Formation Information Date of Formation: 1949 Agency type: Independent special district Governing Body Governing Body: Board of Directors Members: 5 Manner of Elected at large by registered Length of Selection: voters term: 4 years Napa County Land Trust 1700 Soscol Avenue, #20 Second Monday of every Meetings Location: Napa, CA 94559 Meeting date: month at 5:30 pm Mapping and Population Population GIS Date: 2019 (2019): 262654 Purpose Domestic water (active) Sewage collection/disposal, fire protection, EMS, storm drainage, reclamation, hydroelectric power Enabling CA Water Code §30000 Empowered generation/transmission Legislation: (County Water District Act) Services: (latent) Municipal Services Provided (directly or by contract) Agricultural and residential water distribution Area Served Boundary Size: 2.18 square miles Location: Southwest of the City of Napa Most recent Current SOI: 2.45 square miles SOI update: 2017655 654 LAFCO estimate based on 104 households (as reported by Napa County Planning) at an average household size of 2.52 persons per household. 655 Resolution 2017-06. CHAPTER 10: CONGRESS VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 301 WATER DISTRICT NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR Municipal Service Reviews 2017 Congress Valley MSR and SOI Update 2014 Central County Region MSR Past MSRs: 2004 Comprehensive Water Service Study Boundaries Congress Valley Water District’s (CVWD) boundaries include the District’s agricultural and rural residential uses to the immediate south and west of the City of Napa. CVWD’s jurisdictional boundary is 2.2 square miles or 1,398 acres in size and includes 113 total assessor parcels. The Commission has approved only one boundary change to CVWD since 1963 involving the addition of 11.5 unincorporated acres; an amount representing less than one percent of the current jurisdictional boundary. This lone annexation occurred in 2010 and involved a developed lot located off of Old Sonoma Road. CVWD’s jurisdictional boundary, sphere of influence, and Water Supply Contract service area are depicted in Figure 10-1. Sphere of Influence CVWD’s sphere was adopted by the Commission in 1985 and comprehensively updated in 2008. CVWD’s SOI was most recently updated in 2017, when 10.6 acres, that were previously erroneously presumed to be within the District’s boundaries, were removed.656 The District’s current SOI is 2.45 square miles consisting of the entirety of CVWD’s boundary territory and four parcels outside of the District’s bounds that are eligible for annexation. A more detailed background on CVWD’s SOI is found in its most recent 2017 Congress Valley MSR and SOI Update. Water Contract Area The primary function of CVWD, and the cause for its formation over half a century ago, was to provide water service to an area of known groundwater deficiency. The Water Supply Contract between the City of Napa and CVWD, developed in the late 1980’s, provided water supply availability for the area envisioned by the then Board of Directors of the CVWD. The resulting Water Supply Contract service area was established as part of CVWD’s Water Supply Contract with the City and is distinct from the District’s jurisdictional boundary and SOI. The contract service area presently encompasses 2.5 square miles or 1,620 acres and includes 124 total assessor parcels. Of this amount, there are a total of nine parcels located near Buhman Avenue that are currently outside CVWD’s boundary and sphere. However, these nine parcels are ineligible for annexation given that they are located outside CVWD’s SOI. Further, there are two entire parcels and a portion of a third parcel collectively totaling 92.8 acres currently within the sphere that are located outside the contract service area; all of which were added to the sphere as part of the comprehensive update in 2008. There have been no changes to the service area since it was originally included in the Water Supply Contract. 656 LAFCO Resolution 2017-06. CHAPTER 10: CONGRESS VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 302 WATER DISTRICT Congress Valley Water District (CVWD) Figure 10-1 Browns Valley Road e u n e v A n o s p m o B u T h h m a n A v e n u C o n g ress V e a lley R oa d Henry Road o a d R a m o n o S d Legend Ol CVWD Jurisdictional Boundary CVWD Sphere of Influence 0 0.15 0.3Miles Lake Yolo Napa Calistoga December 11, 2019 St. Helena Prepared by LAFCO Staff Sonoma CVWD Yountville Napa Solano LAFCO of Napa County 1030 Seminary Street, Suite B Sonoma Napa, California 94559 American Marin Canyon http://www.napa.lafco.ca.gov NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR ACCOUNTABILITY AND GOVERNANCE The District is governed by a five-member Board of Directors elected to staggered four- year terms by registered voters within the district boundaries. Board Members may be appointed by the Napa County Board of Supervisors in lieu of election if there are insufficient candidates to require an election. Regularly scheduled meetings are held on Second Monday of every month at 5:30 pm. Meetings are located in the Napa County Land Trust at 1700 Soscol Avenue, #20 in Napa. Agendas are distributed via email and postal mail. In the 2017 MSR on CVWD it was recommended that CVWD consider developing a website that would include meeting agendas, minutes, Board of Directors information, Board meeting details, annual budgets, and basic financial statements. CVWD has not compiled a website to date, but instead has adopted a resolution657 declaring a hardship preventing the establishment and maintenance of a district website as required by law. The Special District Transparency Act (SB 929) signed into law in 2018 requires special districts in California to have websites be set up by January 1, 2020 and holds special districts accountable to the Brown Act, which mandates transparency. As mentioned, in September 2019, CVWD adopted a resolution658 declaring a hardship preventing the establishment and maintenance of a district website, and consequently has concluded that it is in compliance with the requirements of SB 929. It is recommended that the District ascertain the cost of creating a website and maintaining and reassess its finding of hardship, given the substantial reserves that the District has been able to accumulate as reported in the Financial Ability to Provide Services section. CVWD demonstrated accountability and transparency in its disclosure of information and cooperation with Napa LAFCO. The District cooperated with the requests for information, interviews, and document review. GROWTH AND POPULATION PROJECTIONS CVWD’s current resident population is estimated at 262 based on the 104 residential units within the District coupled with household population data published by the California Department of Finance for unincorporated Napa County of 2.52 persons. The overall resident population within CVWD has risen by 11.5 percent over the last 10 years, representing an annual 1.09 percent population increase. Land located within the District is subject to the land-use authority of the County of Napa. Current land uses within CVWD include agriculture (i.e. pasture and vineyards), single- family residences, and wineries. The County of Napa has designated all lands within CVWD’s boundary, sphere, and Water Supply Contract service area as agriculture, watershed, and open space, which requires a minimum parcel size of 160 acres. Further, the County has assigned an agricultural watershed zoning within the entire area. Notable land use allowances based on these land use regulations without requiring a permit from the County include the following: 657 CVWD Resolution No. 68. 658 CVWD Resolution No. 68. CHAPTER 10: CONGRESS VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 304 WATER DISTRICT NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR v Agriculture, v One single-family dwelling unit per legal lot, v One second unit either attached to, or detached from, an existing legal residential dwelling unit, v One guest cottage, and v Wineries and related accessory uses and structures, which legally existed prior to July 31, 1974. While there are some parcels within CVWD that do not currently contain developed housing units, there are not a significant number of such undeveloped parcels. With this in mind, in combination with the restrictive land uses in the area, it is reasonable to assume CVWD’s resident population growth rate over the foreseeable future will remain low and not significantly impact the District’s demand for water. The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) projects that population of unincorporated Napa County and the entire County as a whole will grow by about six percent from 2020 to 2030. The California Department of Finance (DOF) has similar projections for Napa County. Thus, the average annual population growth in the unincorporated areas as well as Napa County as a whole is anticipated to be approximately 0.6 percent. Based on these projections, the District’s population would increase from 262 in 2019 to 280 in 2030. Napa LAFCO has developed its own population projections, since ABAG estimates are often higher than actual trends. To project future growth, LAFCO calculated the annual percentage change between 2012 and 2017 based on DOF population estimates for these years.659 Population growth was then projected in five-year increments through 2030. According to LAFCO’s projections, the population of unincorporated Napa County is expected to grow by about 0.21 percent a year. LAFCO projects that CVWD will grow from 262 people in 2019 to 265 residents in 2025 and to 268 people in 2030. DISADVANTAGED UNINCORPORATED COMMUNITIES LAFCO is required to evaluate disadvantaged unincorporated communities as part of this service review, including the location and characteristics of any such communities. CVWD is not considered a DUC. According to Napa LAFCO’s definition of DUCs, there are currently no disadvantaged unincorporated communities in Napa County. Based on the adopted policy, the Commission annually reviews Census Bureau American Community Survey data to determine if local and/or statewide median household income levels have changed.660 FINANCIAL ABILITY TO PROVIDE SERVICES The Congress Valley Water District provides water services. Customers are billed directly by the City of Napa, which also provides all operation and maintenance services required by 659 The change in population, especially unincorporated area, between 2017-2018 was significant due to the wildfires and loss of homes. Therefore, LAFCO used the timeframe from 2012 to 2017. 660 Napa Local Agency Formation Commission, Policy on Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities, 2018. CHAPTER 10: CONGRESS VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 305 WATER DISTRICT NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR the system. The District receives a 12.2 percent share661 of the Prop. 13 1% property tax which funds board expenses, legal and financial services. Figure 10-3: Summary of Selected Financial Information, Congress Valley Water District Congress Valley Water District - Water Operations FY18-19 Water Budget Net -$39,000 Revenues $95,000 Expenditures $134,000 Ending Fund Balance as % of Operating Revenues 725% Ending Fund Balance $689,000 Debt Service as a % of Operating Revenues 0.0% Total Debt Outstanding $0 Monthly Water Rates as a % of Household Income 1.0% Typical Monthly Rate $68 Median Household Income (2017) $79,600 Pension+OPEB Total Payments % of Revenues N/A 2019-09-17 Balanced Budget A balanced budget requires that an agency have sufficient funds to pay for its expenditures. For any agency, recurring operating deficits are a warning sign. In the short- term, reserves can backfill deficits and maintain services. However ongoing deficits eventually will deplete reserves. The District’s budget shows expenditures exceeding revenues in FY19 fiscal year. The FY19 budget’s expenditures of $133,600 exceed revenues by about $40,000 (before adding depreciation expense); the shortfall, due to ratepayer assistance, was funded by reserves.662 However, in the prior year, the FY18 financial report showed a positive annual balance, with revenues exceeding expenditures by about $53,000. The District, because the City of Napa collects and retains all rate revenues to pay for operations and maintenance of the District’s system, only reports connection charges as operating revenue (no connection charges were anticipated in FY19). The District’s expenses, which include board expenses, legal and financial services, are funded by the District’s share of property taxes. Reserves and Fund Balance Reserves, including Fund Balances, provide cushions for contingencies and capital needs. The District does not report a “fund balance” in its budget materials; however, its FY18 financial report indicates a cash balance of $880,000 and unrestricted net position of 661 County of Napa AB8 TRA – Fund Increment Factors FY18, Tax Code 37000. 662 Congress Valley Water District Fund 7400 Preliminary Budget Request for Fiscal Year 2018-2019. CHAPTER 10: CONGRESS VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 306 WATER DISTRICT NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR $730,000.663 An FY19 budget shortfall of $40,000 would reduce the net position to about $710,000. This level of reserve is more than adequate relative to the District’s expenditures before considering any capital investments or reserves. Net Position A positive Net Position provides an indicator of financial soundness over the long-term. The District’s total net position is $1.1 million of which $730,000 is unrestricted. Rates and Charges Water operations and maintenance, handled by the City of Napa, are funded by service charges. Rates typically are expected to not exceed 2-2.5 percent of household income.664 Rates charged to District customers are the “Outside of City” quantity rates charged by the City of Napa, which are about 44 percent greater than rates inside the City. The typical monthly bill equals about one percent of median household income.665 In addition to paying water rates, a share of 1 percent Prop. 13 property taxes paid by District customers goes directly to the District. As described above in the “Operating Budget” section, property taxes pay for the District’s board expenses, legal and financial services. The City of Napa collects water connection fees and transfers them to the District to pay for system improvements required to serve new development.666 The City of Napa offers its low-income ‘RateShare’ program providing a $25 discount on bimonthly water bills for customers outside the City which would include District customers.667 Long-term Debt The District’ FY19 budget includes no debt service payments. The prior year financial reports indicate that the District’s $400,000 1987 loan from the State of California Department of Water Resources would be retired within one year.668 Pension and OPEB Liabilities The District has no pension or OPEB liabilities according to its FY18 financial report. 663 Congress Valley Water District Basic Financial Statements for the Fiscal Years Ended June 30, 2018 and 2017, Statement of Net Position, pg. 4. 664 Teodoro, et al, (2018) cite USEPA’s Financial Capability Guidebook (USEPA 1984) as original source for the use of personal income as a measure, although it was not applied to rates in the 1984 document. 665 Based on median household income for unincorporated Napa County of $79,637 according to the American Community Survey 2017, DP03, 5-Year estimates. See appendix for detailed estimate of typical household charges. 666 See the City of Napa Water Service Fees, FY2018-19. 667 City of Napa RateShare Program (downloaded from City website); comments from City of Napa, 3/6/2020. 668 Congress Valley Water District Basic Financial Statements for the Fiscal Years Ended June 30, 2018 and 2017, Note 4, pg. 14. CHAPTER 10: CONGRESS VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 307 WATER DISTRICT NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR Capital Assets Capital assets must be adequately maintained and replaced over time and expanded as needed to accommodate future demand and respond to regulatory and technical changes. The value of the District’s depreciable capital assets decreased by about nine percent from FY17 to FY18.669 The Districts FY18 audited financial report indicates no capital additions to the water system. The District does not have a Capital Improvement Plan, nor is the system included in any of the expenditures plans by the City of Napa, which is responsible for maintaining the District’s system. Financial Planning and Reporting Achieving transparency and public accountability standards dictates that cities and agencies provide easily accessible and clear documentation of their activities, including financial information. Website – The District has no website, but expects to have one in place by “the fall of 2020.”670 Annual Financial Reports – The District prepares biennial audited financial reports. Capital Improvement Program – The District does not have a Capital Improvement Plan, nor is the system included in capital plans of the City of Napa, which is responsible for maintaining the District’s system. CVWD reports that it is “actively engaged with consultants and engineers to identify additional capital outlays...”671 Financial Forecasts – The District does not prepare financial forecasts beyond its annual budget. Other Financial Planning – The District has not prepared any other system assessments, costs of service, or other plans or analysis. 669 Congress Valley County Water District Basic Financial Statements for the Fiscal Years Ended June 30, 2018 and 2017, Note 3, pg. 14. 670 Comments on Draft MSR – CVWD, July 15, 2020. 671 Comments on Draft MSR – CVWD, July 15, 2020. CHAPTER 10: CONGRESS VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 308 WATER DISTRICT NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR WATER SERVICES CVWD provides one active service at this time—domestic water service. CVWD has not developed a planning document, such as a master plan, to guide provision of water services. Type and Extent of Services Services Provided CVWD provides all potable water services by way of a contract arrangement with the City of Napa for water supplies and delivery. CVWD retains ownership of the distribution system and collects a share of the property tax, which covers board expenses, legal and financial services. The district is also able to offset a portion of the City’s rates for CVWD residents by paying the difference between the resident rates charged by the City and the non-resident rates charged to connections outside of the city limits. Service Area As mentioned, the District’s service area is defined in its contract with the City of Napa as the Water Service Agreement service area. The contract service area presently encompasses 2.5 square miles or 1,620 acres and includes 124 total assessor parcels. Of the parcels in the service area, 99 are served by the District’s water system. Services to Other Agencies The District does not provide services to other agencies. Contracts for Services CVWD contracts with the City of Napa to supply water and maintain its system. At present, the City provides 100 percent of CVWD’s water supply and is responsible for the complete operation, maintenance, and eventual replacement of the distribution system, as well as direct billing to CVWD customers. Given that the City provides all services to the community, previous MSRs have identified the potential for the district to be dissolved and services continued by the City. The original agreement was set to expire in 2017; however, their current agreement was recently extended to 2022 in order to establish a water service transition plan. Overlapping Service Providers While City of Napa provides services within CVWD’s boundaries, the two agencies do not overlap jurisdictions and coordinate through a defined contract. There is no duplication of services; however, there is certainly potential for greater efficiency of service structure and elimination of duplication of overhead costs, as two separate agencies are not required to offer the current level of services. It was recommended in the 2017 MSR that the potential for reorganization of CVWD with the City of Napa be assessed and a transition plan finalized in 2020 prior to the sunset of Government Code §56133.5 on January 1, 2021. This is discussed in greater depth in Governance Structure Options within this chapter. CHAPTER 10: CONGRESS VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 309 WATER DISTRICT NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR There are two other public agencies empowered to provide water service whose jurisdictions overlap that of CVWD: the Napa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District and Napa County Resource Conservation District. Both of these agencies have elected not to offer water service and have expressed no intentions of doing so in the foreseeable future. Collaboration CVWD collaborates with the City of Napa via its contract service arrangement. The two agencies maintain a good working relationship; however, improvements could be made by initiating a regular reporting structure to keep the District informed. Staffing CVWD appoints an at-will and part-time District Secretary to oversee all agency activities, including providing accounting services and coordinating service requests with the City of Napa. The current District Secretary operates out of a home office. Legal services are provided by Coombs and Dunlap, LLP. Water Supply CVWD’s water supply is entirely generated from the supply of the City of Napa. CVWD has not developed any supply of its own. Pursuant to its Water Supply Contract with Napa, the District is annually allocated 100 acre-feet of potable water. There are no limitations or constraints placed on the allocated water supply in drought years. Napa’s water supply is commingled between three sources: Lake Hennessey, Milliken Reservoir, and the State Water Project. The water supplied is limited to domestic, agricultural, and winery purposes only. Emergency Preparedness The District does not have interties with other agencies should it experience an outage or interruption in service from the City of Napa. Additionally, there are no water storage facilities within the District’s system to aid in weathering an outage. Water Demand CVWD currently provides water service to 99 total connections. Of this amount, 92 connections are residential, and seven connections are agricultural. CVWD reports its current total water demand for the last completed calendar year was 65.1 acre-feet. Over the period 2014 to 2017, the District had experienced a general decrease in water demand attributable to the City’s water conservation and rebate programs that are also directly applicable to CVWD customers. However, in 2018, there was a significant increase in demand in the District. This amount marks an 8.7 acre-foot increase in annual demand over the last five years, reflecting the “drought rebound” exhibited by other City of Napa customers. The following table summarizes recent trends in water demands over the last five years. CHAPTER 10: CONGRESS VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 310 WATER DISTRICT NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR Figure 10-4: Demand for Potable Water, 2015-2018 (acre-feet) Demand for Potable Water 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Volume Delivered 56.4 46.3 42.4 49.3 65.1 Source: City of Napa, Request for Information. With respect to projecting future demands, and based on the preceding growth projection analysis, it is reasonable to assume that growth in demand for water will mirror population growth projections. The projections assume a conservative growth rate of 0.21 percent annually through 2030, based on historical growth trends in unincorporated Napa. The projections directly correspond with the amount of new permanent resident population growth anticipated within CVWD. Based on these assumptions, it is projected that the District will use 65.92-acre-feet of water in 2025 and 66.62 acre-feet in 2030, which would make use of almost 67 percent of the available contract water supply from the City. Water Infrastructure and Facilities Treatment CVWD does not own, lease, or operate treatment facilities. Water delivered to CVWD is treated by the City. The City provides treatment of raw water drawn from its three surface sources at separate facilities; all of which are entirely owned and operated by the City and connected through a common distribution system. The three water treatment plants’ combined maximum daily output totals 44 million gallons or 135 acre-feet. Distribution CVWD’s distribution system receives and delivers potable water generated from the City’s distribution system. CVWD’s water distribution system has been improved to the City of Napa’s standards in recent years. CVWD’s system consists of 8- to 12-inch water lines that are served by three connection points to the City’s water distribution system at Old Sonoma Road, Thompson Road, and Stonebridge Drive/Sunset Road. CVWD is located within Napa’s “Browns Valley–Zone Four” in which water supply and pressure is served by the City’s 1.0- million-gallon storage capacity B-Tank. The capacity of the distribution system has been sufficient to provide services and has no known capacity concerns. Water loss, specifically the amount of water lost due to system breaks and leaks, as well as illegal connections, is a measure of the water system’s integrity. Water losses can include “real losses”, which are physical losses from the water distribution system and the supplier’s storage facilities, as well as “apparent losses”, which represent losses due to metering inaccuracies, data handling errors and/or unauthorized consumption. The City’s 2018 AWWA Water Audit shows that losses represented five percent of overall demand. The Infrastructure Leakage Index (ILI) was just 1.02, the ratio of real losses to unavoidable real losses. Both measures were historically on the low side for the city system, which has ranged up to nine percent loss and 2.14 ILI. Water loss calculations specific to CVWD’s distribution system were not available. CHAPTER 10: CONGRESS VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 311 WATER DISTRICT NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR Breaks and leaks in the mains and service connections account for some of the loss experienced in the system. The City of Napa was not able to provide the number of breaks and leaks specific to the CVWD system. Shared Facilities CVWD relies upon shared facilities with the City of Napa for water conveyance to the District’s boundaries. Additionally, the contract service structure allows for resource sharing as the City operates and maintains the Districts’ distribution system. Infrastructure Needs The City is responsible for planning for the capital improvement needs of the District’s distribution system; however, as mentioned the system is not included in capital plans of the City of Napa. It is recommended that CVWD and the City ensure that the capital needs of the distribution system are planned for in appropriate capital planning documents. CVWD reports that it is “actively engaged with consultants and engineers to identify additional capital outlays...”672 No particular infrastructure needs were identified over the course of this review. Water Quality For information on the City of Napa water quality for source and treated water, refer to the City of Napa Chapter Water Quality section. 672 Comments on Draft MSR – CVWD, July 15, 2020. CHAPTER 10: CONGRESS VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 312 WATER DISTRICT NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE OPTIONS Over the course of this review, several governance structure options were identified with respect to the Congress Valley Water District and its water services, including possible service structure modifications and reorganizations with other agencies. The feasibility of each of these options is generally assessed here; however, more in-depth review would be required to refine specifics of process and structure should the affected agencies or LAFCO choose to move forward. Reorganization of Congress Valley Water District Given that the City of Napa provides almost all services to the customers within CVWD’s boundaries, which in essence is a “functional consolidation,” there is potential to streamline the service structure by eliminating a level of administration. While there is no duplication of services offered, there is certainly potential for greater efficiency of service structure and elimination of duplicative overhead costs, as two separate agencies are not needed to offer the current level of services. The potential for changing the service structure in the Congress Valley area was outlined in the First Amendment (2017) to CVWD’s Water Supply Contract with the City of Napa. The amendment required that CVWD, the City of Napa, the County of Napa, and LAFCO should convene no later than 2020 for the purpose of determining the appropriate long-term service arrangement for the Congress Valley community, including determining whether it would be appropriate for CVWD to initiate dissolution proceedings and transition formal service responsibility to the City of Napa. The long-term service arrangement should be formalized no later than July 1, 2022 according to the agreement. At present, the City provides 100 percent of CVWD’s water supply and is responsible for the complete operation, maintenance, and eventual replacement of the distribution system, as well as direct billing to CVWD customers. CVWD retains ownership of the distribution system and collects a share of the property tax, which covers board expenses, legal and financial services. The district is also able to offset a portion of the City’s rates for CVWD residents by paying the difference between the resident rates charged by the City and the non-resident rates charged to connections outside of the city limits. The District maintains a part-time District Secretary to oversee all agency activities, including providing accounting services and coordinating service requests with the City of Napa. At present, CVWD does not have a plan to expand services offered. CVWD contends that it plays an important role in the provision of water to its landowners and that dissolution would not advance efficient service provision nor serve the best interest of its constituents based on 1)its authority to manage water in its boundaries thereby providing a voice for district landowners in water management issues, 2) its efforts to act as a responsible steward of its resources and exercising appropriate oversight over billing and financial operations in the best interest of residents, and 3) its efforts in actively identifying capital outlays beyond city-planned improvements. Following the release of this report, in August 2020, the Napa City Council directed staff to negotiate an agreement with CVWD for continued services similar to the existing service structure. It is likely that this service structure will continue at least until the expiration of the negotiated contract. CHAPTER 10: CONGRESS VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 313 WATER DISTRICT NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR However, there continue to be several governance structure options available as CVWD moves forward with considering its long-term service arrangement, including the following: 1) Maintaining the status quo, 2) Expansion of the City’s SOI and annexation of CVWD territory, 3) Formation of a subsidiary district of the City of Napa, 4) Transition to a county service area, and 5) Dissolution of CVWD and continued service by City of Napa. Status Quo One option is continued existence of CVWD as it is currently operated and governed. This option assumes that the City of Napa is willing to continue offering water supply and operational services beyond the agreed upon contract expiration date of July 1, 2022. The City has not indicated if it would be willing to continue services in the long term without follow through on the terms of the First Amendment to the original agreement between the two agencies. However, this option does not address the issues that have compelled consideration of governance structure options for CVWD, including duplication of administration efforts and costs, as well as continued existence of a surplus governance layer with marginal utility. If CVWD desires to continue providing services as it is presently, it is recommended that it demonstrate its value added in a long-term plan for services. Expansion of the City’s SOI and Annexation of CVWD Territory Among the purposes of LAFCO is encouraging logical boundaries and promoting efficient delivery of services. Logical boundaries generally entail orderly organization of districts and cities with boundaries that encompass their respective service areas and do not create irregularities, such as islands or division of communities. Logical boundaries promote efficient delivery of services by eliminating overlap of boundaries and consequently minimizing the potential for duplication of services. Ideally, orderly development of local agencies streamlines service structure and reduces the need for multiple agencies providing similar services. In the case of CVWD, the City is immediately adjacent to the community in question. Based on LAFCO’s purpose, the ideal service structure would be an amendment to the City’s SOI to include the area already served by the City and a subsequent annexation of the territory in question. CVWD would then be dissolved. This option 1) meets the needs of the agency service agreement, 2) aligns with LAFCO’s aforementioned responsibilities by promoting logical boundaries and efficiency of services, 3) allows for continued service by a professional and well-managed agency, and 4) appropriately allows for representation of CVWD residents on the city council as the decision-making body affecting water services in the area. However, CVWD’s boundaries are located outside of the City’s Rural Urban Limit (RUL) making this option infeasible in the short term. While the territory could be included in the City’s SOI, it is not annexable unless the RUL is amended by voter approval and the City completes the LAFCO annexation process, including a tax sharing agreement with the CHAPTER 10: CONGRESS VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 314 WATER DISTRICT NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR County. Consequently, it is determined that a sphere of influence change is not feasible in the short term as there is no potential for a correlating boundary change until the RUL is adjusted, which is part of a substantial process. Should the City decide to pursue this option, then it would need to conduct appropriate planning in its General Plan, work with the County to construct consensus, and apply to LAFCO to initiate the SOI change. Finally, the City would need to prepare a ballot measure to adjust the RUL to allow for annexation. Formation of a Subsidiary District A subsidiary district is a dependent district of a city, where the city council acts as the governing body of the district and the finances of the district are accounted for separately to prevent comingling of funds. Formation of a subsidiary district mirrors the benefits of the SOI amendment and annexation option discussed previously. It 1) meets the needs of the agency service agreement, 2) aligns with LAFCO’s aforementioned responsibilities by promoting logical boundaries and efficiency of services, and 3) allows for continued service by a professional and well-managed agency. This option does not, however, allow for representation of CVWD residents on the City Council. Unfortunately, this option would require an involved process to meet State requirements for the formation of a subsidiary district. Government Code §57105 requires that 70 percent or more of the area of land within the subsidiary district be within the City and 70 percent or more of the number of registered voters who reside within the district must be within the City. In the case of CVWD, substantial City territory would first need to be annexed to the District in order to meet the 70 percent requirement, since presently the District is entirely outside of the City. An alternative may be to include the entirety of the City’s water service area within the boundaries of the district and then transition to the subsidiary district. In this case, the entirety of the District could be up to 26.29 square miles consisting of the entirety of the city limits (18.4 square miles) and up to 7.89 square miles outside of the city limits to meet the 70 percent requirement. In this scenario, the entirety of the City’s water division would then be operated as a subsidiary district. This would allow for an organized structure for the 2,213 out of area service connections presently served by the City of Napa. But, once again, does not allow for representation of out of area residents on the City Council. Formation of a County Service Area Another option may be changing the structure of CVWD to a county service area (CSA), which is a dependent special district of the County. The County Board of Supervisors would act as the governing body for the District and provide all administration. This option assumes that the County would be willing to take on responsibility for the District’s operations; however, the County has not yet indicated whether it would be agreeable to accepting this duty. The benefits of this option include 1) continued existence of an entity that can contract with the City of Napa for services, if desired, 2) minimization of duplicative administrative costs as the County can capitalize on the administrative structure it already has in place, 3) residents can benefit from a professional entity with technical knowledge working on its CHAPTER 10: CONGRESS VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 315 WATER DISTRICT NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR behalf to ensure adequate services, and 4) elimination of a surplus governance layer with marginal utility. Conversely, transition to a CSA would not fully maximize efficiency for the customers as they would continue to receive services through a network of two agencies. Additionally, while administrative costs would be minimized, this option would not fully eliminate the duplication of administrative costs that would be experienced should CVWD be fully dissolved. Moreover, by the County Board of Supervisors acting as the governing body, the decision-making power would be removed from local trustees that represent the interests of the landowners within CVWD. Should CVWD, the City of Napa, and the County agree that this option best fits the needs of the residents of the community, then an application to LAFCO to transition to a CSA would be the next step. Additionally, the City and County would need to determine if the service structure would continue to be appropriate and negotiate a new service agreement. Dissolution and Continued Service by City of Napa Given that City of Napa is providing all core services within CVWD, dissolution of CVWD and continued services by the City of Napa is an option that would address duplicative administrative efforts on the part of both agencies. Because the Congress Valley area is entirely outside of the City’s Sphere of Influence and Rural Urban Limit, there is no potential for annexation of the territory in the foreseeable future. The inability of the City to annex the territory has posed a challenge in the past because based on former State law, the City would have lacked a legal basis for continuing provision of water service to district customers outside of the city limits. However, the California legislature has adopted a pilot program (Government Code 56133.5), under which LAFCO could authorize the City to extend its water service to the properties already receiving water service from CVWD through an outside service agreement. This pilot program expires January 1, 2021, unless it is extended through future legislation. As of the drafting of this report, a bill to extend the sunset date for another five years was introduced but tabled in order to address immediate needs resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic. It is assumed for the purposes of this report that Government Code 56133.5 will be extended once the State legislature is able to return to regular business. Should this code section expire, there does not appear to be a manner to make use of Government Code 56133 in its stead as no impending threat to the health and safety of the public exists and the area is not within the City’s SOI. When a district is dissolved, typically a “successor agency” is identified that annexes the territory and all assets and infrastructure are transferred from the dissolved agency to the successor agency. In this case, the only viable successor agency upon dissolution of CVWD is the City of Napa. This MSR finds that the City’s administrative controls, as well as public water supplies and capacities, are adequate to meet current and projected demands under normal and multiple dry year conditions into the foreseeable future. However, the City is unable to annex the CVWD territory, which creates some not insurmountable barriers to finalizing the reorganization. First, there are 14 parcels within CVWD’s boundaries that are not yet connected to the distribution system. These parcels would have the ability to connect to CVWD’s system if they so choose, should the District continue to exist. Upon dissolution of CVWD, these parcels would no longer be guaranteed service, but would have to apply to the City under the requirements of Government Code CHAPTER 10: CONGRESS VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 316 WATER DISTRICT NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR 56133.5 allowing extension of services outside of the city limits. LAFCO may consider preemptively approving City of Napa service to these parcels as a condition of the dissolution to ensure the properties are identified and safeguarded for potential future water services. Second, typically the former district’s property tax share would be transferred to the successor agency following negotiations with the County. However, in this case, the City would not be annexing the territory and therefore tax sharing negotiations with the County would not be triggered. (CVWD receives 12.2 percent share of the Proposition 13 1% property tax, which budgeted to be $85,065 in FY18-19.) In general, the rates charged by the City are set to sufficiently cover the cost of providing services and additional property tax revenue would not be necessary; however, as mentioned, with its property tax share CVWD offsets a portion of the City’s rates for CVWD residents by paying the difference between the resident rates charged by the City and the non-resident rates charged to connections outside of the city limits totaling $13,089 in FY17-18 and allocated $30,000 in FY18-19. Ideally, in some manner, the tax funds would continue to provide this offset for the residents of CVWD and not be reapportioned to other agencies. It is recommended that the City and the County discuss a means to continue making use of this tax apportionment for the benefit of the current CVWD customers. Third, dissolution of CVWD would eliminate a governing body with entirely local trustees that represent the interests of the landowners within CVWD. Additionally, those from outside the city limits are precluded from sitting on the City Council, which would be making decisions affecting water services in the area. All of the City’s outside service connections are similarly disenfranchised without representation on the decision making body. It is recommended in order to address this issue, that the City form a Water Commission or Advisory Committee to provide input to the City Council on which out of area customers may sit or for whom seats are reserved. One example of a Water Commission is in the City of Ventura; the Commission reviews and makes advisory recommendations regarding water rates, water resources infrastructure projects in the five-year capital improvement program, the integrated water resources management plan, water supply options, the Urban Water Management Plan approval process, a water dedication and in-lieu fee requirement, and other water resource issues. As part of the process for this scenario, all financial and physical assets of CVWD would likely be transferred to the City of Napa. Transfer of CVWD’s assets is accounted for in its agreement with the City as follows. “In consideration of the services provided by the City under the terms of this Agreement, no later than thirty (30) days prior to the termination of this Agreement, the District shall convey to the City title to all physical system assets of the District.” Financial assets of CVWD consist of an estimated fund balance of $689,000 at the end of FY19. CVWD has no outstanding debt. The quantifiable benefits of this reorganization would be a savings of approximately $100,000 each year, which is presently allocated to CVWD administrative costs, including board expenses, legal, insurance and financial services. These services could likely be covered at little or no additional expense to the City of Napa and are likely already included in the rates that are charged to every connection. CHAPTER 10: CONGRESS VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 317 WATER DISTRICT NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR In order to comply with Government Code 56133.5 to approve new or extended services outside of a jurisdictional boundary, the Commission must come to determinations regarding the following: (1) The extension of service or services deficiency was identified and evaluated in a review of municipal services prepared pursuant to §56430. The extension of City of Napa services to provide direct water services as opposed to contract water services is identified and evaluated as part of this municipal service review. (2) The extension of service will not result in either (1) adverse impacts on open space or agricultural lands or (2) growth inducing impacts. This governance option does not propose changes in land use to open space or agricultural lands. For those parcels within CVWD’s boundaries that are not yet connected but may desire to do so at some point in the future, there is potential for growth as a result of offering water services in the area; however, these parcels already have access to the water services as they are within the boundaries of a water service provider and the change in organization will not create further potential for growth. (3) A sphere of influence change involving the affected territory and its affected agency is not feasible under this division or desirable based on the adopted policies of the commission. A sphere of influence change is not being proposed for this governance option. The area is located outside of the City’s Rural Urban Limit, which does not preclude the territory from being included in the City’s SOI but does prevent the annexation of the area in question unless the RUL is amended by voter approval and the City completes the LAFCO annexation process, including a tax sharing agreement with the County. Consequently, it is determined that a sphere of influence change is not feasible as there is no potential for a correlating boundary change. Beyond cost savings, other potential benefits of this reorganization consist of 1) streamlining and improving clarity of service structure for customers, 2) elimination of duplicative administration and governance services, and 3) provision of all services by a well-managed professional agency with full-time staff and extensive expertise and resources. There are drawbacks to the potential reorganization of City of Napa and CVWD, including 1) elimination of a governing body with entirely local trustees that represent the interests of the landowners within CVWD and 2) the potential disenfranchisement of local customers. These drawbacks may be addressed by the formation of the recommended City Water Commission, which would be a means for local residents to provide input on water issues. It appears that this option may provide the most benefits to the Congress Valley community, and provide the most straightforward process, should the challenges specific to this reorganization be appropriately addressed. It is recommended that City of Napa, CVWD, and the County begin discussions regarding the possibility of moving forward with reorganization and the manner of addressing the challenges to this option. CHAPTER 10: CONGRESS VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 318 WATER DISTRICT NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR RECOMMENDATIONS During the process of this review, the following recommendations are made to CVWD regarding its water service delivery. 1) It is recommended that City of Napa, CVWD, and the County begin discussions regarding moving forward with dissolution of CVWD and extended services by the City of Napa. Discussion should focus on the manner of addressing the challenges to this reorganization option. 2) It is recommended that the District ascertain the cost of creating and maintaining a website and reassess its finding of hardship. CVWD reports that it expects to have a website in place by “the fall of 2020.”673 3) CVWD and the City of Napa maintain a good working relationship; however, improvements could be made by initiating a regular reporting structure to keep the District informed. 4) It is recommended that CVWD and the City ensure that the capital needs of the distribution system are appropriately planned for in appropriate capital planning documents. CVWD reports that it is “actively engaged with consultants and engineers to identify additional capital outlays...”674 673 Comments on Draft MSR – CVWD, July 15, 2020. 674 Comments on Draft MSR – CVWD, July 15, 2020. CHAPTER 10: CONGRESS VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 319 WATER DISTRICT NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR CONGRESS VALLEY WATER DISTRICT DETERMINATIONS Growth and Population Projections v Congress Valley Water District’s population, as of 2019, was approximately 262. v CVWD’s population increased by 1.09 percent annually between 2009 and 2019. v While there are some parcels within CVWD that do not currently contain developed housing units, there are not a significant number of such undeveloped parcels. In combination with the restrictive land uses in the area, it is reasonable to assume CVWD’s resident population growth rate over the foreseeable future will remain low and not significantly impact the District’s demand for water. v LAFCO anticipates growth within CVWD to be similar to the most recent five-year trend of all unincorporated areas of Napa of 0.21 percent annually, with an anticipated population of 268 by 2030. The Location and Characteristics of Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities Within or Contiguous to the Agency’s SOI v According to Napa LAFCO’s definition of disadvantaged unincorporated communities (DUCs), there are currently no DUCs in Napa County. Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities and Adequacy of Public Services, Including Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies v The City of Napa’s sources of water supply are sufficient to continue to provide service to CVWD’s service area and other areas served by the City of Napa. v Based on recent and projected water demands, there is sufficient water supply available to serve all properties located within the Water Supply Contract service area, including existing and anticipated development. v The level of water services offered by the City of Napa were found to be more than adequate based on integrity of the water distribution system and compliance with drinking water requirements. The integrity of the City’s water distribution system and the CVWD distribution system is excellent as measured by the degree of annual water loss and the rate of main breaks and leaks per 100 miles of main. The City was in full compliance with Primary Drinking Water Regulations in 2018. While the City had six violations reported by the EPA since 2008; the City has adjusted its treatment mechanism and has had no violations since 2016. v No known infrastructure needs were identified with regards to CVWD’s water distribution system. v It is recommended that CVWD and the City ensure that the capital needs of the distribution system are planned for in appropriate capital planning documents. CHAPTER 10: CONGRESS VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 320 WATER DISTRICT NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR CVWD reports that it is “actively engaged with consultants and engineers to identify additional capital outlays...”675 Financial Ability of Agencies to Provide Services v The CVWD relies on the City of Napa for the provision of water; the City bills District customers directly for water and retains all revenues, and the City is responsible for all operations, maintenance and capital planning. v The District relies primarily on property tax to fund District administrative costs. These costs vary annually depending on needs for engineering and financial biennial auditing services. The FY19 budget showed a $40,000 shortfall, largely due to funding of a portion of customer’s water bills to pay for the difference between the City’s rates for residents vs. non-residents. The shortfall was funded by reserves. v The District’s cash balance and unrestricted net position appear to be more than adequate as operational reserves; however, future capital needs are unknown. v The net value of the District’s capital assets showed no additions in FY18, and the net value declined by nine percent. The District has no capital plan, and the City’s capital plans do not explicitly identify District needs or future costs. Status of, and Opportunities for, Shared Facilities v CVWD relies upon shared facilities with the City of Napa for water conveyance to the District’s boundaries. Additionally, the contract service structure allows for resource sharing as the City operates and maintains the Districts’ distribution system. Accountability for Community Service Needs, Including Governmental Structure and Operational Efficiencies v The District Board holds regular appropriately noticed meetings. v The District has not developed a website to make information available to the public as recommended in the 2017 MSR. It is recommended that the District ascertain the cost of creating and maintaining a website and reassess its finding of hardship in regard to compliance with SB 929. CVWD reports that it expects to have a website in place by “the fall of 2020.”676 v CVWD and the City of Napa maintain a good working relationship; however, improvements could be made by initiating a regular reporting structure to keep the District informed. v It is recommended that City of Napa, CVWD, and the County begin discussions regarding moving forward with dissolution of CVWD and extended services by the City of Napa. Discussion should focus on the manner of addressing the challenges to this reorganization option. 675 Comments on Draft MSR – CVWD, July 15, 2020. 676 Comments on Draft MSR – CVWD, July 15, 2020. CHAPTER 10: CONGRESS VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 321 WATER DISTRICT NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR Relationship with Regional Growth Goals and Policies v CVWD is not a land use authority that takes part in regional planning efforts and therefore does not impact growth policy. v LAFCO’s adopted policies relating to special district spheres discourage any expansions of CVWD’s existing sphere to promote urban development based on current land use designations of lands located within close proximity to the District. CHAPTER 10: CONGRESS VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 322 WATER DISTRICT NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR 11. L A KE B ERRYES SA R ESORT I M P ROV EM ENT DI STRI CT AGENCY OVERVIEW Lake Berryessa Resort Improvement District Profile Contact Information Contact: Steven E. Lederer, Director www.countyofnapa.org/1686 1195 Third Street, Suite 101 /Pay-Water-Sewer-Bills- Address: Napa, CA 94559 Website: NBRID-LBRID Phone: 707-253-4351 Email: publicworks@NapaCounty.org Formation Information Date of Formation: 1965 Agency type: Dependent special district Governing Body Governing Body: County Board of Supervisors Members: 5 Manner of Supervisors elected by voters Length of Selection: in five Supervisorial Districts term: 4 years 1195 Third Street Suite 101 First Tuesday of every month Meetings Location: Napa, CA 94559 Meeting date: at 9:15 am Mapping and Population Population GIS Date: 2019 (2018): 489 Purpose Enabling Public Resources Code Empowered Legislation: §13000 Services: Sewer and water services Municipal Services Provided (directly or by contract) Sewer and water services Area Served Berryessa Estates along Putah 3.17 square miles (2,028 Creek near northwestern Boundary Size: acres) Location: shore of Lake Berryessa Most recent Current SOI: 0.34 square miles (217 acres) SOI update: 2007 Municipal Service Reviews 2011 Lake Berryessa Region: Municipal Service Review 2007 LBRID Sphere of Influence Review 2005 Sanitation and Wastewater Treatment MSR Phase I: Agency Profiles Past MSRs: 2004 Comprehensive Water Service Study CHAPTER 11: LAKE BERRYESSA RESORT IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT 323 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR Boundaries As described in its 2011 MSR, LBRID’s jurisdictional boundary is approximately 3.17 square miles or 2,028 acres in size.677 The District was formed to serve a planned 2,000-unit development known as Berryessa Estates. Due to adverse market conditions only one residential subdivision, “Unit 2”, was developed, in addition to “Unit 1” that primarily provides access. There is a total of 343 lots in the subdivision. Sphere of Influence As described in the 2011 LBRID MSR, LBRID’s SOI encompasses 0.34 square miles, or 217 acres, entirely within its jurisdictional boundary.678 The SOI was affirmed in 2007. The SOI excludes approximately 1,811 jurisdictional acres with 48 parcels, of which eight units are served by septic systems and well water. No residential units outside the SOI are connected to the LBRID system nor have the existing unserved units approached the District about extending service; tentative plans to develop the Unit One subdivision, which is outside the SOI, were considered but “the cost was prohibitive and the project abandoned.”679 The 1,811 acres within the District’s jurisdictional boundary but outside it SOI include parcels of record that could apply for development permits, however, as noted above the costs of extending utility services as well as other public infrastructure and roads makes development unlikely within the next ten years or more. Sufficient undeveloped lots exist within the SOI to accommodate recent and potential development for at least ten years considering recent trends and future population projections. 677 Correspondence from A. Martinez, County of Napa, 1/23/2020. 678 Correspondence from A. Martinez, County of Napa, 1/23/2020. 679 Follow-up response rec’d 12/9/19 to LBRID interview 12/4/19. CHAPTER 11: LAKE BERRYESSA RESORT IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT 324 Figure 11-1 Lake Berryessa Resort Improvement District (LBRID) Legend LBRID Jurisdictional Boundary LBRID Sphere of Influence SnellV alley R oad Stagecoach Canyon Road P u ta h C r e e k 0 0.2 0.4Miles Lake Lake Yolo Calistoga LBRID December 11, 2019 St. Helena Prepared by LAFCO Staff Sonoma Yountville Napa Solano LAFCO of Napa County 1030 Seminary Street, Suite B Napa, California 94559 American Lake Berryessa Marin Canyon http://www.napa.lafco.ca.gov NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR ACCOUNTABILITY AND GOVERNANCE The Napa County Board of Supervisors serves as directors of the District and meet monthly as part of regularly schedule Supervisors’ meetings. Agenda, minutes and related staff reports, and documents can be found on the County’s website.680 The District’s website consists of one page on the County’s website that displays links enabling residents to pay bills online. The page includes contact information and links to 2016 responses to LBRID residents’ questions but provides no other District information. District staff reach residents through mailings and newsletters, posts on the NextDoor social media site, and in-person meetings as needed. A revised website, or web page hosted on the Napa County site, is expected in 2020.681 District staff were highly responsive to requests for information during preparation of this MSR. GROWTH AND POPULATION PROJECTIONS Originally 2,000 residential units were planned for the Berryessa Estates subdivision along with commercial and recreation uses; however, limited market demand reduced the amount of planned residential development. No marina or golf course were constructed as originally planned until a 1975 lawsuit compelled the development of a marina and adjoining campground.682 The District currently serves 183 developed residential lots (167 currently have active accounts). Population estimates indicate 194 households and population of 489.683 Forecasts predict a 2030 population of 500.684 There are no commercial users at LBRID (the marina and campground are not connected to the system); however, one of the developed lots is used for the County’s volunteer fire station. A total of 153 vacant, developable lots exist within the current SOI served by the LBRID system.685 New connections are possible but at a very slow rate; since Fiscal Year 2012-13 there have been no new connections to LBRID’s system.686 The campground receives no service from the District and likely never will; it is strictly used by the HOA for the Berryessa Estates Unit 2 property owners. No new development outside the current SOI is anticipated by the District, although lots outside the SOI but within the District boundaries represent “lots of record” and could request a connection assuming the cost of extending utilities, roads and other required infrastructure could be funded by the property owner(s).687 680 http://napa.granicus.com/ViewPublisher.php?view_id=6 681 Follow-up response rec’d 12/9/19 to LBRID interview 12/4/19. 682 2011 Lake Berryessa Region: Municipal Service Review. 683 2019 Population estimates by County Planning Dept. as reported by LAFCO (6/13/19). 684 Population forecasts by LAFCO and Cal. Dept. of Finance as reported by LAFCO (6/13/19). 685 Follow-up response rec’d 12/9/19 to LBRID interview 12/4/19. 686 Follow-up response rec’d 12/9/19 to LBRID interview 12/4/19. 687 Follow-up response rec’d 12/9/19 to LBRID interview 12/4/19. CHAPTER 11: LAKE BERRYESSA RESORT IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT 326 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR DISADVANTAGED UNINCORPORATED COMMUNITIES LAFCO is required to evaluate disadvantaged unincorporated communities as part of this service review, including the location and characteristics of any such communities. According to Napa LAFCO’s definition of DUCs, LBRID is not a DUC.688 However, the Rural Community Assistance Corporation (RCAC) conducted a Median Household Income Survey on behalf of the District in the spring of 2018 and determined that the community qualified as a Disadvantaged Community (DAC).689 The DAC status enabled application to the State for financial assistance. The results of the survey apply for a five-year period and a new survey is likely in 2023.690 FINANCIAL ABILITY TO PROVIDE SERVICES The Lake Berryessa Resort Improvement District (LBRID) provides water and wastewater services within District boundaries. LBRID is governed by the County of Napa Board of Supervisors691 and County Public Works and other County departments staff the District. The District funds operations, maintenance and capital improvements for water treatment and distribution facilities, and wastewater collection, treatment and disposal. Figure 11-2: Summary of Selected Financial Information, Lake Berryessa Resort Improvement District Water and Wastewater Operations Lake Berryessa Resort Imp. Dist. - Water & Wastewater Operations FY18-19 Budget (operations, before CIP or debt) $127,000 Total Revenues (Property tax, usage fees & T-1 tax) $761,000 Total Expenditures before CIP transfers $634,000 Ending Fund Balance as % of Revenues* 413% Operating Fund Transfers to CIP $257,300 Ending Fund Balance (Operations, after CIP transfers)* $3,147,000 Debt Service as a % of Operating Revenues na** Total Debt Outstanding $2,370,000 Debt Service (and related charges) funded by assessments $211,000 Monthly Water+Sewer Rates as a % of Household Income 8.5% Typical Monthly Rates (water & sewer use, exc. taxes) $306 Median Household Income (2017) $43,200 Pension+OPEB Total Payments % of Revenues N/A Pension+OPEB Total Payments $0 * Balance includes revenues collected for capital. 2020-01-28 ** Debt service is funded by assessments. 688 Napa Local Agency Formation Commission, Policy on Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities, 2018. 689 LBRID Agenda Letter 9/11/18. 690 Follow-up response rec’d 12/9/19 to LBRID interview 12/4/19. 691 Lake Berryessa Resort Improvement District Sphere of Influence Review, Final Report, Dec. 2007 CHAPTER 11: LAKE BERRYESSA RESORT IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT 327 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR Balanced Budget For any agency, recurring operating deficits are a warning sign. In the short-term, reserves can backfill deficits and maintain services. However ongoing deficits eventually will deplete reserves. The District’s projected FY19 total operations revenues (including property tax) exceed expenditures by a margin of about $127,000 before including depreciation expense and transfers out to its CIP fund. The District receives about $32,000 in property taxes (included in total revenues) which is about 14.9 percent692 of each tax dollar from within its boundaries, in addition to water/sewer charges, 693 special taxes, and assessments applied to debt service. The positive margin is insufficient to cover the budgeted depreciation expense of $200,000. Although depreciation is a non-cash expense utilized for accounting purposes, it approximates the “using up” of capital assets over time; the shortfall after depreciation costs indicates that the District may be unable to fully fund capital repair and replacement over the long-term unless revenues increase (or expenses decline). The District seeks grants to help fund capital improvements (see “Capital Assets”, below). Fund Balances, Reserves and Liquidity Fund balances and reserves should include adequate funds for cash flow and liquidity, in addition to funds to address longer-term needs. The positive margin described above in the “Balanced Budget” section should improve the District’s cash balance by the end of FY19. The District’s FY19 Budget reports approximately $3.15 million ending operations fund balance,694 representing about 413 percent of operating expenditures. Over the longer term, the District has an unrestricted net position of $2.3 million, as described in the following section, which indicates significant positive unrestricted funds, or about 78 percent of total liabilities. Net Position An agency’s “Net Position” as reported in its CAFR represents the amount by which assets (e.g., cash, capital assets, other assets) exceed liabilities (e.g., debts, unfunded pension and OPEB liabilities, other liabilities). A positive Net Position provides an indicator of financial soundness over the long-term. The District’s FY18 financials show a positive total net position of $10.8 million, and unrestricted net position of $2.3 million. Rates and Charges Water and wastewater operations are primarily funded by service charges. Enterprises are allowed to establish charges sufficient to fund their cost of service. Rates typically are 692 County of Napa MPTS2010 Property System – Auditor Tax Increment Distribution Report 2018, TRA 077-003. 693 LBRID (5220) Operations Revenues and Expenses (adj. budget) FY19. 694 LBRID Statement of Revenues and Expenses Budget vs. Actual FY19, Actual Year to Date. CHAPTER 11: LAKE BERRYESSA RESORT IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT 328 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR expected to not exceed 2-2.5 percent of household income, for each utility, or 4 to 5 percent combined.695 The District’s rates for water use equal 3.4 percent of median household incomes, and typical District wastewater rates equal 5.1 percent of median household incomes, for a combined 8.5 percent.696 These rates exceed the standard measures noted above partly due to the relatively low area incomes that qualify LBRID as a Disadvantaged Community (see Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities section, above). The additional assessments and T-1 special taxes paid by residents further increase the burden measures. LBRID prepared an analysis in 2018 of its future rates.697 A recent review of the District’s proposed rates recommended several revisions to the current and proposed rate structure, and recommended preparation of a Cost of Service Study; the review indicated that rate increases were not required during the five-year study period.698 In addition to water and wastewater service charges, the District charges an annual special tax (“T-1”) approved by voters in 1998 which increases 4 percent annually;699 in FY19 the tax is $981 per parcel.700 The District also charges an assessment (AD 2006-1), currently about $700 per parcel annually,701 which is deposited in its debt service fund. Long-term Debt Excessive long-term debt incurs interest charges that consume financial resources that could otherwise fund needed services and capital improvements. The District’s FY19 budget reports approximately $195,000 in principal and interest in its Debt Service Fund which is repayment of a County advance; the budget shows additional administrative fees related to the obligation, and to collection of property assessments.702 85% of the debt service is funded by property assessments; the remaining debt service and debt-related charges result in a $41,000 shortfall essentially covered by draws on current fund balances. The County of Napa General Fund has provided a debt service advance of $2.3 million to the District to refund the District’s 2007 Series A bonds.703 The County has also made a $384,000 “contribution” to the District.704 The District’s FY18 CAFR shows $2.37 million of “advances from other fund”.705 695 Teodoro, et al, (2018) cite USEPA’s Financial Capability Guidebook (USEPA 1984) as original source for the use of personal income as a measure, although it was not applied to rates in the 1984 document. 696 Based on median household income of $43,200; the Rural Community Assistance Corporation (RCAC) conducted a Median Household Income Survey on behalf of the District in the spring of 2018 (LBRID Agenda Letter 9/11/18). See appendix for detailed estimate of typical household charges. 697 Operating Budget 5-Year Projection, presented at Board meeting Nov. 8, 2019. 698 Rate Study Review of NBRID, Robert D. Niehaus, Inc, NBRID mtg. 10/8/19. 699 Municipal Service Review: Lake Berryessa Region, LAFCO of Napa County, Final Report, April 2011. 700 Correspondence with Phillip Miller, Napa County, July 15, 2019. 701 Correspondence with Phillip Miller, Napa County, July 15, 2019. 702 LBRID (5220) Debt Service Revenues and Expenses (adj. budget) FY19. 703 County of Napa CAFR for Fiscal Year ended June 30, 2018, Notes to the Basic Financial Statements, 3-Interfund Transactions, pg. 58. 704 County of Napa CAFR for Fiscal Year ended June 30, 2018, Notes to the Basic Financial Statements, 3-Interfund Transactions, pg. 59. 705 County of Napa CAFR for Fiscal Year ended June 30, 2018, Statement of Net Position Proprietary Funds, pg. 37. CHAPTER 11: LAKE BERRYESSA RESORT IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT 329 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR The District has benefitted from State grants for improvements needed to replace vintage portions of the system, including more than $1.1 million provided through the Napa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District’s 2015 application to the State.706 The FY18 CAFR reports that the District received “a CDBG grant for the maintenance projects in the Lake Berryessa Resort Improvement District.”707 The District is in the process of applying for and requesting “100% principal forgiveness” for approximately $2 million from the Small Community Wastewater Grant Program for the District’s Wastewater Ponds Groundwater Inflow Mitigation project.708 LBRID’s status as a Disadvantaged Community qualifies it for special grants, low interest loans, and other programs that help fund its infrastructure needs (see Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities section, above). Pension and OPEB Liabilities The District offers no pension or OPEB benefits and has no corresponding liabilities. Capital Assets Capital assets must be adequately maintained and replaced over time and expanded as needed to accommodate future demand and respond to regulatory and technical changes. The value of the District’s depreciable structures and improvements declined by $274,000 of depreciation with no offsetting additions or improvements from FY17 to FY18. However, the financial reports show $5 million to $7 million of construction in progress that will more than offset the recent declines when construction is complete. This increase in asset value reflects the significant capital replacement and improvement projects undertaken by the District. The depreciated value is about 52 percent of total value; however, this ratio will improve when new construction is added to net capital asset value. Financial Planning and Reporting Achieving transparency and public accountability standards dictates that cities and agencies provide easily accessible and clear documentation of their activities, including financial information. Website – The District has no website; however, board meeting agendas and minutes are posted on a section of the County’s website.709 A revised website, or web page hosted on the Napa County site, is expected in 2020.710 Financial Policies – The District adopted a Debt Management Policy.711 No other financial policies specific to the District were identified. 706 LBRID Board Agenda Letter, 4/4/17. 707 County of Napa CAFR for Fiscal Year ended June 30, 2018, pg. 13. 708 LBRID Board Agenda Letter, 9/11/18. 709 http://napa.granicus.com/ViewPublisher.php?view_id=6 710 Follow-up response rec’d 12/9/19 to NBRID interview 12/4/19. 711 Resolution No. 2017-07 Adopting a District Debt Management Policy, 7/11/17. CHAPTER 11: LAKE BERRYESSA RESORT IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT 330 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) – The District’s financials are included in the County’s annual CAFR as a separate enterprise or business-type activity. Capital Improvement Program (CIP) – The District does not have a 5-Year CIP. Cost of Service/Rate Study – The District prepared an analysis in 2018 of its future rates. A recent review of the District’s proposed rates recommended several revisions to the current and proposed rate structure, and recommended preparation of a Cost of Service Study. CHAPTER 11: LAKE BERRYESSA RESORT IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT 331 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR WATER SERVICES The District routinely monitors, reports on its compliance State and Federal water quality standards. LBRID maintains its system and completes system improvements as needed to maintain its adherence to requirements and standards. Consumer Confidence Reports are provided annually to its customers documenting results of periodic source and finished water assessments performed by the State Water Resources Control Board, Division of Drinking Water Programs. Type and Extent of Services Services Provided LBRID provides potable water to residential customers. A total of 183 units (167 currently active) are connected to the District’s system.712 Service Area LBRID provides water to Berryessa Estates’ Unit Two which is within the LBRID boundary and SOI. All water connections are located within District boundaries, with no out- of-agency water services provided. Services to Other Agencies The District does not provide any water-related services to other agencies. Contracts for Services LBRID contracts with NCFCWCD for its supply of water which is drawn entirely from Lake Berryessa. NCFCWCD, in turn, contracts for a total allocation which is apportioned to various subcontractors. LBRID’s contract provides for an annual entitlement of 200 AFY (65.2 mill. gallons) and an option to purchase an additional 40 AFY. The current contract between the District and NCFCWCD extends through 2024.713 The subcontract will be revisited in 2024.714 Overlapping Service Providers There are no overlapping water service providers within the LBRID service area. Collaboration In July 2018 the District issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) soliciting operations and maintenance services to ensure continued labor oversight of the water and wastewater systems of both NBRID and LBRID. This shared operational arrangement contributes to improved operating efficiencies of a single operator and leverages the expertise and resources of a single, large engineering firm. LBRID and NBRID also share administrative and management staff provided by the County of Napa as described below. This arrangement provides opportunities for improved 712 Follow-up response rec’d 12/9/19 to LBRID interview 12/4/19. 713 2011 Lake Berryessa Region: Municipal Service Review. 714 Follow-up response rec’d 12/9/19 to LBRID interview 12/4/19. CHAPTER 11: LAKE BERRYESSA RESORT IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT 332 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR efficiencies through economies of scale, and increased access to staff expertise and the resources of a larger organization. Staffing LBRID contracts with the County of Napa for administrative and professional services.715 The Deputy Director of Public Works serves as District Engineer and is principally responsible for overseeing day-to-day operations of the water and wastewater facilities. Administration, procurement of materials and services, records, technical assistance and project management of the utilities are conducted by the Assistant Engineer and Engineering Manager. Operation of the facility is provided by a contract with a private firm, which also services NBRID facilities.716 Water Supply LBRID’s water supply is drawn entirely from Lake Berryessa. LBRID contracts with NCFCWCD which, in turn, contracts for a total allocation which NCFCWCD apportions to various subcontractors. LBRID’s 11.147 million gallons (34.2 AFY) of water produced717 in 2017 is about one-fifth of its annual entitlement from NCFCWCD of 200 AFY. Unless additional development is allowed within LBRID, the District will request to keep the current allocation when the Agreements are redone in 2024.718 Emergency Preparedness Emergency generators are used where available – Water Plant, Disposal Parcel, and all lift stations. District plans to purchase additional generators for those facilities currently without – water tank pump stations.719 The District participates in the County’s Hazard Mitigation Plan.720 Water Demand In 2017 the District reported annual potable water deliveries to retail customers of 8.47 million gallons721 (26.0 AFY). The amount delivered declined slightly in 2018 to 8.27 million gallons (25.3 AFY). 715 RFQ/RFP to Operate, Maintain and Manage Water/Wastewater Facilities, LBRID and NBRID, March 27, 2018. 716 Specialized Utilities Services Program, or SUSP, was awarded the contract, and began operations on November 1, 2018. 717 Small Water System 2017 Report to the Drinking Water Program for year ending Dec. 31, 2017. 718 Follow-up response rec’d 12/9/19 to LBRID interview 12/4/19. 719 Follow-up response rec’d 12/9/19 to LBRID interview 12/4/19. 720 Napa County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (2019 Update in progress). 721 Small Water System 2017 Report to the Drinking Water Program for year ending Dec. 31, 2017. CHAPTER 11: LAKE BERRYESSA RESORT IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT 333 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR Water Infrastructure and Facilities In 2017 the District reported annual potable water production of 11.1 million gallons (34.2 AFY).722 The amount of water produced declined in 2018 to 9.9 million gallons (30.4 AFY).723 LBRID’s 34.2 AFY of water produced724 in 2017 is less than one-fifth of its annual entitlement from NCFCWCD of 200 AFY. According to the District’s 2018 RFP, “increased water demand from new customer development isn’t foreseen over the next 5 years.”725 Treatment Water is pumped from an intake within the bed of Putah Creek, which feeds Lake Berryessa. The raw water is pumped through the District’s treatment plant. The plant’s maximum daily capacity can treat up to 250,000 gallons (0.77 AF); in 2017 the maximum daily production was 111,000 gallons, or less than half of the maximum capacity of the plant.726 Distribution LBRID’s distribution system consists of three pressure zones; each zone has a water storage tank to maintain adequate pressure and provide fire protection in accordance with ISO fire flow guidelines. Unaccounted for water loss, specifically the amount of water lost due to system breaks and leaks, as well as illegal connections, is a measure of the water system’s integrity. Water losses can include “real losses”, which are physical losses from the water distribution system and the supplier’s storage facilities as well as “apparent losses”, which represent losses due to metering inaccuracies, data handling errors and/or unauthorized consumption. A comparison of water produced (34.2 AFY) to water delivered to retail customers in 2017 (26 AFY) indicates losses of 8.2 acre-feet or 24 percent of total potable water produced of .727 The District also notes that water loss can be attributed to leaks, demands during firefighting activities near the District, and other non-metered activities such as water plant wasting after cleaning filters.728 During 2017 there were three main line breaks or leaks, and 15 service connection breaks or leaks. In 2018 the District reported no main line breaks or leaks, and two service connection breaks or leaks. Shared Facilities The District has no shared facilities. 722 Small Water System 2017 Report to the Drinking Water Program for year ending Dec. 31, 2017. 723 Small Water System 2018 Report to the Drinking Water Program for year ending Dec. 31, 2018. 724 Small Water System 2017 Report to the Drinking Water Program for year ending Dec. 31, 2017. 725 RFQ/RFP to Operate, Maintain and Manage Water/Wastewater Facilities, LBRID and NBRID, March 27, 2018. 726 Description of water source, treatment and distribution is from the RFQ/RFP to Operate, Maintain and Manage Water/Wastewater Facilities, LBRID and NBRID, March 27, 2018. 727 Losses based on a comparison of “Water Produced” to “Water Deliveries” shown in the Small Water System Report to the State Drinking Water Program. 728 Follow-up response rec’d 12/9/19 to LBRID interview 12/4/19. CHAPTER 11: LAKE BERRYESSA RESORT IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT 334 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR Infrastructure Needs The District has undertaken a number of past improvements to its system, including a 2014 emergency design of water intake facilities to address reduced water levels in Putah Creek. Other capital improvement projects underway or planned include:729 • A new Variable Frequency Drive to control the raw water pump. • Installation of single-phase circuits to add lighting inside a small building, power a potassium permanganate chemical injection pump and proportionally flow pace the chemical feed rate into Putah Creek raw supply. • Construction of two (2) new bolted steel water storage tanks. • Replacement of Redwood Tank No. 3. • Tank mixing equipment is under consideration for all three water storage tanks to enhance water quality. Water Quality The State Water Resources Control Board Division of Drinking Water (DDW) implements the Safe Drinking Water Act in California. DDW requires public water systems to perform routine monitoring for regulated contaminants. To meet water quality standards and comply with regulations, a water system with a contaminant exceeding a maximum contaminant limit (MCL) must notify the public and remove the source from service or initiate a process and schedule to install treatment for removing the contaminant. Health violations occur when the contaminant amount exceeds the safety standard (MCL) or when water is not treated properly. In California, compliance is usually determined at the wellhead or the surface water intake. Monitoring violations involve failure to conduct or to report in a timely fashion the results of required monitoring. Source Water A number of factors and events affect the quality of raw water drawn from Putah Creek and Lake Berryessa. A 2018 survey conducted by NCFCWCD and the Solano County Water Agency (SCWA) identified a number of factors affecting Lake Berryessa water quality, including fires, spills from activities adjacent to the Lake including wastewater spills, and other activities.730 Treated Water According to reports submitted to the State for 2014 through 2017, LBRID had no ongoing water system violations.731 In 2017 the District received and investigated three complaints related to water taste, odor and color, and took corrective action.732 In 2018, thirteen such complaints were received and investigated. 729 RFQ/RFP to Operate, Maintain and Manage Water/Wastewater Facilities, LBRID and NBRID, March 27, 2018. 730 Lake Berryessa 2018 Watershed Sanitary Survey Final Report, Prepared for NCFCWCD and Solano County Water Agency. 731 Small Water System 2017 Report to the Drinking Water Program for year ending Dec. 31, 2017. 732 Small Water System 2017 Report to the Drinking Water Program for year ending Dec. 31, 2017, Item 13. CHAPTER 11: LAKE BERRYESSA RESORT IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT 335 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR The District reported an ongoing/high sensitivity to water quality degradation during storm events. Disruption of power supplies due to wildfires was identified as an item of high sensitivity. 733 A 2018 inspection by the State identified a number of actions requiring immediate and ongoing attention in order to protect water quality;734 all required improvements are complete except replacement of clear well cover which is pending a purchase order.735 Actions included building repairs to prevent animal access, and additional testing and operational evaluations. 733 Small Water System 2017 Report to the Drinking Water Program for year ending Dec. 31, 2017, Item 17. 734 Inspection Report for Berryessa Estates Water System ID# 2800526, SWRCB, Oct. 16, 2018. 735 Follow-up response rec’d 12/9/19 to LBRID interview 12/4/19. CHAPTER 11: LAKE BERRYESSA RESORT IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT 336 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR WASTEWATER SERVICES The District complies with all regulatory requirements and orders of the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Work Plans are developed in conjunction with private engineering firms. The District continually plans for maintenance and upgrades of the system but does not have a multi-year CIP document. Type and Extent of Services Services Provided LBRID provides wastewater collection and treatment services to residential customers. A total of 183 units (167 currently active) are connected to the District’s system.736 Service Area LBRID provides water to Berryessa Estates’ Unit Two which is within the LBRID boundary and SOI. All sewer connections are located within District boundaries, with no out- of-agency sewer services provided. Services to Other Agencies The District does not provide any sewer-related services to other agencies. Contracts for Services The District does not have any sewer-related contracts with other agencies. Overlapping Service Providers There are no overlapping sewer service providers within the LBRID service area. Collaboration As described for LBRID water services, LBRID and NBRID share contract services provided by a private firm to operate their water and sewer facilities. This shared operational arrangement contributes to improved operating efficiencies of a single operator and leverages the expertise and resources of a single, large engineering firm. LBRID and NBRID also share administrative and management staff provided by the County of Napa as described below. This arrangement provides opportunities for improved efficiencies through economies of scale, and increased access to staff expertise and the resources of a larger organization. Staffing LBRID contracts with the County of Napa for administrative and professional services.737 The Deputy Director of Public Works serves as District Engineer and is principally responsible for overseeing day-to-day operations of the water and wastewater facilities. Administration, procurement of materials and services, records, technical assistance and 736 Follow-up response rec’d 12/9/19 to LBRID interview 12/4/19. 737 RFQ/RFP to Operate, Maintain and Manage Water/Wastewater Facilities, LBRID and NBRID, March 27, 2018. CHAPTER 11: LAKE BERRYESSA RESORT IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT 337 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR project management of the utilities are conducted by the Assistant Engineer and Engineering Manager. Operation of the facility is provided by a contract with a private firm, which also services LBRID facilities. Wastewater Flow The LBRID WWTF currently serves 183 units (167 currently active). A total of 153 vacant, developable lots exist within the current SOI served by the LBRID system.738 New connections are possible but at a very slow rate; since Fiscal Year 12-13 there have been no new connections at LBRID.739 Figure 11-3: Wastewater Flows 2014-2018 and Buildout Conditions LBRID Sewer Flows Year 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Buildout Flow (MG) 9.208 7.051 8.805 14.284 7.344 Not est’d Source: LBRID MSR Request for Information. Exceptionally high flows occurred in 2017 as a result of record-breaking rainfall. The rainfall damaged slopes under the WWTP, which the District has since obtained funding to complete improvements to restore structural integrity. The rainfall and high flows also forced to discharge to spray fields in violation of Waste Discharge Requirements issued by the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board resulting in an April 2017 Notice of Violation.740 Wastewater Infrastructure and Facilities The District’s wastewater infrastructure consists of the wastewater collection system and the wastewater treatment plant. Wastewater Treatment Plant The disposal of wastewater is allowed under WDR Order R5-2013-0114, issued by the Central Valley Water Board; the order allows LBRID to treat and dispose of an average dry weather flow of 42,000 gallons of treated water per day with a peak flow of 123,000 gallons per day.741 The wastewater treatment, storage and disposal occurs on District parcels at the southeast corner of the District. Wastewater from the community flows via gravity to three lift stations where it is pumped to a 91,000 gallon above-ground holding tank. From the tank, wastewater is pumped approximately 1.2 miles into a manhole. From the manhole, wastewater gravity flows to facultative treatment ponds including four treatment ponds and four holding ponds. Spray irrigation applies disinfected wastewater to 15.5 acres of land application area. Runoff 738 Follow-up response rec’d 12/9/19 to LBRID interview 12/4/19. 739 Follow-up response rec’d 12/9/19 to LBRID interview 12/4/19. 740 History of District Finances and Projects - Formation through June 2019, LBRID mtg. 10/8/19. 741 Lake Berryessa 2018 Watershed Sanitary Survey Final Report, Prepared for NCFCWCD and Solano County Water Agency. CHAPTER 11: LAKE BERRYESSA RESORT IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT 338 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR from spray fields is pumped or returned by gravity flow back into the pond system for reapplication.742 The system’s current design capacity is roughly 45,000 gallons per day.743 The District completed a number of system improvements in response to an order issued by the RWQCB for waste discharge violations. Improvements included pond capacity expansion, pump station and piping improvements. A second phase made improvements to meet wet weather inflow/infiltration requirements and provide stand-by power and improved instrumentation. A third phase replaced over 3,000 feet of sewer force mains and other facilities to improve treatment processes. Collection System LBRID has approximately seven miles of sewer pipe (gravity and force mains) in four basins. To provide more details regarding the integrity of the District’s sewer system and adequacy of its services this report includes the analysis of sanitary sewer overflow information and regulatory compliance data. All wastewater agencies are required to report sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs) to SWRCB. Sewer overflows are discharges from sewer pipes, pumps and manholes. Overflows reflect the capacity and condition of collection system piping and the effectiveness of routine maintenance. The sewer overflow rate is calculated as the number of overflows per 100 miles of collection piping per year. According to a 2018 report, there have been a total of 20 spills from the LBRID system from 2014 through 2017 resulting in nine spills reaching surface water (Stone Creek or Butts Creek). The largest spill, which was a controlled discharge, occurred during 2017 due to combination of direct rainfall, local runoff, and groundwater seepage into the storage ponds which exceeded the 100-year design capacity of the ponds.744 Over a 4-year period, the 20 spills equate to an average of five spills per year. By comparison, other wastewater agencies in California average 4.73 SSOs per 100 miles per year.745 In 2019 one spill resulted in 20,000 gallons reaching surface waters due to a failure of pump station controls.746 RWQCB5 enforces the Clean Water Act, permit conditions and other requirements of wastewater providers. Violations of State requirements for wastewater providers and treatment facilities are recorded by SWRCB. The Board may levy fines or order the provider to take specific actions to comply with water quality regulations. In response to a RWQCB Time Schedule Order (TS) in 2017, the District submitted a Feasibility Study to reduce inflow and infiltration. The Study identified improvements and estimated costs to meet required standards.747 742 Lake Berryessa 2018 Watershed Sanitary Survey Final Report, Prepared for NCFCWCD and Solano County Water Agency. 743 Follow-up response rec’d 12/9/19 to LBRID interview 12/4/19, and subsequent clarification rec’d 1/23/2020. 744 Lake Berryessa 2018 Watershed Sanitary Survey Final Report, Prepared for NCFCWCD and Solano County Water Agency. 745 SWRCB, Sanitary Sewer Overflow Reduction Program Annual Compliance Report, March 26, 2015, p 16. 746 SWRCB CIWQS SSO Public Report. 747 LBRID TSO Feasibility Study Letter Report to Cal. RWQCB, May 4, 2018. CHAPTER 11: LAKE BERRYESSA RESORT IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT 339 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR Infrastructure Needs The District has completed all phases of its Wastewater Collection, Treatment, and Disposal Expansion Project. At its July 23 Board meeting the District discussed additional projects required to ensure compliance with regulatory permits and maintain efficient operation of the District's facilities in the future. These projects include installation of pressure reducing valves at lift stations, reduction of inflow and infiltration (I/I) into the sewer collection system, and various projects to improve operations.748 Shared Facilities The District has no shared facilities. 748 History of District Finances and Projects - Formation through June 2019, LBRID mtg. 10/8/19. CHAPTER 11: LAKE BERRYESSA RESORT IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT 340 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE OPTIONS The last MSR for the District in 2011 proposed reorganizing the District as an independent community services district (CSD).749 At that time LAFCO determined that acrimony between the County and District residents justified the reorganization to enable a greater role by residents in District management and operations, and to provide greater flexibility for local control and provision of other services as the community develops. No further action was taken on the proposal. The 2011 MSR did not evaluate reorganization as a County Service Area (CSA). While formation of an independent district would increase local control, the current governance structure, whereby County staff manage the District in concert with LBRID, provides significant benefits from the sharing of operational staff and planning resources. Reorganization as a County Service Area (CSA) There are only six resort improvement districts remaining in the State, two of which are in Napa County. Transition of the resort improvement districts to community service districts was streamlined in the Government Code in 2010; however, that streamlined process expired in 2018. Consequently, the principal act for RIDs is not updated regularly and RIDs are becoming an antiquated governance structure. At present, the most likely alternatives for RIDs are a CSD, a water district or a county service area (CSA). Reorganization as a county service area (CSA) is an alternative that would modernize the District’s structure and retain the benefits of shared County management as a County- dependent district. CSAs are empowered to provide all of the services provided by LBRID. As a dependent district, the County Board of Supervisors would continue to be the governing body of the District, allowing for consistency in governance and operations. The transition would have no impact on the operations of the District, except in name only. The County noted a concern that a CSA may not be able to compel connection to a utility system similar to a RID (Public Resources Code §13074). However, CSAs are empowered by Government Code §25212(a) to “adopt and enforce rules and regulations for the administration, operation, use, and maintenance of the facilities and services authorized by Article 4,” giving a CSA the ability to compel connection as it relates to use of the District’s facilities. Additionally, the County can compel connection in its Code of Ordinances. Generally, the process to transition a RID into a CSA would consist of the following: 1. Dissolution of the RID may be initiated by any of the following: a. Resolution by the affected governing body b. Petition by 10% of registered voters or 10% of landowners (that own at least 10% of the assessed value of land within the district c. Resolution by LAFCO. 2. Following approval of dissolution by LAFCO, a protest hearing must be conducted. If initiated by LAFCO, 10% protest would require an election of the voters. If initiated by resolution or petition, then 25% protest would require and election of the voters. If 749 2011 Lake Berryessa Region: Municipal Service Review. CHAPTER 11: LAKE BERRYESSA RESORT IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT 341 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR greater than 50% protest is received in any circumstance, then the dissolution would be terminated. 3. Formation of a CSA may be initiated by any of the following: a. Resolution by the County Board of Supervisors b. Petition by 25% of registered voters or 25% of landowners (that own at least 25% of the assessed value of land within the district c. Resolution by LAFCO 4. Following approval of formation by LAFCO, a protest hearing must be conducted. If greater than 50% protest is received in any circumstance, then the formation would be terminated. 5. If less than 50% of protest is received, then the formation process would proceed with an election of the voters for approval.750 6. Dissolution of the RID may be conditioned on completion of formation of a CSA. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. While the District has identified its capital needs, LBRID also should develop a five-year capital plan to anticipate future system repair and replacement costs, and to assure that current rates and reserves will be adequate to address future needs. 2. The District should undertake revisions to its rate structure and prepare a cost of service study as recommended by the recent third-party review of its proposed rates. As of the writing of this report, the cost of service study has been initiated. 3. The District should continue to conduct regular surveys of resident income as necessary to establish its status as a DAC. 4. Similar to prior MSR determinations, it is recommended that the District expand the content available on its website to include financial documents such as past and current budgets and financial reports. Additional content can be added, as resources permit, to improve public access to District information and to comply with Assembly Bill 2257 (Government Code §54954.2). 5. The District and the County should explore the option of reorganizing the District as a CSA to assure that current operations and funding, such as the financial benefits of DAC designation, current grant requirements of an ARRA loan obtained following the 2008 recession (approximately 10 more years remain for loan repayment), and the RID’s ability to compel connections to the district system, would not be adversely affected. 6. The County should expand the District’s current financial reporting to improve public accessibility – the current annual audits are combined with other County financial reporting and consequently the detail and explanation are abbreviated compared to a typical district audit document. Budget documents for the District did not clearly document the resulting fund balances. 750 LAFCO may approve the formation without election is certain conditions are met; however, in the case of these RIDs, both are inhabited and do not meet the conditions. CHAPTER 11: LAKE BERRYESSA RESORT IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT 342 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR LAKE BERRYESSA RESORT IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT DETERMINATIONS Growth and Population Projections v No significant increase in current District population and service demand that would affect service delivery and infrastructure is anticipated within the timeframe of this MSR. The Location and Characteristics of Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities Within or Contiguous to the Agency’s SOI v The District has been determined to encompass a Disadvantaged Community, which enables it to qualify for various low or no-interest loans and grants. Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities and Adequacy of Public Services, Including Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies v The District has undertaken major upgrades to its water and wastewater system since the 2011 MSR identified significant infrastructure needs. v Ongoing improvements to replace aging infrastructure and to upgrade facilities are planned and/or underway. Financial Ability of Agencies to Provide Services v The District has benefited from loans provided by the County which it has been unable to fully repay to-date. v A recent rate review and forecast indicated that rate increases were not required during the five-year forecast period; however, capital improvements and County loan repayment were not explicitly included in the forecast. v Current rates exceed typical burden measures compared to resident incomes. The area has been designated as a Disadvantaged Community, which is provided a significant amount of low or no-cost funding and grants. v The District appears to have adequate reserves to fund operations, however, the lack of a five-year capital plan precludes a determination as to the adequacy of rates and reserves to fund future improvements. Status of, and Opportunities for, Shared Facilities v LBRID is administered by County staff in concert with NBRID. The two County- dependent resort improvement districts also share contract services by a single operator. CHAPTER 11: LAKE BERRYESSA RESORT IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT 343 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR Accountability for Community Service Needs, Including Governmental Structure and Operational Efficiencies v The County Board of Supervisors serves as directors of the District, and hold regular, noticed meetings. v The District maintains a website; however, it contains minimal content beyond payment links and posted responses to questions from 2016. v District staff inform residents through mailings and newsletters, posts on the NextDoor social media site, and in-person meetings as needed. Relationship with Regional Growth Goals and Policies v LBRID is not a land use authority that takes part in regional planning efforts and therefore does not impact growth policy. v LBRID’s SOI excludes substantial areas within its boundaries which are designated for single-family development, however, those areas currently are not served by the District and there are minimal prospects of those lands developing and requiring services within a ten-year time horizon. CHAPTER 11: LAKE BERRYESSA RESORT IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT 344 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR 12. LO S C A R NERO S WATER DI STRI CT AGENCY OVERVIEW Los Carneros Water District Profile Contact Information Contact: Cass Walker, Board Member, President 2530 Las Amigas Road http://carneroswater.org/Site Address: Napa, CA 94559 Website: Pages1/Home.aspx Phone: (707) 738-4600 Email: publicworks@NapaCounty.org Formation Information Date of Formation: 1978 Agency type: Independent special district Governing Body Governing Body: Board of Directors Members: 7 Manner of Elected by landowners based Length of Selection: on assessed value of property term: 4 years Napa Sanitation District Second Tuesday of February, 1515 Soscol Ferry Rd May, June, October, December Meetings Location: Napa, CA 94558 Meeting date: at 6 p.m. Mapping and Population Population GIS Date: 2019 (2018): 549 Purpose The California Water District Enabling Law: Water Code §34000 et Empowered Water, sewer, stormwater, Legislation: seq. Services: and hydroelectric Municipal Services Provided (directly or by contract) Distribution of recycled water for irrigation purposes Area Served 9.0 square miles (5,772 Southwest portion of Napa Boundary Size: acres) Location: County known as Carneros 8.77 square miles (5,614 Most recent Current SOI: acres) SOI update: 2016 Municipal Service Reviews 2016 Los Carneros Water District Municipal Service Review Past MSRs: 2004 Comprehensive Water Service Study CHAPTER 12: LOS CARNEROS WATER DISTRICT 345 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR Boundaries LCWD’s jurisdiction boundary is comprised of a contiguous, unincorporated area consisting of approximately 5,772 acres. The boundaries of the District remain unchanged since its establishment. Sphere of Influence The District’s adopted sphere of influence encompasses the majority of its jurisdictional boundary with one notable exception—two territories located north of SR 12. Los Carneros Water District’s sphere was first adopted by LAFCO in 1984 and reaffirmed with no changes in 2007 and in 2016. LAFCO designated the sphere to reflect what the Commission determined was the natural service area of LCWD. This includes lands generally bounded on the east by the Stanly Ranch and the Napa River, on the north primarily by State Route 12, on the west by the Napa / Sonoma County line, and on the south by the Southern Pacific and Northwestern Pacific Railroad lines. Excluded from the sphere but within the District’s boundaries are ten parcels located north of State Highway 12, one of which is partially within the sphere, totaling approximately 300 acres. In 1984, those parcels were recommended for detachment from the District, noting that the approximately 305 acres would be substantially more costly to serve than the areas south of the Highway. These areas have not been detached to date. CHAPTER 12: LOS CARNEROS WATER DISTRICT 346 Los Carneros Water District (LCWD) Figure 12-1 Henry Road o a d F R o m a s t e r D e a o n o R o ly L d S a d a Ol n e ¤£ 12 ¤£ 12 Nueunschwander Road L o s C a r n e C u ttin g s W ¤£ 29 r o s A h a r v e f R n u e o a d D u h Bayview Avenue gi R o d a Las Amigas Road M ilt o n R o a d Legend L Ju C ri W sd D ictional Boundary pa River a N LCWD Sphere of Influence Napa 0 0.25 0.5Miles Lake Yolo Calistoga LCWD December 11, 2019 St. Helena Prepared by LAFCO Staff Sonoma American Yountville Canyon Napa Solano LAFCO of Napa County Sonoma 1030 Seminary Street, Suite B Napa, California 94559 American Marin Canyon http://www.napa.lafco.ca.gov NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR ACCOUNTABILITY AND GOVERNANCE The District is governed by a seven-member Board of Directors elected to staggered four- year terms by landowners within the district boundaries. Elections, if held, are landowner based by assessed value of property. Board Members may be appointed by the Napa County Board of Supervisors in lieu of election if there are insufficient candidates to require an election. Regularly scheduled meetings are held on the second Tuesday of February, May, June, October, and December at 6:00 p.m. Meetings are located in Napa Sanitation District at 1515 Soscol Ferry Rd in Napa. Agendas are distributed via the District’s website, email, and postal mail. Los Carneros Water District’s website is a communication vehicle and comprehensive clearinghouse for District meeting agendas, meeting minutes, and all archival documents on the District’s services and programs. The Special District Transparency Act (SB 929) signed into law in 2018 requires special districts in California to have websites be set up by January 1, 2020 and holds special districts accountable to the Brown Act, which mandates transparency. LCWD is fully compliant with the SB 929 requirements. In 2016, the State Legislature enacted Assembly Bill 2257 (Government Code §54954.2) to update the Brown Act with new requirements governing the location, platform and methods by which an agenda must be accessible on the agency’s website for all meetings occurring on or after January 1, 2019. It is recommended that LCWD review its website and ensure it is in compliance with AB 2257. LCWD demonstrated accountability and transparency in its disclosure of information and cooperation with Napa LAFCO. The District cooperated with the requests for information, interviews, and document review. GROWTH AND POPULATION PROJECTIONS It was estimated that as of 2015, the District had a population of approximately 523 based on the number of residences in LCWD’s boundaries (212) and the average size of a household in the County at that time (2.48 persons per household). Since that time, six new residences had been constructed within LCWD’s boundaries. Thus, it is assumed that as of 2019, the population of LCWD is 549, based on an average household size in California of 2.52 persons.751 Growth within the District has historically been limited, as the majority of land within LCWD is agricultural use, primarily vineyards, along with rural single-family residences and small wineries. In the 10-year period since 2009, nine residences have been constructed within the district’s boundaries, which equates to a population growth rate of approximately five percent or 0.5 percent annually. Land located within the District is subject to the land-use authority of the County of Napa. Land within the District’s adopted boundary and sphere of influence is designated under the 751 CA DOF allocation of 2.52 persons/household. CHAPTER 12: LOS CARNEROS WATER DISTRICT 348 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR County’s General Plan as “Agriculture Watershed, and Open Space” and “Agricultural Resource.” Approximately 40 percent of the District (consisting of 28 parcels) is under “Williamson Act” contracts with the County of Napa, which helps ensure the preservation of agriculture and open space as predominant land uses within the District. Parcels under Williamson Act contracts are required to maintain their agricultural and open space land uses over the course of renewable 10-year periods in exchange for reduced property tax assessments. Future growth within the District is currently limited due the agricultural zoning of the lands within and adjacent to the District, which stipulates 160-acre minimum parcel sizes. It is estimated that 52 of the 263 assessor parcels are not developed with residences. However, given historical growth trends and the amount of viniculture and Williamson Act contracts within the District, very little development within the District is anticipated. Additionally, unlike potable water, demand for LCWD’s recycled water is not population driven, but rather driven more by the extent of productive agricultural lands in use in need of irrigation. In the case of LCWD, this is generally the vineyards. Within the District’s service area (assessment district), there are 3,140 irrigable acres. While there are a few purely residential parcels attached to the system, they elected to be included due to a hardship in locating groundwater on their parcel. Additionally, the capacity of the NapaSan’s supply source and the distribution system within LCWD was designed to accommodate the 107 connections that are a part of the assessment district, which consists of only a portion of the territory within the LCWD’s boundaries. The district is waiting for all properties within the assessment district to connect to the system, so that the extent of any excess capacity may be determined. Additionally, the loans of the assessment district will be paid off in nine years, at which time, the District reported it would be open to considering further financing of expansion projects. Consequently, even if new development should happen, it may not be able to connect to the system until an expansion of the system occurs and a financing mechanism identified. The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) projects that population of unincorporated Napa County and the entire County as a whole will grow by about six percent from 2020 to 2030. The California Department of Finance (DOF) has similar projections for Napa County. Thus, the average annual population growth in the unincorporated areas as well as Napa County as a whole is anticipated to be approximately 0.6 percent. Based on these projections, the District’s population would increase from 549 in 2019 to 586 in 2030. Napa LAFCO has developed its own population projections. To project future growth, LAFCO calculated the annual percentage change between 2012 and 2017 based on DOF population estimates for these years.752 Population growth was then projected in five-year increments through 2030. According to LAFCO’s projections, the population of unincorporated Napa County is expected to grow by about 0.21 percent a year. LAFCO projects that LCWD will grow from 549 people in 2019 to 556 residents in 2025 and to 562 people in 2030. 752 The change in population, especially unincorporated area, between 2017-2018 was significant due to the wildfires and loss of homes. Therefore, LAFCO used the timeframe from 2012 to 2017. CHAPTER 12: LOS CARNEROS WATER DISTRICT 349 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR DISADVANTAGED UNINCORPORATED COMMUNITIES LAFCO is required to evaluate disadvantaged unincorporated communities as part of this service review, including the location and characteristics of any such communities. LCWD is not considered a DUC. According to Napa LAFCO’s definition of DUCs, there are currently no disadvantaged unincorporated communities in Napa County. Based on the adopted policy, the Commission annually reviews Census Bureau American Community Survey data to determine if local and/or statewide median household income levels have changed.753 FINANCIAL ABILITY TO PROVIDE SERVICES The Los Carneros Water District, formed for the primary purpose of providing recycled water for agricultural purposes, relies entirely on benefit assessment revenues for operations and debt service. The revenues fund annual debt service principal and interest payments and district operating costs including community outreach expenses, legal and financial services. All recycled water operations are managed by the Napa Sanitation District (NapaSan) and funded by NapaSan charges to District customers. Figure 12-2: Summary of Selected Financial Information, Los Carneros Water District Los Carneros Water District - Recycled Water FY18-19 General Fund Annual Net (audited) $6,872 Interest and Assessments allocated to General Fund $20,985 Expenditures (administration, exc. assessment debt) $14,113 Ending General Fund Balance as % of Revenues 265% Ending General Fund Balance (FY19) $55,709 Debt Service as a % of Assessment Revenues 73.9% Total Debt Outstanding (end of FY19) $3,991,000 Debt Service (payment schedule) $335,220 Additional payment to principal from reserves $625,000 Total Direct Assessment Collections (General Fund & Debt) $435,396 Pension+OPEB Total Payments % of Revenues no obligations Balanced Budget For any agency, recurring operating deficits are a warning sign. In the short-term, reserves can backfill deficits and maintain services. However ongoing deficits eventually will deplete reserves. LCWD’s budgets and financial statements demonstrate the District’s ability to fund its general expenditures within its available revenues and reserves. Debt service is funded by property owner assessments. Of the District’s annual benefit assessments, $20,000 to $30,000 is allocated annually to District administrative costs - including board expenses, legal and financial services - supplemented by interest earnings on its General Fund balance. The FY18, FY19 and FY20 753 Napa Local Agency Formation Commission, Policy on Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities, 2018. CHAPTER 12: LOS CARNEROS WATER DISTRICT 350 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR budgets show operating expenditures ranging from $20,000-$30,000.754 Annual expenditures exceeding $20,000 are funded through the use of fund balances. The benefit assessments are calculated each year by the Napa County Auditor-Controller’s Office to ensure debt service and District operations are adequately funded. NapaSan bills District customers directly for services. In FY19, $131,210 of recycled water revenue was attributable to recycled water delivered to LCWD.755 Fund Balances, Reserves and Liquidity Fund balances and reserves should include adequate funds for cash flow and liquidity, in addition to funds to address longer-term needs. The District’s FY19 financial statements report a General Fund balance of $55,709, which is approximately double its annual general expenditures, with no current liabilities.756 The District’s Debt Service Fund reports a $794,890 balance at the end of FY19.757 In accordance with the loan covenants, the District established a Restricted Reserve Fund which is at least equal to 150% of one year's installment payment, including accrued interest.758 The District’s Capital Improvement Fund as of FY19 was zero, as the assets were completed and transferred to NapaSan in 2017.759 Net Position An agency’s “Net Position” as reported in its CAFR or government-wide audited financial reports represents the amount by which assets (e.g., cash, capital assets, other assets) exceed liabilities (e.g., debts, unfunded pension and OPEB liabilities, other liabilities). A positive Net Position provides an indicator of financial soundness over the long-term For government-wide statements, assessment revenues and debt are recorded by the District at “full life value”, ending with a net position of all remaining District activity.760 The FY18 ending net position was $12,068 and the FY19 ending net position was $25,774, indicating stability with its on-going general operations.761 Typically this minimal net position could be a cause of concern, however the District does not own its infrastructure, and its future assessment payments and long-term assessment debt are shown as offsetting assets and liabilities in the District’s calculation of its net position.762 754 Los Carneros Water District Proposed FY20 Budget, 2018-19 Budget approved 6/12/2018, and 2017-18 Proposed Budget. 755 Correspondence with J. Tucker, NapaSan, 1/13/2020. 756 LCWD Basic Financial Statements for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2019, Statements of Net Position, pg. 3. 757 LCWD Basic Financial Statements for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2019, Governmental Funds Balance Sheet, pg. 5. 758 LCWD Basic Financial Statements for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2017, Note 3 pg. 18. 759 Correspondence from LCWD 1/09/2020. 760 Correspondence from LCWD 1/09/2020. 761 LCWD Basic Financial Statements for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2019, Statements of Net Position, pg. 3. 762 LCWD Basic Financial Statements for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2019, Statements of Net Position, pg. 3. CHAPTER 12: LOS CARNEROS WATER DISTRICT 351 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR Rates and Charges All recycled water operations and maintenance is handled by the Napa Sanitation District (NapaSan), funded by service charges billed by NapaSan to customers of LCWD. NapaSan established rates in 2012; the rates are increased annually by a CPI adjustment.763 The County collected assessments totaling $435,396 in FY19 from participating property owners in the District.764 The majority of the assessments collected by the County on property tax bills pay annual debt service for the State Loan acquired to fund the construction of the recycled water pipeline. A portion of the assessments ($20,000), pursuant to the resolution, along with interest earnings, cover the District’s operating costs, which include, community outreach, legal and financial services. Long-term Debt In 2015, the District voted on, and successfully passed, an assessment to fund a recycled water pipeline project with an estimated cost, including financing costs, of approximately $24 million.765 Grants and construction cost estimates reduced the final loan amount required to $8.7 million. As of the end of FY19, the District owed $8,716,143 for the loan that funded construction of the recycled water system serving the District. The loan was provided by the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) and administered by the California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). The District received State, Federal and County Measure A grants that helped to both reduce the amount of the loan and to pay down a large portion of the CWSRF loan early.766 At the end of FY19 the outstanding balance was $3,991,000. Special assessments paid by participating landowners in the District secure the loan. The District is required to maintain reserves equal to at least 150 percent of one year’s maximum required payment, including accrued interest. 767 Assessments are approximately $110 per acre and generate about $435,396 annually, sufficient to pay annual debt service and provide a 150 percent coverage. This assessment is anticipated to fully repay the loan by 2028.768 The funds in excess of required debt service are utilized for District operating costs, and to prepay the loan balance or increase reserves. Pension and OPEB Liabilities The District has no staff and therefore no pension or OPEB liabilities. Capital Assets In 2017, the District transferred the completed recycled water pipeline to Napa Sanitation. The District has no other capital assets. NapaSan tracks the depreciation of the LCWD pipeline but does not report it separately in NapaSan financial documents. The 763 Napa Sanitation District, Ordinance No. 92, amending Article IX of the District’s Sewer Use Ordinance, March 7, 2012. 764 Los Carneros Water District 2018-19 Budget, approved 6/12/2018. 765 LCWD Basic Financial Statements for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2017, Management’s Discussion. 766 ibid, LCWD Financials FY17. 767 LCWD Basic Financial Statements for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2017, Note 3 pg. 18. 768 LCWD Assessment Options for Payment of Remaining State Revolving Loan Debt, Jan. 2018. CHAPTER 12: LOS CARNEROS WATER DISTRICT 352 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR system’s book value of $11,995,617 depreciated approximately $270,000 annually to its net book value of $11,455,815 at the end of FY19.769 Financial Planning and Reporting Achieving transparency and public accountability standards dictates that cities and agencies provide easily accessible and clear documentation of their activities, including financial information. Website – The District’s website770 includes agenda documents and minutes, budgets, and financial audits. Annual Financial Reports – The District prepares biennial audited financial reports unless a single audit is required for loan or grant compliance. The District authorized a regular two-year audit for FY17-18 and FY 18-19 at its Board meeting May 14, 2019. Capital Improvement Program (CIP) –The District has no CIP. It does not own its distribution system, which was completed in 2016 and transferred to NapaSan.771 Financial Forecasts – The District does not prepare financial forecasts other than projected debt schedules; NapaSan owns, operates and bills for the recycled water system. Other Financial Planning – The District does not prepare other financial documents or analysis. 769 Correspondence with C. Bolden, NapaSan, 1/13/2020. 770 http://carneroswater.org/SitePages1/Home.aspx 771 Correspondence with LCWD, 5/8/19. CHAPTER 12: LOS CARNEROS WATER DISTRICT 353 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR WATER SERVICES LCWD has not developed a planning document, such as a master plan, to guide provision of water services, but has plans to make use of the Water District’s Water Master Ordinance as a guiding document. Additionally, the District has developed a work plan for 2017 – 2020 with a vision statement, mission statement, and guiding principles as follows: 1. Educate and inform Water District Landowners regarding regional water polices that affect the LCWD through various types of communications and events. 2. Monitor local water regulations and policies, and advocate on-behalf of Water District Landowners on issues that may affect them such as: well-monitoring, reservoir use, on-site water storage, drought policies, etc. 3. Maintain our relationship with the Napa County Auditor-Controller and the Napa County Treasurer-Tax Collector to ensure that recycled water Landowner assessments are collected to meet the low interest Sate Revolving Fund Loan repayment schedule, including reserve covenants. 4. Work closely with NapaSan to maximize recycled water availability to connecting Water District Landowners, and to ensure that NapaSan’s rates and charges are fair and equitable. 5. Work closely with NapaSan to ensure recycled water quality is monitored and water quality reports are available to Water District Landowners. 6. Monitor recycled water availability, quality and infrastructure performance, and report any issues to NapaSan. 7. Work closely with NapaSan to determine if there is additional capacity that would allow Water District Landowners to connect to the recycled water system, and if so, what is the priority order for each connection request, and what is the equitable financial contribution. 8. Work closely with NapaSan to administer the Water District’s Water Master Ordinance, and its supporting Administrative Guidelines. Amend the Water Master Ordinance and Administrative Guidelines as necessary. Type and Extent of Services Services Provided LCWD facilitates the delivery of recycled water for irrigation from NapaSan to residents and customers within its boundaries. Additional irrigation water and drinking water is provided to parcels within the District through private wells and creek diversions not under the jurisdiction of LCWD. Service Area LCWD’s service area is smaller than its boundaries. Of the district’s total 5,700 acres and 263 parcels within its boundaries, 107 agricultural and residential parcels totaling approximately 4,127 acres of comprise the Assessment District and committed territory of CHAPTER 12: LOS CARNEROS WATER DISTRICT 354 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR service for the existing infrastructure. Figure 12-3 shows the parcels that comprise LCWD’s assessment district. Figure 12-3: LCWD Service Area/Assessment District Services to Other Agencies LCWD does not provide services to other agencies. Contracts for Services In 2014, NapaSan and LCWD entered into an agreement regarding construction, operation and maintenance of a recycled water pipeline to provide service to LCWD. LCWD was responsible for financing the design, planning, and construction of the project. LCWD obtained a number of grants to fund approximately 45 percent of the project. As mentioned, the District also obtained a low-interest loan through the State’s Revolving Loan program to fund the remainder of the project. Special assessments paid by participating landowners in the District secure the loan. Joining the assessment district was voluntary and guarantees capacity in the District’s system and the ability to connect. Construction of the pipeline was completed, and service initiated in 2016. Upon completion, NapaSan assumed ownership of the pipeline infrastructure along with operation and maintenance responsibilities and bills the customers directly. NapaSan is responsible for construction and installation of the infrastructure, operations, maintenance, and sales of recycled water to the participating landowners. LCWD is responsible for repaying the loan. The District collects the loan payments via the assessment district that was established for this purpose. Assessments to CHAPTER 12: LOS CARNEROS WATER DISTRICT 355 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR fund the pipeline and new infrastructure extended to LCWD are collected through the County Auditor’s office. The agreement does not have an expiration date. LCWD adopted Resolution No. 1 in 2014, which outlines a water delivery schedule per agreement with NapaSan. Overlapping Service Providers While NapaSan provides services within LCWD’s boundaries, the two agencies do not overlap jurisdictions and coordinate through a defined contract. There is no duplication of services; however, there is certainly potential for greater efficiency of service structure and elimination of duplication of overhead costs, as two separate agencies are not required to offer the current level of services. LCWD asserts that overhead costs are minimal and its outreach to water users is critical. It was recommended in the 2016 MSR that the potential for reorganization of LCWD with NapaSan be assessed prior to 2023. This is discussed in greater depth in Governance Structure Options within this chapter. The Napa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District and Napa County Resource Conservation District are both empowered to provide water service for agricultural use and their jurisdictions overlap that of the Los Carneros Water District. Both of these agencies have elected not to offer water service and have expressed no intentions of doing so in the foreseeable future. Collaboration LCWD collaborates with NapaSan via its contract service arrangement. The two agencies maintain a good working relationship with a regular reporting structure to ensure transparency. LCWD has, in the past, considered participating in the North Bay Water Reuse Program (NBWRP), which is a regional water recycling management initiative covering portions of Napa, Marin, and Sonoma Counties that surround the northern rim of the San Francisco Bay. The NBWRP is a coordinated effort of 11 municipal water and sanitation agencies working together to address water supply shortages from a watershed perspective by investing in diverse projects that offset potable demand throughout the region. The Napa Sanitation District is a member of NBWRP. Staffing The Los Carneros Water District operates under the direction of the elected Board of Directors and is managed by volunteers. The District President reports to the Directors and is responsible for managing day-to-day administrative functions. The District President takes the lead in planning, organizing, and review of the overall activities of the District; represents the District; and works to ensure the best interests of the District are met. According to its agreement with NapaSan, LCWD is to provide for a Water Scheduling and Delivery Master or Manager. Because the LCWD pipeline is not designed to convey the peak flow necessary to serve all LCWD users concurrently, the Manager would be responsible for the orderly provision of service, including irrigation quantities, times, and days for users. Additionally, the Manager would be responsible for enforcement of the schedule and actions. The ordinance establishing the manager position provides for the NapaSan General Manager CHAPTER 12: LOS CARNEROS WATER DISTRICT 356 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR filling the role, which is the current service structure, or of entering into a professional services contract for the position. Under the agreement, NapaSan is responsible for overseeing the day-to-day administration of recycled water use by LCWD users and monitors recycled water use to ensure compliance with LCWD use policies. LCWD is currently all volunteer; it has no employees. NapaSan is responsible for all aspects of treatment, distribution, and delivery of the reclaimed water to LCWD. Water Supply NapaSan has committed to providing a minimum of 1,250 acre-feet or 0.93 million gallons per day (mgd) of reclaimed water annually to the area within LCWD for landscape and irrigation purposes, with the potential for additional interruptible flow up to 900 acre- feet per year. The maximum flow of reclaimed water to the connections is defined by acreage, time of day, and seasonal flow limitations as outlined in LCWD’s Ordinance No. 1. The maximum instantaneous rate of flow to each parcel is set at no more than 1.57 gallons per minute per acre (on a 7 day per week, 12 hour per day basis). That is the basis for the hydraulic design of the recycled water pipeline. No landowner may exceed this flow rate without prior written authorization from the Manager.772 The ordinance further outlines seasonal allocations as follows: Summer “Will Serve” Allocation: The current allocation of Summer “Will Serve” water for each parcel is currently set at 450 acre-feet (af). Each landowner’s per acre share is 450 af (Summer “Will Serve” Allocation)/4,127 acres (number of acres in the assessment district). This water is known as “Table A Water.” Summer “Interruptible” Allocation: The allocation of Summer “Interruptible” water for the Water District is to be defined by NapaSan each year. The amount of interruptible water may vary from zero acre-feet to more than 900 acre-feet, depending upon supply available at NapaSan. The allocation of this water to each parcel will be proportionately determined by the Manager as the amount available from NapaSan/4,127 acres. This water is known as “Table B Water.” Winter “Will Serve” Allocation: Allocation of Winter “Will Serve” water for each parcel is defined as that parcel’s share of Winter Water, currently set at 800 acre-feet. This water is known as “Table C Water.” Limitation on Seasonal Allocation and Rate of Flow: In no case can the sum of allocation of Table A plus Table B water exceed 0.33 af per acre without the written authorization from the Manager. In no case can the rate of flow exceed 1.57gallons per minute per acre for a 12 hour per day, 7 day per week, without written authorization from the Manager. No more than 30 percent of the Annual Allocation will be delivered in any given month. The hours of irrigation are defined by use type. Vineyard irrigation hours during the Summer are 6 am to 6 pm. Water for landscape irrigation is available in the Summer from 6 772 LCWD, Ordinance No. 1, 2014, p. 2. CHAPTER 12: LOS CARNEROS WATER DISTRICT 357 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR pm to 6 am, and summer storage filling is available from 6 pm to 6 am.773 Not complying with the requirements outlined in Ordinance No. 1, may result in monetary or punitive penalties. Those residents within the District that do not receive reclaimed water rely primarily on creek diversions and groundwater withdrawals. Given the low-producing aquifer in the area, local landowners have generally irrigated primarily with surface water stored in private reservoirs. However, surface water is now fully appropriated, and it is difficult to receive approvals for additional water from the State Water Resources Control Board. Therefore, the ability to use recycled water is critical for the future of agriculture in the Carneros area. Emergency Preparedness The District does not have interties with other agencies should it experience an outage or interruption in service from NapaSan. Local landowners would have to rely on their private water storage to weather an outage. Water Demand As of 2019, the District served 50 connections or 1,726 acres out of the 107 possible connections or 4,127 acres within the assessment district. As shown in Figure 12-4, as new connections are added to the system, use of the reclaimed water has increased from 122 acre-feet (af) in 2016 to 319 af in 2018, which is an increase of 161 percent since the system’s first year of operation. In 2018, LCWD made use of 53 percent of the 450 af available in summer months. Figure 12-4: Demand for Recycled Water, 2015-2018 (acre-feet) Demand for Recycled Water 2015 2016 2017 2018 Summer Water Use (May-Oct) NA 110 194 239 Winter Water Use (Nov-Apr) NA 12 3 80 Calendar Year Actual Water Use NA 122 197 319 Source: Napa Sanitation District, Memorandum November 2019 Recycled Water Update, p. 1. In 2019, LCWD experienced a peak hour flow of 2,425 gallons per minute (gpm) and peak day flow of 2,200 gpm, which equates to 69 percent of the system peak design capacity of 3,500 gpm. Water Infrastructure and Facilities The 9.12-mile pipeline from NapaSan’s Soscol Water Recycling Facility was completed at the end of 2015 in partnership with NapaSan. The pipeline network consists of pipe ranging in diameters from 6 to 20 inches. Given that the system was recently constructed, it is considered to be in excellent condition. Engineers conducted hydraulic analyses to 773 Parcels near the intersection of Neuenschwander and Duhig Rd. will have to irrigate at night when pressures are sufficient to provide net positive suction head for a booster pump. CHAPTER 12: LOS CARNEROS WATER DISTRICT 358 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR determine and assure that the pipeline has sufficient capacity to deliver water at the summer season rate of 0.33 af of water per acre.774 The pipeline is located within existing roadways (Las Amigas Road, Duhig Road, South Avenue, Los Carneros Avenue, Withers Road and Cuttings Wharf Road) and NapaSan access easements. The system does not have pump stations or storage facilities, as these are provided within NapaSan’s existing facilities or on the end user’s private property. The pipeline is owned and operated entirely by NapaSan. From the main pipeline, recycled water users are responsible for connecting their own pipeline/irrigation systems at pre-approved locations along the pipeline. LCWD does not own any infrastructure, facilities, or equipment. The system was designed with a sufficient capacity to deliver water at the summer season rate of 0.33 af of water per acre as mentioned, which is estimated to be sufficient to accommodate the irrigable acreage within the assessment district that may connect to the system. However, the true extent of available capacity will only be realized once most or all of the potential connections have connected to the system. Once that occurs, LCWD plans to assess the potential for adding additional connections and/or expansion of the system. Shared Facilities Having no infrastructure or facilities of its own, LCWD relies upon shared facilities from NapaSan to provide reclaimed water to its customers. Infrastructure Needs Given that system serving LCWD was constructed just four years ago, there are no known needs at this time. However, there may be a need for expansion of the system, as several additional landowners have expressed interest in connecting subsequent to the formation of the assessment district. As mentioned, the ability to accommodate additional parcels will be assessed once most assessment district parcels have connected. Water Quality The California Water Recycling Criteria (entitled in Title 22 of the California Code of Administration) allow 43 specified uses of recycled water, including irrigation of all types of food crops, parks and schools, golf courses and landscaping. These criteria include different water quality requirements for different types of irrigation. Per their website, NapaSan’s recycled water meets the highest quality standard for “unrestricted use.”775 Water recyclers are required to meet State quality standards for beneficial reuse. Title 22 of California’s Water Recycling Criteria refers to California state guidelines for how treated and recycled water is discharged and used. Title 22 requires the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) to develop bacteriological and treatment standards for each level of treated water that is recycled or reused. The regional water boards issue permits for individual water recycling projects in accordance with statewide criteria established by CDPH. Revisions to Title 22 were adopted and published in December 2000. The revamped Title 22 lists 40 specific uses allowed with disinfected tertiary recycled water (such as irrigating parks), 24 specific uses allowed with disinfected secondary recycled 774 LCWD, Ordinance No. 1, 2014, p. 3. 775 NBS, Los Carneros Water District Assessment District No. 2014-1, Engineer’s Report, 2014, p. 6-1. CHAPTER 12: LOS CARNEROS WATER DISTRICT 359 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR water (such as irrigating animal feed and other unprocessed crops), and seven specific uses allowed with undisinfected secondary recycled water (such industrial uses). NapaSan treats recycled water for reuse to tertiary standards, meaning the reclaimed water can be made available for the widest variety of uses. NapaSan met the treatment standards established by CDPH every day in 2018. The District has struggled in the past with high chloride levels and continues to monitor chloride levels. During the fall of 2014, NapaSan staff noticed an increase in chloride concentrations in wastewater influent flow and recycled water produced at the treatment plant. Since wine grape vineyards have a low tolerance for chloride in irrigation water, NapaSan staff monitored the chloride levels. When chloride concentrations continued to increase during the fall of 2015, NapaSan began investigating commercial and industrial wastewater sources and exploring what could be happening in the collection system that could contribute to higher chloride concentrations. Collection system videos of the sewer pipelines in areas of high chloride concentration identified two locations of substantial groundwater infiltration. Spot repairs to these damaged areas resulted in a 20 percent reduction in chloride concentration in wastewater influent flow and recycled water produced by NapaSan. Additional sewer collection system rehabilitation was performed to reduce saline groundwater infiltration and adjustments were made at the treatment plant to reduce chloride concentrations. Because of the collection system fixes and operational changes at the treatment plant, peak chloride levels in 2017 were approximately 30 percent lower than in 2016 and 40 percent lower than 2015. NapaSan continues to monitor chloride levels in influent and recycled water. Because of collection system fixes and operational changes at the treatment plant, chloride levels in 2018 remained low. NapaSan will continue to monitor chlorides and keep recycled water users informed of current chloride levels. 776 776 NapaSan, 2018 Recycled Water Annual Report, p. 1 CHAPTER 12: LOS CARNEROS WATER DISTRICT 360 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE OPTIONS Over the course of this review, one governance structure option was identified with respect to LCWD, including a possible governance alteration and reorganization with another agencies. The feasibility of this option is generally assessed here; however, more in- depth review would be required to refine specifics of process and structure should the affected agencies or LAFCO choose to move forward. Reorganization with Napa Sanitation District Given that NapaSan provides almost all services to the customers within LCWD’s boundaries, which in essence is a “functional consolidation,” there is potential to streamline the service structure by eliminating a level of administration through a “full consolidation” of the two agencies. While there is no duplication of services, there is certainly potential for greater efficiency of service structure and elimination of duplicative overhead costs, as two separate agencies are not needed to offer the current level of services. It was recommended in LCWD’s 2016 MSR that the potential for reorganization of LCWD with NSD be assessed prior to 2023. At present, NapaSan is responsible for all aspects of treatment, distribution, and delivery of the reclaimed water to LCWD customers. NapaSan provides 100 percent of the water distributed within LCWD, owns and maintains the distribution system to the customer connections, acts as Water Manager, and bills the customers directly. LCWD was instrumental in getting the Carneros Pipeline completed by coordinating the funding and spearheading the existing assessment district. LCWD’s primary responsibility is repaying the loan, which partially funded the new infrastructure. Assessments to fund the pipeline and new infrastructure extended to LCWD are collected through the County Auditor’s office and used to repay the loan, which is to be paid off by 2028. LCWD is currently all volunteer; it has no employees. LCWD reported that it acts as a liaison between NapaSan and LCWD customers, disseminates information regarding rules of water use to customers, and fields all questions regarding the assessment district. At present, LCWD does not have a plan to extend or expand services offered. Given that NapaSan is providing all core services within LCWD and owns and operates the infrastructure, dissolution of LCWD and annexation of the territory by NapaSan would be relatively straightforward. The Assessment District would remain intact and the property owners would continue to be responsible for and secure the loan with the property assessment, while the manner of collection and payment on the loan would continue to be conducted by the County Auditor. While it does not appear that this would have adverse financial impacts, NapaSan has indicated concerns regarding the possibility of unintended consequences—for example on NapaSan’s current and future debt issuances. This reorganization option would require further analysis to assess impacts on existing debt indentures, consistency with bond council opinion and direction, reporting requirements to various State agencies, and GASB reporting guidelines or standards. As part of this process for this scenario, all financial and physical assets of LCWD would likely be transferred to NapaSan. LCWD does not have any equipment or infrastructure in its name. Financial assets of LCWD consist of a Restricted Debt Service Fund with a balance CHAPTER 12: LOS CARNEROS WATER DISTRICT 361 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR of $794,890 at the end of FY19777 and General Fund balance of approximately $55,000. Should NapaSan become the fiscal agent for the loan associated with LCWD’s assessment district as part of the reorganization, then the debt service fund requirements would transfer as well along with the entirety of the debt service fund balance. The quantifiable benefits of this reorganization would be a savings of approximately $20,000 to $30,000 each year, which is presently allocated to LCWD administrative costs, including board expenses, legal and financial services. These services could likely be covered at little or no additional expense to NapaSan. Beyond cost savings, other potential benefits of a reorganization consist of 1) streamlining and improving clarity of service structure for customers, 2) elimination of duplicative administration and governance services, and 3) provision of all services by a well-managed professional agency with full-time staff and extensive expertise and resources. There are drawbacks to the potential reorganization of NapaSan and LCWD, including 1) elimination of a governing body with entirely local trustees that represent the interests of the landowners within LCWD and 2) limiting future water services offered in the area to the distribution of reclaimed water or other services which NapaSan is empowered to provide; although no service expansion has been nor is under consideration. Should LCWD not be interested in expanding its role in water provision in the area, then it would be appropriate to consider dissolution and annexation by NapaSan to realize cost savings and the other benefits of annexation. It is recommended that NapaSan and LCWD begin discussions regarding the possibility of moving forward with reorganization. LCWD noted that there is a continued role for it to play as the pipeline nears capacity and remain the “the face of the pipeline” to members until it has been determined how the pipeline responds under peak demands. LCWD has indicated that it prefers to remain independent for the time being, and may consider this option once all debt has been retired. RECOMMENDATIONS During the process of this review, the following recommendations are made to LCWD regarding its water service delivery. 1. It is recommended that NapaSan and LCWD begin discussions regarding the possibility of moving forward with reorganization. 2. It is recommended that LCWD review its website and ensure it is in compliance with AB 2257. 777 LCWD Basic Financial Statements for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2019, Governmental Funds Balance Sheet, pg. 5. CHAPTER 12: LOS CARNEROS WATER DISTRICT 362 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR LOS CARNEROS WATER DISTRICT DETERMINATIONS Growth and Population Projections v Los Carneros Water District’s (LCWD) population, as of 2019, was approximately 523. v LCWD’s population increased by 0.5 percent annually between 2009 and 2019. v Future growth within the District is currently limited due the agricultural zoning of the lands within and adjacent to the District, which stipulates 160-acre minimum parcel sizes. It is estimated that 52 of the 263 assessor parcels are not developed with residences. However, given historical growth trends and the amount of viniculture and Williamson Act contracts within the District, very little development within the District is anticipated. v Unlike potable water, demand for LCWD’s recycled water is not population driven, but rather driven more by the extent of productive agricultural lands in use in need of irrigation. In the case of LCWD, this is generally the vineyards. Within the District’s service area (assessment district), there are 3,140 irrigable acres. v LAFCO anticipates growth within LCWD to be similar to the most recent five-year trend of all unincorporated areas of Napa of 0.21 percent annually, with an anticipated population of 562 by 2030. The Location and Characteristics of Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities Within or Contiguous to the Agency’s SOI v According to Napa LAFCO’s definition of disadvantaged unincorporated communities (DUCs), there are currently no DUCs in Napa County. Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities and Adequacy of Public Services, Including Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies v NapaSan’s recycled water supply is sufficient to continue to provide the committed volume to LCWD’s service area. In 2018, LCWD made use of 53 percent of its allocated contract supply volume. v Engineers conducted hydraulic analyses to determine and assure that the pipeline has sufficient capacity to serve the 107 connections in the LCWD assessment district. v While there is interest from other landowners in the District but outside the assessment district to connect to the system, the true extent of available capacity will only be realized once most or all of the assessment district connections have connected to the system. v The level of recycled water services offered by NapaSan were found to be more than adequate based on integrity of the recycled water distribution system and compliance with water treatment requirements. The integrity of NapaSan’s distribution system is excellent as measured by the degree of annual water loss and the rate of main CHAPTER 12: LOS CARNEROS WATER DISTRICT 363 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR breaks and leaks per 100 miles of main. The District met the treatment standards established by CDPH every day in 2018. v LCWD’s system was constructed just four years ago, and there are no known infrastructure needs at this time. However, there may be a need for expansion of the system, as several additional landowners have expressed interest in connecting subsequent to the formation of the assessment district. As mentioned, the ability to accommodate additional parcels will be assessed once most assessment district parcels have connected. Financial Ability of Agencies to Provide Services v All recycled water operations are managed by NapaSan, which bills District customers directly for services. NapaSan owns the distribution system which was funded by a combination of grants and assessment debt secured by District property owners. v The District’s revenues consist almost entirely of benefit assessments. The majority of the assessments pay for debt service that funded system construction; a small portion of the assessment revenue pays for District operations costs. v The District maintains adequate reserves for annual administrative costs and retains a restricted fund to include required debt service reserves. v The District’s Capital Improvement Fund’s balance was zero at the end of FY19. Since the system is owned and maintained by NapaSan, there is no need for District capital reserves. Status of, and Opportunities for, Shared Facilities v Having no infrastructure or facilities of its own, LCWD relies upon shared facilities from NapaSan to provide reclaimed water to its customers. v LCWD collaborates with NapaSan via its contract service arrangement. The two agencies maintain a good working relationship with a regular reporting structure to ensure transparency. Accountability for Community Service Needs, Including Governmental Structure and Operational Efficiencies v The District Board holds regular appropriately noticed meetings. v The District primarily conducts outreach via its website, which makes available comprehensive information and documents to the public and solicits input from customers. LCWD is fully compliant with the SB 929 requirements. It is recommended that LCWD review its website and ensure it complies with AB 2257. v Given that NapaSan provides almost all services to the customers within LCWD’s boundaries, which in essence is a “functional consolidation,” there is potential to streamline the service structure by eliminating a level of administration through a CHAPTER 12: LOS CARNEROS WATER DISTRICT 364 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR “full consolidation” of the two agencies. It is recommended that NapaSan and LCWD begin discussions regarding the possibility of moving forward with reorganization. Relationship with Regional Growth Goals and Policies v LCWD is not a land use authority that takes part in regional planning efforts and therefore does not impact growth policy. v LAFCO’s adopted policies relating to special district spheres discourage any expansions of LCWD’s existing sphere to promote urban development based on current land use designations of lands located within close proximity to the District. CHAPTER 12: LOS CARNEROS WATER DISTRICT 365 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR 13. NA PA BERRYESSA RESO RT I M P ROV EM ENT DI STRI CT AGENCY OVERVIEW Napa Berryessa Resort Improvement District Profile Contact Information Contact: Steven E. Lederer, Director 1195 Third Street www.countyofnapa.org/1686 Suite 101 /Pay-Water-Sewer-Bills- Address: Napa, CA 94559 Website: NBRID-LBRID Phone: 707-253-4351 Email: publicworks@NapaCounty.org Formation Information Date of Formation: 1965 Agency type: Dependent special district Governing Body Governing Body: County Board of Supervisors Members: 5 Manner of Supervisors elected by voters Length of Selection: in five Supervisorial Districts term: 4 years 1195 Third Street Suite 101 First Tuesday of every month Meetings Location: Napa, CA 94559 Meeting date: at 9:20 am Mapping and Population Population GIS Date: 2019 (2018): 867 Purpose Enabling Public Resources Code Empowered Legislation: §13000 Services: Sewer and water services Municipal Services Provided (directly or by contract) Sewer and water services Area Served Berryessa Highlands near southeastern shore of Lake Boundary Size: 2.1 square miles Location: Berryessa Most recent Current SOI: 0.4 square miles SOI update: 2007 Municipal Service Reviews 2011 Lake Berryessa Region: Municipal Service Review 2007 NBRID Sphere of Influence Review 2005 Sanitation and Wastewater Treatment MSR Phase I: Agency Profiles Past MSRs: 2004 Comprehensive Water Service Study CHAPTER 13: NAPA BERRYESSA RESORT IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT 366 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR Boundaries As described in its 2011 MSR, NBRID’s jurisdictional boundary is approximately 2.96 square miles or 1,896.5 acres in size.778 The District was formed to serve a planned 1,700- unit development known as Berryessa Highlands on the southeastern shoreline of Lake Berryessa. Due to adverse market conditions only two residential subdivisions, “Unit 1” and “Unit 2”, were developed in addition to the Oakridge Estates. There is a total of 563 lots in NBRID. Currently certain District facilities, including its treated wastewater storage and disposal areas, are located on parcels outside District boundaries as shown in Figure 13-1a. NBRID has indicated an interest in annexing those parcels in order to recognize District ownership and use. Sphere of Influence As described in the 2011 NBRID MSR, NBRID’s SOI encompasses 1.0 square mile, or 644 acres.779 The SOI was affirmed in 2007. The NBRID boundary includes 1,252.5 acres within its boundaries but outside its SOI. The 10-lot “Oakridge Estates” subdivision is within and served by the District but is outside of its SOI, as well as three other connections outside the SOI (but within District boundaries).780 The 1,252.5 acres within the District’s jurisdictional boundary but outside it SOI include parcels of record that could apply for development permits, however, as noted above the costs of extending utility services as well as other public infrastructure and roads makes development unlikely within the next ten years or more. Sufficient undeveloped lots exist within the SOI to accommodate recent and potential development for at least ten years considering recent trends and future population projections. 778 Correspondence from A. Martinez, County of Napa, 1/23/2020. 779 Correspondence from A. Martinez, County of Napa, 1/23/2020. 780 Follow-up response rec’d 12/9/19 to NBRID interview 12/4/19. CHAPTER 13: NAPA BERRYESSA RESORT IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT 367 Figure 13-1 Napa Berryessa Resort Improvement District (NBRID) Legend NBRID Jurisdictional Boundary NBRID Sphere of Influence Lake Berryessa B e r r y e s s a K H e n a o d x v ille R o a d R im A r r o y o G la n d s D r iv e d r o c r a n a k d R o D r e D o n iv e r iv y e n a C e el e t S 0 0.15 0.3Miles Lake Lake Berryessa Yolo Yolo Calistoga December 11, 2019 St. Helena Prepared by LAFCO Staff Sonoma Yountville NBRID Napa Solano LAFCO of Napa County 1030 Seminary Street, Suite B Solano Napa, California 94559 American Marin Canyon http://www.napa.lafco.ca.gov Napa Berryessa Resort Improvement District Figure 13-1a Lake Berryessa B E R R Y E S S A K N D O A X O H V R E I L N A L O R D E R N Y IM R L A N O A O A C C D D L E K D S D E R R T E IV I V S E E Not to Scale August 25, 2015 Legend Lake Prepared by BF Yolo Calistoga NBRID Jurisdictional Boundary St. Helena Sonoma NBRID Sphere of Influence Yountville Napa Solano LAFCO of Napa County APNs 019-220-028 & -038 1030 Seminary Street, Suite B American Napa, California 94559 Canyon http://napa.lafco.ca.gov NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR ACCOUNTABILITY AND GOVERNANCE The Napa County Board of Supervisors serves as directors of the District and meet monthly as part of regularly schedule Supervisors’ meetings. Agenda, minutes and related staff reports, and documents can be found on the County’s website.781 The District’s website consists of one page on the County’s website that displays links enabling residents to pay bills online. The page includes contact information but provides no other district information. District staff reach residents through mailings and newsletters, posts on the NextDoor social media site, and in-person meetings as needed. A revised website, or web page hosted on the Napa County site, is expected in 2020.782 District staff were highly responsive to requests for information during preparation of this MSR. GROWTH AND POPULATION PROJECTIONS Originally 1,700 residential units were planned for the Berryessa Highlands along with commercial and recreation uses; however, limited market demand reduced the amount of planned development to about 563 lots, and commercial and recreation uses. Of note is the impact of the August 2020 Lightning Complex Fires, which burned approximately 100 homes within NBRID’s boundaries. Additionally, the fire destroyed or damaged a portion of NBRID’s facilities, including the treated effluent dispersal spray fields, connection laterals to burned or lost homes, and some minor outbuildings. Given the significant impact of the fire on residents and NBRID’s services, the following discussion regarding potential for growth and development may not be relevant until the damaged area is substantially rebuilt. The District reports 330 active connections to the district’s water and sewer systems. 783 Population estimates indicate 344 households and population of 867,784 a decline from the 920 estimated in the 2011 NBRID MSR. Forecasts predict a 2030 population of 887.785 There are no commercial users at NBRID; however, one of the developed lots is used for the County’s volunteer fire station, and one is for the access road for NBRID’s sewer plant. The Steele Park Resort, which closed in 2008, accounted for about one-third of the District’s revenues786 from range of seasonal/temporary residential, recreational, and limited commercial uses.787 The 2011 NBRID MSR described plans to replace the Steele Park Resort with similar uses as part of the “Lupine Shores Resort”, although at a lower density consuming less water than originally anticipated for Steele Park Resort. The County negotiated an agreement with the BOR, which owns the resort land, enabling the County to manage the resort development. 781 http://napa.granicus.com/ViewPublisher.php?view_id=6 782 Follow-up response rec’d 12/9/19 to NBRID interview 12/4/19. 783 Follow-up response rec’d 12/9/19 to NBRID interview 12/4/19. 784 2019 Population estimates by County Planning Dept. as reported by LAFCO (6/13/19). 785 Population forecasts by LAFCO and Cal. Dept. of Finance as reported by LAFCO (6/13/19). 786 History of District Finances and Projects - Formation through June 2019, NBRID mtg. 10/8/19. 787 2011 Lake Berryessa Region: Municipal Service Review CHAPTER 13: NAPA BERRYESSA RESORT IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT 370 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR There are a total of 209 undeveloped lots in Units 1 and 2; the District has received inquiries about potential new development; however, growth is minimal especially when presented with the significant cost of extending services, which new development must bear.788 Since Fiscal Year 2012-13 there have been five new connections to NBRID’s system.789 No new development outside the current SOI is anticipated by the District, although lots outside the SOI but within the District boundaries represent “lots of record” and could request a connection assuming the cost of extending utilities, roads and other required infrastructure could be funded by the property owner(s).790 DISADVANTAGED UNINCORPORATED COMMUNITIES LAFCO is required to evaluate disadvantaged unincorporated communities as part of this service review, including the location and characteristics of any such communities. According to Napa LAFCO’s definition of DUCs, NBRID is not a DUC.791 In the mid-1990’s, NBRID was denied a state grant and a low interest federal loan because the median household income of residents was too high to qualify for special consideration, precluding improvements to correct problems that resulted in Notices of Violation.792 Based on an income study conducted in 2017, incomes were only slightly below the County average, and therefore the community did not qualify as disadvantaged; no further surveys are currently anticipated.793 FINANCIAL ABILITY TO PROVIDE SERVICES The Napa Berryessa Resort Improvement District (NBRID) provides water and wastewater services within District boundaries. NBRID is governed by the County of Napa Board of Supervisors and County Public Works and other County departments staff the District. The District funds operations, maintenance and capital improvements for water treatment and distribution facilities, and wastewater collection, treatment and disposal. Figure 13-2: Summary of Selected Financial Information, Napa Berryessa Resort Improvement District Water and Wastewater Operations Napa Berryessa Resort Imp. Dist. - Water & Wastewater Operations FY18-19 Total Budget (exc. Debt Fund and CIP) $156,000 Operating Revenues $814,000 Operating Expenditures (before transfers out; excludes debt) $658,000 Ending Fund Balance as % of Operating Revenues 115% Ending Fund Balance (Cash & investments, FY18)) $754,000 Debt Service as a % of Operating Revenues na* Total Debt Outstanding $11,957,000 Debt Service $488,000 788 Follow-up response rec’d 12/9/19 to NBRID interview 12/4/19. 789 Follow-up response rec’d 12/9/19 to NBRID interview 12/4/19. 790 Follow-up response rec’d 12/9/19 to NBRID interview 12/4/19. 791 Napa Local Agency Formation Commission, Policy on Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities, 2018. 792 History of District Finances and Projects - Formation through June 2019, NBRID mtg. 10/8/19. 793 Follow-up response rec’d 12/9/19 to NBRID interview 12/4/19. CHAPTER 13: NAPA BERRYESSA RESORT IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT 371 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR Napa Berryessa Resort Imp. Dist. - Water & Wastewater Operations Monthly Water+Sewer Rates % of Income 4.3% Typical Monthly Rates (water & sewer use, exc. taxes) $210 Median Household Income (2017) $58,500 Pension+OPEB Total Payments % of Revenues NA Pension+OPEB Total Payments $0 * Debt service is funded by assessments. 2020-01-28 Balanced Budget For any agency, recurring operating deficits are a warning sign. In the short-term, reserves can backfill deficits and maintain services. However ongoing deficits eventually will deplete reserves. The District’s projected FY19 total revenues (and assessments) exceed expenditures by a margin of about $156,000 before deducting depreciation expense and transfers out to its CIP fund. The District receives about $58,000 in property taxes (included in total revenues) which is about 7.6 percent794 of each tax dollar from within its boundaries, in addition to water/sewer charges, special taxes, and assessments applied to debt service.795 The operating margin is sufficient to fund transfers to the District’s CIP ($112,000 transferred from Operations to CIP), but the remainder does not fully offset the effects of depreciating assets. The District’s budget includes $171,000 towards depreciation (not included in the total operating expenditures noted above). Although depreciation is a non-cash expense utilized for accounting purposes, it approximates the “using up” of capital assets over time; the shortfall after depreciation costs indicates that the District may be unable to fully fund capital repair and replacement over the long-term unless revenues increase (or expenses decline). Fund Balances, Reserves and Liquidity Fund balances and reserves should include adequate funds for cash flow and liquidity, in addition to funds to address longer-term needs. The District’s FY18 CAFR reports approximately $754,000 cash and investments in the bank,796 representing about 40 percent of Operating Fund expenditures (including Operating Fund debt service). This amount of cash declined slightly compared to the prior year’s $812,000.797 794 County of Napa MPTS2010 Property System – Auditor Tax Increment Distribution Report 2018, TRA 072-029. 795 NBRID (52400) Operations Revenues and Expenses (adj. budget) FY19. 796 County of Napa CAFR for Fiscal Year ended June 30, 2018, Statement of Net Position Proprietary Funds, pg. 37. 797 County of Napa CAFR for Fiscal Year ended June 30, 2017, Statement of Net Position Proprietary Funds, pg. 35. CHAPTER 13: NAPA BERRYESSA RESORT IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT 372 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR Over the longer term, the District has an unrestricted net position of $470,000 as described in the following section, which indicates that liabilities effectively reduce the amount of unrestricted assets available. Net Position An agency’s “Net Position” as reported in its CAFR represents the amount by which assets (e.g., cash, capital assets, other assets) exceed liabilities (e.g., debts, unfunded pension and OPEB liabilities, other liabilities). A positive Net Position provides an indicator of financial soundness over the long-term. The District’s FY18 financials show a positive total net position of $73,000 and unrestricted net position of $470,000. The total net position is low because the net value of capital assets is negative – in other words, the depreciated value of assets is less than long- term capital debt obligations and other liabilities. Rates and Charges Water and wastewater operations are primarily funded by service charges. Enterprises are allowed to establish charges sufficient to fund their cost of service. Rates typically are expected to not exceed 2-2.5 percent of household income, for each utility, or 4 to 5 percent combined.798 The District’s rates are within this range. The District’s rates for water use equal 1.7 percent of median household incomes, and typical District wastewater rates equal 2.6 percent of median household incomes, for a combined 4.3 percent.799 These rates are below the standard measures noted above. However, assessments and capacity charges paid by residents increase the burden measures. NBRID currently is considering increases in its rates in order to fund operating costs and the need to make significant capital improvements, and prepared an analysis in 2018 of its future rates.800 A recent review of the District’s proposed rates recommended several revisions to the current and proposed rate structure, and recommended preparation of a Cost of Service Study.801 In addition to water and wastewater service charges, the District charges an annual Standby Charge (also referred to as “Availability Charges”); in FY19 the annual water Standby Charge is $120 per parcel and the annual sewer Standby Charge is $120 per parcel.802 The District also charges a bond assessment (AD 2012-01)of approximately $1,050 per parcel annually which is restricted to its debt service fund.803 798 Teodoro, et al, (2018) cite USEPA’s Financial Capability Guidebook (USEPA 1984) as original source for the use of personal income as a measure, although it was not applied to rates in the 1984 document. 799 Based on median household income of $79,637 for the County of Napa, according to the American Community Survey 2017, DP03, 5-Year estimates. Income data is unavailable for the District. See appendix for detailed estimate of typical household charges. 800 Operating Budget 5-Year Projection, presented at Board meeting Nov. 8, 2019. 801 Rate Study Review of NBRID, Robert D. Niehaus, Inc, NBRID mtg. 10/8/19. 802 Resolution No. 2018-05 (NBRID); see also the document “NBRID Availability Charge for FY 2017-2018 (5/31/17)”. 803 Correspondence with Phillip Miller, Napa County, July 15, 2019. CHAPTER 13: NAPA BERRYESSA RESORT IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT 373 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR Long-term Debt Excessive long-term debt incurs interest charges that consume financial resources that could otherwise fund needed services and capital improvements. Studies indicate that a majority of debt-paying water and wastewater agencies surveyed spent between 10 percent and 30 percent of their total operating revenues on debt service.804 However, this standard is not applicable when the debt is paid by property assessments. In its Debt Service Fund, the District’s FY19 budget shows approximately $487,900 in principal and interest, which goes towards prior budget shortfalls funded by a loan from the County;805 the budget shows additional administrative fees related to the obligation, and to collection of property assessments.806 The District’s FY18 CAFR lists 2013 Series A and Series B bonds with a total of $10.2 million outstanding for water and wastewater improvements. The bonds are repaid from property owner assessments. Pension and OPEB Liabilities The District offers no pension or OPEB benefits and has no corresponding liabilities. Capital Assets Capital assets must be adequately maintained and replaced over time and expanded as needed to accommodate future demand and respond to regulatory and technical changes. The value of the District’s depreciable structures and improvements declined by $587,000 of depreciation with no offsetting additions or improvements from FY17 to FY18. The depreciated value is about 72 percent of total value, which reflects the value of capital improvements completed to upgrade the original systems. Financial Planning and Reporting Achieving transparency and public accountability standards dictates that cities and agencies provide easily accessible and clear documentation of their activities, including financial information. Website – The District has no website; however, board meeting agendas and minutes are posted on a section of the County’s website.807 A revised website, or web page hosted on the Napa County site, is expected in 2020.808 Financial Policies – The District adopted a Debt Management Policy.809 No other financial policies specific to the District were identified. Annual Financial Report – The District’s financials are included in the County’s annual CAFR as a separate enterprise or business-type activity. 804 http://efc.web.unc.edu/2014/02/17/napshot-debt-service-as-percent-of-total-operating-revenues/ 805 Correspondence from A. Martinez, County of Napa, 1/23/2020; FY19 Actual YTD. 806 NBRID (52410) Debt Service Revenues and Expenses (adj. budget) FY19. 807 http://napa.granicus.com/ViewPublisher.php?view_id=7 808 Follow-up response rec’d 12/9/19 to NBRID interview 12/4/19. 809 Resolution No. 2017-07 Adopting a District Debt Management Policy, 7/11/17. CHAPTER 13: NAPA BERRYESSA RESORT IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT 374 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR Capital Improvement Program (CIP) – The District does not have a 5-Year CIP. Cost of Service/Rate Study – The District prepared an analysis in 2018 of its future rates. A recent review of the District’s proposed rates recommended several revisions to the current and proposed rate structure, and preparation of a Cost of Service Study.810 810 Rate Study Review of NBRID, Robert D. Niehaus, Inc, NBRID mtg. 10/8/19. CHAPTER 13: NAPA BERRYESSA RESORT IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT 375 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR WATER SERVICES The District routinely monitors, reports on its compliance State and Federal water quality standards. NBRID maintains its system and completes system improvements as needed to maintain its adherence to requirements and standards. Consumer Confidence Reports are provided annually to its customers documenting results of periodic source and finished water assessments performed by the State Water Resources Control Board, Division of Drinking Water Programs. As previously mentioned, the Lightning Complex Fire of August 2020 destroyed approximately 100 homes within NBRID’s boundaries, including some of the District’s utility facilities. However, all of NBRID’s utility systems are still operational and able to provide necessary services. The District plans to rebuild the damaged facilities as soon as possible. Type and Extent of Services Services Provided NBRID provides potable water to residential customers. NBRID reports approximately 330 active residential connections.811 No public water services are provided to Lupine Shores Resort; originally, the resort was operated as the Steele Park Resort which closed by 2008. Service Area NBRID provides water to Berryessa Highlands’ Units One and Two that are within the NBRID service area and SOI. The District also serves ten Oakridge Estates units and two other connections outside the SOI, but which are in the District. Services to Other Agencies The District does not provide any water-related services to other agencies. Contracts for Services NBRID contracts with NCFCWCD for its supply of water which is drawn entirely from Lake Berryessa. NCFCWCD, in turn, contracts with USBR for a total allocation which is apportioned to various subcontractors. NBRID’s contract provides for an annual entitlement of 200 AFY (65.2 mill. gallons) and an option to purchase an additional 40 AFY. The current contract between the District and NCFCWCD extends through 2024.812 An increased allocation was considered due to the Steele Resort; however, the application was dropped when the Resort closed. Overlapping Service Providers There are no overlapping water service providers within the NBRID service area. Collaboration In July 2018 the District issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) soliciting operations and maintenance services to ensure continued labor oversight of the water and wastewater 811 Follow-up response rec’d 12/9/19 to NBRID interview 12/4/19. 812 Follow-up response rec’d 12/9/19 to NBRID interview 12/4/19. CHAPTER 13: NAPA BERRYESSA RESORT IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT 376 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR systems of both NBRID and LBRID. This shared operational arrangement contributes to improved operating efficiencies of a single operator and leverages the expertise and resources of a single, large engineering firm. LBRID and NBRID also share administrative and management staff provided by the County of Napa as described below. This arrangement provides opportunities for improved efficiencies through economies of scale, and increased access to staff expertise and the resources of a larger organization. Staffing NBRID contracts with the County of Napa for administrative and professional services.813 The Deputy Director of Public Works serves as District Engineer and is principally responsible for overseeing day-to-day operations of the water and wastewater facilities. Administration, procurement of materials and services, records, technical assistance and project management of the utilities are conducted by the Assistant Engineer and Engineering Manager. Operation of the facility is provided by a contract with a private firm, which also services LBRID facilities.814 Water Supply NBRID’s water supply is drawn entirely from Lake Berryessa. NBRID contracts with NCFCWCD which, in turn, contracts with USBR for a total allocation which NCFCWCD apportions to various subcontractors. NBRID’s 92.7 AFY of water produced815 in 2017 is less than one-half of its annual entitlement from NCFCWCD of 200 AFY. The water supply declined in 2018 to 79.7 AFY.816 According to reports submitted to the State, NBRID has a “medium sensitivity” to potential drought impacts including decreased water storage (low lake and reservoir levels) and change in seasonal runoff and/or loss of snowmelt.817 Emergency Preparedness NBRID has emergency generators at most major facilities and can call in for assistance for those facilities lacking generators. The District participates in the County’s Hazard Mitigation Plan.818 Water Demand In 2017 the District reported annual potable water deliveries to retail customers of 16 million gallons,819 or 49.1 AFY. In 2018 deliveries increased to 51.1 AFY.820 813 RFQ/RFP to Operate, Maintain and Manage Water/Wastewater Facilities, LBRID and NBRID, March 27, 2018. 814 Specialized Utilities Services Program, or SUSP, was awarded the contract, and began operations on November 1, 2018. 815 Small Water System 2017 Report to the Drinking Water Program for year ending Dec. 31, 2017. 816 Small Water System 2018 Report to the Drinking Water Program for year ending Dec. 31, 2018. 817 Small Water System 2017 Report to the Drinking Water Program for year ending Dec. 31, 2017. 818 Napa County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (2019 Update in progress). 819 Small Water System 2017 Report to the Drinking Water Program for year ending Dec. 31, 2017. 820 Small Water System 2018 Report to the Drinking Water Program for year ending Dec. 31, 2018. CHAPTER 13: NAPA BERRYESSA RESORT IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT 377 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR Water Infrastructure and Facilities In 2017 the District reported annual potable water production of 30.2 million gallons (92.7 AFY).821 This was an increase compared to 2016’s production of 23.5 million gallons (72.1 AFY). Water production 2018 was 26 million gallons (79.7 AFY).822 Raw water is pumped from two deep-water screened intakes at different depths. The raw water is processed through a high rate contact clarification/dual media filtration treatment process and disinfection tank operated and monitored by a SCADA system.823 NBRID’s distribution system consists of seven pressure zones that maintain pressure exceeding the 20-psi regulatory standard. Water storage acts to maintain adequate working pressure under intraday peak demand and provide fire protection in accordance with ISO fire flow guidelines. The 92.7 AFY of water produced in 2017 is less than one-half of its annual entitlement from NCFCWCD. Unaccounted for water loss, specifically the amount of water lost due to system breaks and leaks, as well as illegal connections, is a measure of the water system’s integrity. Water losses can include “real losses”, which are physical losses from the water distribution system and the supplier’s storage facilities as well as “apparent losses”, which represent losses due to metering inaccuracies, data handling errors and/or unauthorized consumption. A comparison of water produced of 92.7 AF compared to deliveries to retail customers in 2017 of 49.1 AF indicates losses of 43.6 AF or 47 percent of total potable water produced.824 The losses declined in 2018. The District also notes that water loss can be attributed to leaks, demands during fire-fighting activities near the District, and other non-metered activities such as water plant wasting after cleaning filters.825 During 2017 there were 3 main line breaks or leaks, and 15 service connection breaks or leaks. In the prior year, 2016, no main line breaks or leaks were reported, and 9 service connection breaks or leaks. Shared Facilities The District has no shared facilities. Infrastructure Needs In response to a June 19, 2019 citation issued by the State Division of Drinking Water for excessive contaminants resulting from the treatment process, NBRID has received and is installing mixing and aeration equipment; initial testing indicated that this equipment should result in water quality that meets required standards.826 821 Small Water System 2017 Report to the Drinking Water Program for year ending Dec. 31, 2017. 822 Small Water System 2018 Report to the Drinking Water Program for year ending Dec. 31, 2018. 823 Description of water source, treatment and distribution is from the RFQ/RFP to Operate, Maintain and Manage Water/Wastewater Facilities, LBRID and NBRID, March 27, 2018. 824 Losses based on a comparison of “Water Produced” to “Water Deliveries” shown in the Small Water System Report to the State Drinking Water Program. 825 Follow-up response rec’d 12/9/19 to NBRID interview 12/4/19. 826 History of District Finances and Projects - Formation through June 2019, NBRID mtg. 10/8/19. CHAPTER 13: NAPA BERRYESSA RESORT IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT 378 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR In its 2018 RFQ/RFP, NBRID indicated that its near-term capital improvements would focus on water pressure reducing valve vaults and obtaining funding to rehabilitate the water storage tank exterior coatings. The District has identified other large-scale projects needed to “gain/maintain compliance with regulatory permits, and to maintain/ensure efficient operation of the District's facilities in the future.”827 These improvements include: • Rehabilitation of the raw water intake in Lake Berryessa • Rehabilitation/replacement of the District’s water distribution system pressure reducing stations • Replacement of the potable water storage tank The District indicates that the installation of tank aeration will begin in the Spring of 2020.828 Water Quality The State Water Resources Control Board Division of Drinking Water (DDW) implements the Safe Drinking Water Act in California. DDW requires public water systems to perform routine monitoring for regulated contaminants. To meet water quality standards and comply with regulations, a water system with a contaminant exceeding a maximum contaminant limit (MCL) must notify the public and remove the source from service or initiate a process and schedule to install treatment for removing the contaminant. Health violations occur when the contaminant amount exceeds the safety standard (MCL) or when water is not treated properly. In California, compliance is usually determined at the wellhead or the surface water intake. Monitoring violations involve failure to conduct or to report in a timely fashion the results of required monitoring. Source Water A number of factors and events affect the quality of raw water drawn from Lake Berryessa. A 2018 survey conducted by NCFCWCD and the Solano County Water Agency (SCWA) identified a number of factors affecting Lake Berryessa water quality, including fires, spills from activities adjacent to the Lake including wastewater spills, and other activities.829 Treated Water According to 2017 reports submitted to the State, NBRID had no ongoing water system violations.830 In 2017 the District received no customer complaints related to water quality (e.g., taste, odor and color).831 827 History of District Finances and Projects - Formation through June 2019, NBRID mtg. 10/8/19. 828 Follow-up response rec’d 12/9/19 to NBRID interview 12/4/19. 829 Lake Berryessa 2018 Watershed Sanitary Survey Final Report, Prepared for NCFCWCD and Solano County Water Agency. 830 Small Water System 2017 Report to the Drinking Water Program for year ending Dec. 31, 2017. 831 Small Water System 2017 Report to the Drinking Water Program for year ending Dec. 31, 2017, Item 13. CHAPTER 13: NAPA BERRYESSA RESORT IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT 379 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR The District reported an ongoing/high sensitivity to water quality degradation during storm events on water quality. Disruption of power supplies due to wildfires was identified as an item of high sensitivity.832 Reports of water quality tests from 2014 through 2017 reported only one violation (in 2014) of a water treatment standard for turbidity, which has no health effects but can interfere with the treatment process.833 No violations were reported in 2018. The State Division of Drinking Water issued NBRID a citation June 19, 2019 for excessive contaminants resulting from the treatment process. As noted in “Infrastructure Needs”, NBRID is installing mixing and aeration equipment to address this issue. 832 Small Water System 2017 Report to the Drinking Water Program for year ending Dec. 31, 2017, Item 17. 833 Consumer Confidence Report, NBRID. CHAPTER 13: NAPA BERRYESSA RESORT IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT 380 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR WASTEWATER SERVICES The District complies with all regulatory requirements and orders of the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Work Plans are developed in conjunction with private engineering firms. The District continually plans for maintenance and upgrades of the system but does not have a multi-year CIP document. As previously mentioned, the Lightning Complex Fire of August 2020 destroyed approximately 100 homes within NBRID’s boundaries, including some of the District’s utility facilities. However, all of NBRID’s utility systems are still operational and able to provide necessary services. The District plans to rebuild the damaged facilities as soon as possible. Type and Extent of Services Services Provided NBRID provides wastewater collection and treatment services within its boundary area. Service Area All sewer connections are located within District boundaries, with no out-of-agency sewer services provided. Services to Other Agencies The District does not provide any sewer-related services to other agencies. Contracts for Services The District does not have any sewer-related contracts with other agencies. Overlapping Service Providers There are no overlapping sewer service providers within the NBRID service area. Collaboration As described for NBRID water services, LBRID and NBRID share contract services provided by a private firm to operate their water and sewer facilities. This shared operational arrangement contributes to improved operating efficiencies of a single operator and leverages the expertise and resources of a single, large engineering firm. LBRID and NBRID also share administrative and management staff provided by the County of Napa as described below. This arrangement provides opportunities for improved efficiencies through economies of scale, and increased access to staff expertise and the resources of a larger organization. Staffing NBRID contracts with the County of Napa for administrative and professional services.834 The Deputy Director of Public Works serves as District Engineer and is principally responsible for overseeing day-to-day operations of the water and wastewater facilities. 834 RFQ/RFP to Operate, Maintain and Manage Water/Wastewater Facilities, LBRID and NBRID, March 27, 2018. CHAPTER 13: NAPA BERRYESSA RESORT IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT 381 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR Administration, procurement of materials and services, records, technical assistance and project management of the utilities are conducted by the Assistant Engineer and Engineering Manager. Operation of the facility is provided by a contract with a private firm, which also services NBRID facilities.835 Wastewater Flow The NBRID WWTF serves approximately 360 single-family residences of which 330 “are currently active.” 836 Figure 13-3: Wastewater Flows 2014-2018 and Buildout Conditions NBRID Sewer Flows Year 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Buildout Flow (MG) 15.891 14.430 13.991 13.808 10,238 Not est’d Source: NBRID MSR Request for Information. Wastewater Infrastructure and Facilities The District’s wastewater infrastructure consists of the wastewater collection system and the wastewater treatment plant. Wastewater Treatment Plant The disposal of wastewater is allowed under WDR Order R5-2013-0065, issued by the Central Valley Water Board; the order allows NBRID to treat and dispose of an average dry weather flow of 50,000 gallons of treated water per day.837 The District’s current plant was constructed in 2013. The plant is a membrane bioreactor (MBR) package treatment plant that sends wastewater to two ponds for disinfection and then pumped to a 50,000-gallon storage tank prior to spraying on 60 acres of land application areas. Runoff from the spray fields is returned to the storage tank. Sludge is disposed in a landfill. 838 The system’s design capacity is 51,000 gallons per day.839 The treatment plant addressed prior complaints and orders from the RWQCB5. The new plant provided a 100,000 gallons per day capacity membrane system to comply with waste discharge requirements. The system is augmented during winter by an MBR train of equal capacity designed to handle additional flows diluted by rainstorms.840 A 2018 survey conducted by NCFCWCD and the Solano County Water Agency (SCWA) identified a number of factors affecting Lake Berryessa water quality, including fires, spills from activities adjacent to the Lake including wastewater spills, and other activities. One of 835 Specialized Utilities Services Program, or SUSP, was awarded the contract, and began operations on November 1, 2018. 836 History of District Finances and Projects - Formation through June 2019, NBRID mtg. 10/8/19. 837 Lake Berryessa 2018 Watershed Sanitary Survey Final Report, Prepared for NCFCWCD and Solano County Water Agency. 838 Lake Berryessa 2018 Watershed Sanitary Survey Final Report, Prepared for NCFCWCD and Solano County Water Agency. 839 Follow-up response rec’d 12/9/19 to NBRID interview 12/4/19. 840 RFQ/RFP to Operate, Maintain and Manage Water/Wastewater Facilities, LBRID and NBRID, March 27, 2018. CHAPTER 13: NAPA BERRYESSA RESORT IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT 382 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR the recommendations stated that Napa County and SCWA should “review plans for new wastewater facilities associated with new or redeveloped recreation areas to ensure that adequate pond capacity is provided and that the ponds are located as far from Lake Berryessa as possible.” To provide more details regarding the integrity of the District’s sewer system and adequacy of its services this report includes the analysis of sanitary sewer overflow information and regulatory compliance data. All wastewater agencies are required to report sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs) to SWRCB. Sewer overflows are discharges from sewer pipes, pumps and manholes. Overflows reflect the capacity and condition of collection system piping and the effectiveness of routine maintenance. The sewer overflow rate is calculated as the number of overflows per 100 miles of collection piping per year. According to a 2018 report, there have been a total of six spills from the NBRID system from 2014 through 2017 resulting in one spill of 600-1,000 gallons reaching Lake Berryessa. Over a 4-year period, the six spills equate to an average of 1.5 spills per year. By comparison, other wastewater agencies in California average 4.73 SSOs per 100 miles per year.841 In 2019 two spills were reported, both resulting in a total of 7,500 gallons reaching surface waters due to pump station failures.842 Collection System NBRID has approximately 6.4 miles of sewer pipes (gravity and force mains) and four pump stations. 843 Infrastructure Needs The District is evaluating the need for a number of sewer capital improvements including:844 • Capacity upgrades to the wastewater treatment plant • Rehabilitation/replacement of the District’s four (4) sewage lift stations • Repair/replacement of components of the Districts land application areas and equipment • Abatement of sewer collection system inflow/infiltration The District indicates that construction of the Lift Station No. 2 pump replacement project will begin in January 2020.845 Shared Facilities The District has no shared facilities. 841 SWRCB, Sanitary Sewer Overflow Reduction Program Annual Compliance Report, March 26, 2015, p 16. 842 SWRCB CIWQS SSO Public Report. 843 2011 Lake Berryessa Region: Municipal Service Review. 844 History of District Finances and Projects - Formation through June 2019, NBRID mtg. 10/8/19. 845 Follow-up response rec’d 12/9/19 to NBRID interview 12/4/19. CHAPTER 13: NAPA BERRYESSA RESORT IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT 383 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE OPTIONS The last MSR for the District in 2011 proposed reorganizing the District as an independent community services district (CSD).846 At that time LAFCO determined that acrimony between the County and District residents justified the reorganization to enable a greater role by residents in District management and operations, and to provide greater flexibility for local control and provision of other services as the community develops. No further action was taken on the proposal. The 2011 MSR did not evaluate reorganization as a County Service Area (CSA). While formation of an independent district would increase local control, the current governance structure, whereby County staff manage the District in concert with NBRID, provides significant benefits from the sharing of operational staff and planning resources. Reorganization as a County Service Area (CSA) There are only six resort improvement districts remaining in the State, two of which are in Napa County. Transition of the resort improvement districts to community service districts was streamlined in the Government Code in 2010; however, that streamlined process expired in 2018. Consequently, the principal act for RIDs is not updated regularly and RIDs are becoming an antiquated governance structure. At present, the most likely alternatives for RIDs are a CSD, a water district or a county service area (CSA). Reorganization as a county service area (CSA) is an alternative that would modernize the District’s structure and retain the benefits of shared County management as a County- dependent district. CSAs are empowered to provide all of the services provided by LBRID. As a dependent district, the County Board of Supervisors would continue to be the governing body of the District, allowing for consistency in governance and operations. The transition would have no impact on the operations of the District, except in name only. The County noted a concern that a CSA may not be able to compel connection to a utility system similar to a RID (Public Resources Code §13074). However, CSAs are empowered by Government Code §25212(a) to “adopt and enforce rules and regulations for the administration, operation, use, and maintenance of the facilities and services authorized by Article 4,” giving a CSA the ability to compel connection as it relates to use of the District’s facilities. Additionally, the County can compel connection within its Code of Ordinances if desired. Generally, the process to transition a RID into a CSA would consist of the following: 1. Dissolution of the RID may be initiated by any of the following: a. Resolution by the affected governing body b. Petition by 10% of registered voters or 10% of landowners (that own at least 10% of the assessed value of land within the district c. Resolution by LAFCO. 2. Following approval of dissolution by LAFCO, a protest hearing must be conducted. If initiated by LAFCO, 10% protest would require an election of the voters. If initiated 846 2011 Lake Berryessa Region: Municipal Service Review. CHAPTER 13: NAPA BERRYESSA RESORT IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT 384 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR by resolution or petition, then 25% protest would require and election of the voters. If greater than 50% protest is received in any circumstance, then the dissolution would be terminated. 3. Formation of a CSA may be initiated by any of the following: a. Resolution by the County Board of Supervisors b. Petition by 25% of registered voters or 25% of landowners (that own at least 25% of the assessed value of land within the district c. Resolution by LAFCO 4. Following approval of formation by LAFCO, a protest hearing must be conducted. If greater than 50% protest is received in any circumstance, then the formation would be terminated. 5. If less than 50% of protest is received, then the formation process would proceed with an election of the voters for approval.847 Dissolution of the RID may be conditioned on completion of formation of a CSA. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. While the District has identified its capital needs, NBRID also should develop a five- year capital plan to anticipate future system repair and replacement costs, and to assure that current rates and reserves will be adequate to address future needs. 2. The District should undertake revisions to its rate structure and prepare a cost of service study as recommended by the recent third-party review of its proposed rates. As of the writing of this report, the cost of service study has been initiated. 3. Similar to prior MSR determinations, it is recommended that the District expand the content available on its website to include financial documents such as past and current budgets and financial reports. Additional content can be added, as resources permit, to improve public access to District information and to comply with Assembly Bill 2257 (Government Code §54954.2). 4. The District and the County should explore the option of reorganizing the District as a CSA to assure that current operations and funding, including the resort district’s ability to compel connections to the district system, would not be adversely affected. 5. The County should expand the District’s current financial reporting to improve public accessibility – the current annual audits are combined with other County financial reporting and consequently the detail and explanation are abbreviated compared to a typical district audit document. Budget documents for the District did not clearly document the resulting fund balances. 847 LAFCO may approve the formation without election is certain conditions are met; however, in the case of these RIDs, both are inhabited and do not meet the conditions. CHAPTER 13: NAPA BERRYESSA RESORT IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT 385 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR NAPA BERRYESSA RESORT IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT DETERMINATIONS Growth and Population Projections v No significant increase in current District population and service demand that would affect service delivery and infrastructure is anticipated within the timeframe of this MSR. The Location and Characteristics of Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities Within or Contiguous to the Agency’s SOI v The District does not qualify as a Disadvantaged Community. Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities and Adequacy of Public Services, Including Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies v The District has undertaken major upgrades to its water and wastewater system since the 2011 MSR identified significant infrastructure needs. v Ongoing improvements to replace aging infrastructure and to upgrade facilities are planned and/or underway. Financial Ability of Agencies to Provide Services v The District’s net surplus does not fully cover annual depreciation, indicating that the District may have difficulty accumulating adequate funds for future capital repair and replacement. v A recent rate review and forecast indicated that rate increases were required during the five-year forecast period; capital improvements were not explicitly included in the forecast. v Current rates approach maximum typical burden measures compared to resident incomes. v The District appears to have adequate reserves relative to operating costs, however, the lack of a five-year capital plan precludes a determination as to the adequacy of rates and reserves to fund future improvements. Status of, and Opportunities for, Shared Facilities v NBRID is administered by County staff in concert with LBRID. The two County- dependent resort improvement districts also share contract services by a single operator. CHAPTER 13: NAPA BERRYESSA RESORT IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT 386 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR Accountability for Community Service Needs, Including Governmental Structure and Operational Efficiencies v The County Board of Supervisors serves as directors of the District, and hold regular, noticed meetings. v The District maintains a website; however, it contains minimal content beyond payment links and posted responses to questions from 2016. v District staff inform residents through mailings and newsletters, posts on the NextDoor social media site, and in-person meetings as needed. Relationship with Regional Growth Goals and Policies v NBRID is not a land use authority that takes part in regional planning efforts and therefore does not impact growth policy. v NBRID’s SOI excludes substantial areas within its boundaries which are designated for single-family development, however, those areas currently are not served by the District and there are minimal prospects of those lands developing and requiring services within a ten-year time horizon. CHAPTER 13: NAPA BERRYESSA RESORT IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT 387 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR 14. NA PA CO UNTY F LO O D CO N TRO L A N D WATER CO N S ERVATI O N D I STR I CT AGENCY OVERVIEW Napa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Profile Contact Information Contact: Phillip Miller, Deputy Director, Flood Control and Water Resources https://www.countyofnapa.org 804 1st Street /1403/Flood-Control-Water- Address: Napa, CA 94559 Website: Conservation-District Phone: 707-259-8600 Email: phillip.miller@countyofnapa.org Formation Information Agency Flood Control and Water Date of Formation: 1951 type: Conservation District Governing Body Board of Directors (all five County Supervisors, the mayors of the five incorporated cities/town, and a council member from Governing Body: the City of Napa) Members: 11 Designated members elected by their respective Length of Manner of Selection: constituencies term: Varies by member agency County of Napa’s Meeting First Tuesday of each month at Meetings Location: Administration Building date: 1:30 P.M. Mapping and Population Population GIS Date: December 2019 (2019): 140,779 Purpose Acquire, distribute, and store water for domestic, irrigation, Napa County Flood Control and other beneficial uses. and Water Conservation Control, reclaim, and retain Enabling District Act (Chapter 1449, Empowered flood and storm waters for Legislation: Statutes of 1951) Services: beneficial uses. CHAPTER 14: NAPA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION 388 DISTRICT NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR Perform studies or analyses as it relates to water supplies, water rights, and the control of flood and storm waters for beneficial uses. * NCFCWCD is also authorized to exercise the right of eminent domain to take land, water, water rights, or other property necessary to carry out its duties. Municipal Services Provided (directly or by contract) See “Empowered Services” above Area Served Coterminous with County Boundary Size: 506,517 acres Location: boundary Coterminous with County Most recent Current SOI: boundary SOI update: 2016 Municipal Service Reviews 2016 Municipal Service Review and Sphere of Influence Update Checklist Past MSRs and NCFCWCD Special Studies: 2007 Municipal Service Review NCFCWCD Boundaries The NCFCWCD boundaries are coterminous with the boundaries of Napa County. Sphere of Influence The NCFCWCD SOI is coterminous with the boundaries of Napa County. CHAPTER 14: NAPA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION 389 DISTRICT Napa County Flood Control and Water Figure 14-1 Conservation District (NCFCWCD) Lake County Yolo County Lake Berryessa Calistoga St. Helena Yountville Sonoma County Napa Legend NCFCWCD Jurisdictional Boundary NCFCWCD Sphere of Influence Solano County American Canyon Napa River Marin County 0 2.25 4.5Miles Lake NCFCWCD Lake Yolo Yolo Calistoga December 12, 2019 St. Helena Prepared by LAFCO Staff Sonoma Sonoma Yountville Napa Solano LAFCO of Napa County Solano 1030 Seminary Street, Suite B Marin American Napa, California 94559 Marin Canyon http://www.napa.lafco.ca.gov NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR ACCOUNTABILITY AND GOVERNANCE NCFCWCD is organized as an independent special district under the Napa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Act (Chapter 1449, Statutes of 1951). It is empowered to: - Acquire, distribute, and store water for domestic, irrigation, and other beneficial uses - Control, reclaim, and retain flood and storm waters for beneficial uses. - Perform studies or analyses as it relates to water supplies, water rights, and the control of flood and storm waters for beneficial uses. NCFCWCD is also authorized to exercise the right of eminent domain to take land, water, water rights, or other property necessary to carry out its duties.848 Upon its formation, the County Board of Supervisors served as the District’s Board. Membership was expanded in 1996 to include 11 members consisting of all five County Supervisors, the mayors of the five incorporated cities/town, and a council member from the City of Napa. Regular meetings are held the first Tuesday of each month at the County of Napa’s Administration Building. The District’s website is located on the County’s website. Agendas and related documents, minutes and meeting video are posted on the County website, accessible from the District’s webpage. The District’s webpage does not include financial documents, although the budget and financial report is included in the County’s documents available on the County’s website. The District’s webpages include information about projects and programs, and Frequently Asked Questions about flood control. GROWTH AND POPULATION PROJECTIONS NCFCWCD’s population corresponds to the total County population of 140,779.849 Population is projected to increase approximately 0.53 percent annually through 2030 to a total population of 148,995.850 DISADVANTAGED UNINCORPORATED COMMUNITIES According to Napa LAFCO’s definition of DUCs, there are currently no disadvantaged unincorporated communities in Napa County. Based on the adopted policy, the Commission annually reviews Census Bureau American Community Survey data to determine if local and/or statewide median household income levels have changed.851 NCFCWCD is County-wide and serves all communities within Napa County. One community in the County, LBRID, has been determined to qualify as a “Disadvantaged Community” for water and wastewater purposes; no other DUCs have been identified by LAFCO. 848 Sec. 6 of enabling act. 849 Cal. Dept. of Finance 2019. 850 2019 Population estimates by County Planning Dept. as reported by LAFCO (6/13/19). 851 Napa Local Agency Formation Commission, Policy on Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities, 2018. CHAPTER 14: NAPA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION 391 DISTRICT NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR FINANCIAL ABILITY TO PROVIDE SERVICES The Napa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (NCFCWCD) is an independent county-wide district. The District is staffed by the County of Napa Public Works Department. Funding for its activities come from several sources, dedicated to specific activities, including State loans for infrastructure, a county-wide ½ cent sales tax for the Napa River/Napa Creek Flood Protection Project,852 and revenues from the District’s subcontracts of State and Federal water entitlements to cities and special districts in Napa County, and special assessments for the Rutherford Maintenance Project. The District does not receive property taxes. Figure 14-2a: Summary of Selected Financial Information, Napa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Napa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District FY18-19 Budget Revenues $21,172,400 Countywide Watershed 2,758,100 NPDES Stormwater 524,100 Rutherford Maintenance 99,700 Oakville to Oak Knoll Maintenance 90,500 Flood Control Project 4,000,000 Flood Authority Administration 150,200 Napa Flood Project Measure A* * Napa Flood Proj Maint Measure A* * Water Supply Contracts 13,452,300 Oakville CFO 97,500 * Measure A projects funded by fund balances 852 Measure A expired June 30, 2018; the District continues to account for funds pending final disposition of remaining balances. CHAPTER 14: NAPA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION 392 DISTRICT NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR Figure 14-2b: Summary of Selected Financial Information, Napa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Napa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District FY18-19 Budget Expenditures (includes use of fund balances) $40,706,600 Countywide Watershed 2,758,100 NPDES Stormwater 524,100 Rutherford Maintenance 98,200 Oakville to Oak Knoll Maintenance 90,500 Flood Control Project 21,035,700 Flood Authority Administration 150,200 Napa FLD Project Measure A* 2,114,400 Napa Flood Project Maintenance Measure A* 885,600 Water Supply Contracts 12,952,300 Oakville CFO 97,500 Ending Fund Balance as % of Expenditures 436% Ending Fund Balance $90,091,000 Total Debt Outstanding $13,926,000 2019-11-19 Balanced Budget For any agency, recurring operating deficits are a warning sign. In the short-term, reserves can backfill deficits and maintain services. However ongoing deficits eventually will deplete reserves. The District’s FY19 budget is balanced through the use of annual revenues, augmented by fund balances when necessary. The District frequently receives water contract refunds from the Department of Water Resources; because the annual amounts are unpredictable, the District adds an account of $500,000 as an approximation of these potential revenues.853 Non-operating special revenue accounts were established to receive Measure A funds from the Napa County Flood Authority after the expiration of Measure A on June 30, 2018. The Flood District established Subdivisions 800110 and 800120 to receive Measure A funds for the Napa Flood Project854 pending final disposition of remaining balances and payments. Specific projects are funded by a number of means. For example, the Countywide Watershed Management Program has three zones of benefit (City of Napa, Napa River Watershed and Berryessa/Putah Creek Watershed). NRVCWCD also manages projects funded by the Rutherford Reach Benefit Zone Assessment District and the Oakville to Oak Knoll (OVOK) Project Community Facilities District (CFD). 853 Correspondence with Phillip Miller, Napa County, July 15, 2019. 854 Correspondence with Phillip Miller, Napa County, July 15, 2019. CHAPTER 14: NAPA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION 393 DISTRICT NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR Fund Balances, Reserves and Liquidity Fund balances and reserves should include adequate funds for cash flow and liquidity, in addition to funds to address longer-term needs. The District’s FY18 CAFR reported a total ending fund balance of $90.1 million. This fund balance is largely restricted to specific activities; the unassigned fund balance is limited to $631,000 in the Water Supply Contracts Fund.855 The balance represents an increase of $62.3 million compared to the prior year due to $66.4 million of “Revenue from Other Governments” comprised of capital grants received during FY18. This increase was mainly due to the sunset of Measure A sales tax which provided 20 years of funding for the Napa River/Napa Creek Flood Project. The balance of the unspent funds in the amount of approximately $5O million for capital improvement costs for the project, and approx. $15.5 million for future maintenance of the project were transferred to special revenue accounts pending final disposition.856 The CAFR does not distinguish short-term assets and liabilities, so standard measures of “liquidity” cannot be calculated. However, fund balances appear more than sufficient to provide for required debt coverage and cash flow. Net Position The District’s FY18 CAFR reports an ending net position of $165 million, an increase from the prior year of $64.6 million, largely due to the receipt of capital grants. The unrestricted portion of the net position was $335,000. Rates and Charges The District does not provide water directly to end users; water allocations are sold to subcontractors, who in turn provide water to and bill end users. The District basically passes-through the cost of water it obtains from the Department of Water Resources. Long-term Debt The District’s FY18 CAFR reported $16.8 million of outstanding State revolving loan funds.857 The FY19 budget shows a proposed appropriation of $16.8 million towards State revolving loan principal plus additional interest payments; “Flood Control Project” fund balances provided the source of funding to fully repay the loans in FY19. Pension and OPEB Liabilities The District reports no pension or OPEB liabilities. Because the District utilizes County staff or consultants, its balance sheet carries none of the corresponding personnel-related liabilities. 855 NCFCWCD Financial Statements, Balance Sheet Divisional Breakdown, June 30, 2018, pg. 23. 856 Correspondence with Phillip Miller, Napa County, July 15, 2019. 857 NCFCWCD Financial Statements, Note 5 – Long-Term Liabilities, June 30, 2018, pg. 19. CHAPTER 14: NAPA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION 394 DISTRICT NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR Capital Assets Capital assets must be adequately maintained and replaced over time and expanded as needed to accommodate future demand and respond to regulatory and technical changes. The value of the District’s depreciable structures and improvements declined due to $100,000 of depreciation, however, additions of $1.0 million of assets during the year more than offset the depreciation from FY17 to FY18.858 The depreciated value is about 50 percent of total value of depreciable capital assets. Financial Planning and Reporting Achieving transparency and public accountability standards dictates that cities and agencies provide easily accessible and clear documentation of their activities, including financial information. Website – The District’s web page can be found on the County’s website and includes links to board meeting agendas and minutes.859 Financial Policies – The District follows financial policies established for the County of Napa. Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) – The District’s financials are documented in a CAFR prepared annually.860 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) – The District does not have a 5-year CIP; it reports that its only capital project is the Napa River Flood Protection Project.861 858 NCFCWCD Financial Statements, Note 4 – Capital Assets, June 30, 2018, pg. 18. 859 https://www.countyofnapa.org/1403/Flood-Control-Water-Conservation-Distric 860 NCFCWCD Financial Statements, June 30, 2018. 861 Correspondence with Phillip Miller, Napa County, July 15, 2019. CHAPTER 14: NAPA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION 395 DISTRICT NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR WATER SERVICES A special act of the California legislature created NCFCWCD in 1951.862 NCFCWCD’s water conservation responsibilities consist of administering contracts for water supply to local agencies for water from the State Water Project (SWP) and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation’s Solano Project. These services were initiated in 1963 with an agreement with the State of California’s Department of Water Resources (DWR) for an annual water entitlement from the State Water Project. NCFCWCD is also empowered to perform studies or analyses as it relates to water supplies and water rights. Type and Extent of Services Services Provided NCFCWCD subcontracts its SWP entitlements to the Cities of Napa, American Canyon, and Calistoga. Entitlements are described below under “Water Supply.” In addition, the United States Bureau of Reclamation grants NCFCWCD an entitlement of water drawn from Lake Berryessa (the “Solano Project”), which the District in turn subcontracts as shown below under “Water Supply”. The District does not own any water supply facilities; these are the responsibility of the entities subcontracting for the water. Staffing NCFCWCD is staffed by the County of Napa Public Works Department. Water Supply As noted above, NCFWCD administers contracts for entitlements to two primary water sources: 1) the SWP; and 2) the Solano Project. State Water Project (SWP) NCFWCD’s agreement with the State863 provides entitlement to 29,025 afy864 of water in return for NCFWCD’s payment of a share of costs of the North Bay Aqueduct, which delivers water entitlements to Napa and Solano counties. NCFWCD’s subcontracts provide the following amounts of water: Napa 21,900 afy American Canyon 5,200 afy 862 Napa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Act (Chapter 1449, Statutes of 1951). 863 Water Supply Contract between the State of California Dept. of Water Resources and Napa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, inc. amendments through No. 24 Dec. 31, 2013 (no other amendments through 2017). The contract was amended April 16, 2019 to, among other changes, extend the term from 2038 to 2085 (or longer depending on outstanding bonds). 864 See Table A Annual Entitlements (also shown as “Exhibit A”) in Water Supply Contract. CHAPTER 14: NAPA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION 396 DISTRICT NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR Calistoga 1,925 afy Total 29,025 afy The water supply delivery capability of the SWP may be highly variable depending on sequences of wet water years or critically dry years. Most of the subcontractors of SWP water rely on diversions of water from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, which sources its water from the Sierra Mountain Range. Water supply depends on rainfall, snowpack, runoff, water in storage facilities, and pumping capacity from the Delta, as well as operational constraints for fish and wildlife protection, water quality, and environmental and legal restrictions.865 To assist planning by water agencies, the State evaluates water delivery capability of the SWP every two years. The most recent 2017 analysis estimated a slight increase in deliveries compared to 2015 estimates.866 In June 2019, SWP allocations were increased as a result of the prior winter’s “robust storms…above average snowpack…and reservoir levels” that will provide a buffer against drier conditions the following year.867 The costs of SWP water to contractors include two components: 1) the Delta Water Charge, which includes the cost of conservation facilities, and 2) the Transportation Charge that covers the use of facilities required to deliver water to the service area of each SWP water contractor.868 The most recent forecast of water rates indicated an increase of approximately 5.2 percent in the cost per afy from 2018 to 2023 (including inflation), factoring in future operating and capital costs.869 Solano Project NCFWCD’s agreement with the United States Bureau of Reclamation provides entitlement to 773 afy of water.870 NCFWCD’s subcontracts provide the following amounts of water: Lake Berryessa Resort Improvement District 200 afy Napa Berryessa Resort Improvement District 200 afy Spanish Flat Water District 200 afy Private Property Owners (five) 173 afy Total 773 afy 865 State Water Project website, referenced 11/12/19, https://water.ca.gov/Programs/State-Water-Project 866 The Final State Water Project Delivery Capability Report 2017, March 2018, Ca. Dept. of Water Resources. 867 https://water.ca.gov/News/News-Releases/2019/June/State-Water-Project-Allocations-Increase-to-75-Percent 868 https://water.ca.gov/Programs/State-Water-Project/Management/Cost-and-Revenue 869 Management of the California State Water Project, Bulletin 132-17, January 2019, Table 14-12. 870 NCFCWCD MSR and SOI Checklist, Napa LAFCO, June 2016. CHAPTER 14: NAPA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION 397 DISTRICT NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR Water Demand Current entitlements are adequate to meet the current and anticipated needs of subcontractors. Refer to city and district chapters of this MSR for further information about subcontractor water demand for those subcontracting agencies. Water Infrastructure and Facilities Subcontractors that receive water entitlements from the SWP and Solano Project are responsible for providing local facilities for collection and treatment of water. Refer to city and district chapters of this MSR for further information about subcontractor water infrastructure and facilities. Water Quality Subcontractors that receive water entitlements from the SWP and Solano Project are responsible for treating the water and assuring it meets water quality standards. FLOOD CONTROL SERVICES NCFCWCD’s enabling act empowers the District to coordinate and manage flood control projects in the County.871 Flood control activities include: 1) Facilitated designs for the Napa River/Napa Creek Flood Protection Project and funding through a Countywide half-cent sales tax local funding match, and coordinated related projects funded by the tax measure (“Measure A”). 2) Coordinates with local jurisdictions on implementing and maintaining local flood control and stormwater quality improvements funded by a District assessment (not collected in American Canyon, which does not receive services). 3) Contracted services from specific cities where the District is reimbursed, including American Canyon. Activities include clearing and maintaining banks and channels, including areas within the Napa River and its tributaries, and bank stabilization; operating a flood warning system; installing and maintaining storm drain trunk lines; managing groundwater and overseeing adjudicated watersheds; preparing special studies for flood protection and water management, and developing flood plain management regulations. 4) Administers the Napa County Stormwater Management Program (NCSWMP) and coordinates the individual activities of NPDES permits and programs of the five cities and the County. Funding is provided by the participating agencies. The District stores a mobile pump station at the Napa River Reclamation District’s (NRRD) treatment facility and is available for use in the event of flooding in that area. The NRRD, upon its formation, inherited a pump station from the NCFCWCD. 871 Napa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Act (Chapter 1449, Statutes of 1951). CHAPTER 14: NAPA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION 398 DISTRICT NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR RECYCLED WATER SERVICES The District assists with planning services including recycled water. The 2016 MSR/SOI for NCFCWCD described the District’s work on the Milliken-Sarco- Tulocay (MST) Recycled Water Plan; the Plan provided the basis for construction of facilities for recycled water transport to MST by the County and NapaSan planned to begin operation in Spring 2016. GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE OPTIONS The most recent MSR and SOI review prepared in 2016 for NCFCWCD indicated there were no governance options “to enhance services and/or eliminate deficiencies or redundancies.”872 However, the current MSR process has identified possible governance structure options. Zones of Benefit NCFCWCD could establish “zones” to provide enhanced reclamation services to existing districts in the County. The NCFCWCD is empowered under its legislative act to establish zones for assessment purposes to provide elevated and focused flood control and water conservation services to a particular area; the assessments would be directly funded by benefiting property owners.873 The 2016 NCFCWCD MSR/SOI review determined that, when appropriate, NCFCWCD should explore opportunities to establish project zones. This approach, for example, could enable NRRD to reorganize and provide enhanced reclamation services as a zone of NCFCWCD (see Chapter 15 NRRD Governance Structure Options). RECOMMENDATIONS 1. NCFCWCD, in collaboration with NRRD, should explore the costs and benefits of reorganizing NRRD as a zone of NCFCWCD for the purpose of providing reclamation services (see Chapter 15 NRRD Governance Structure Options). 872 NCFCWCD MSR and SOI Checklist, Napa LAFCO, June 2016. 873 ibid, NCFCWCD MSR/SOI Checklist, 2016. CHAPTER 14: NAPA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION 399 DISTRICT NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR NAPA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT DETERMINATIONS Growth and Population Projections v The District’s boundaries and service population corresponds to Napa County’s area and population, anticipated to grow at an average rate of about 0.5 percent annually. The Location and Characteristics of Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities Within or Contiguous to the Agency’s SOI v According to Napa LAFCO’s definition of DUCs, there are currently no disadvantaged unincorporated communities in Napa County. Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities and Adequacy of Public Services, Including Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies v The District does not own public facilities that directly provide water or wastewater services, but does provide planning, technical support and financial assistance to other agencies and communities with infrastructure needs. Financial Ability of Agencies to Provide Services v The District provides “conduit” services to obtain and direct financial resources to infrastructure and service needs of other agencies and communities. v The District does not receive a share of property tax and has no ongoing sources of funding other than project grants and pass-throughs of subcontractor payments. Status of, and Opportunities for, Shared Facilities v The District collaborates with local agencies on projects, planning and technical efforts on shared and regional facilities. Accountability for Community Service Needs, Including Governmental Structure and Operational Efficiencies v The District’s board includes membership by all County supervisors, and representatives of all incorporated cities/town and a council member from the City of Napa. v The District is empowered with the ability to create “zones of benefit” that could enable small communities to benefit from the staff expertise of a larger organization for reclamation purposes. CHAPTER 14: NAPA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION 400 DISTRICT NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR Relationship with Regional Growth Goals and Policies v County departments staff the District and provide for close coordination with regional growth goals and policies. CHAPTER 14: NAPA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION 401 DISTRICT NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR 15. NA PA RI V ER RECL A M ATI O N DI STRI CT NO. 2109 AGENCY OVERVIEW Napa River Reclamation District No. 2109 Profile Contact Information Contact: Penny Wilson, Assistant Manager/District Secretary 1501 Milton Rd Address: Napa, CA 94559 Website: http://nrrd2109.org/ Phone: 707-255-2996 Email: pennynrrd@msn.com Formation Information 1974 as Edgerly Island Agency Date of Formation: Reclamation District (EIRD) type: Reclamation district Governing Body Governing Body: Board of Directors Members: 5 Length of Manner of Selection: Landowner-voter system term: 4 years Meeting First Thursday of each Meetings Location: 1598 Milton Road, Napa date: month at 7:00 P.M. Mapping and Population Population GIS Date: 2019 (2019): 333 Purpose Water Code 50905 (added 1981) authorized EIRD to Enabling Empowered provide sewage services in Legislation: Water Code 50000-53901 Services: addition to reclamation. Municipal Services Provided (directly or by contract) Sewer and limited reclamation services Area Served Eight miles southwest of the City of Napa along the western shoreline of the Boundary Size: 74 acres Location: Napa River Most recent Current SOI: 54 acres SOI update: 2016 CHAPTER 15: NAPA RIVER RECLAMATION DISTRICT NO. 2109 402 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR Napa River Reclamation District No. 2109 Profile Municipal Service Reviews 2016 Municipal Service Review and SOI Update Napa River Reclamation District No. 2109 2007 Napa River Reclamation District No. 2109 SOI Review Past MSRs and 2006 Governance Study Napa River Reclamation District No. 2109 Special Studies: 2005 Comprehensive Study Napa River Reclamation District No. 2109 Service Review 2005 Sanitation and Wastewater Treatment MSR Phase I: Agency Profiles Boundaries NRRD’s adopted jurisdictional boundary is comprised of one contiguous area consisting of approximately 74 acres. NRRD’s 74-acre service area includes 134 residential units and 14 undeveloped lots in Ingersoll Tract and Edgerly Island.874 Sphere of Influence NRRD’s SOI was adopted in 1985 and included approximately 54 acres entirely within its jurisdictional boundary but excluded a 20-acre parcel that is owned by the District and is the site of its administrative office and sewer treatment facility.875 The 2016 NRRD MSR recommended that LAFCO expand NRRD’s sphere of influence to include the 0.4-acre portion of the study area on which the District’s administrative office is situated. The property was added to the SOI in December of 2016.876 The remaining 19.6 acres of the District’s boundary outside its SOI was not recommended to be added pending resolution of NRRD’s current status as a reclamation district, similar to findings of the 2007 SOI Update.877 When considering the potential SOI expansion to include the 19.6 acres, the 2016 MSR cited the 2007 SOI review in stating that “in the absence of addressing inconsistencies between NRRD’s service activities and principal act, any changes to the SOI would be premature.”878 The 19.6 acres includes NRRD ponds and treatment facilities and is zoned by the County as “Agricultural Watershed: Airport Compatibility.” The property is owned by the District and required for its wastewater system, and no new development requiring extension of wastewater service is planned or likely on the property; therefore, no expansion of its SOI is appropriate at this time. 874 Correspondence with NRRD 10/8/19. 875 Napa River Reclamation District No. 2109 MSR & SOI Update, LAFCO of Napa County, Final Report, Dec. 2016. 876 Napa LAFCO Resolution No. 2016-5, Dec. 5, 2016. 877 Napa River Reclamation District No. 2109 SOI Review, Final Report, April 2007. 878 Napa River Reclamation District No. 2109 MSR & SOI Update, LAFCO of Napa County, Final Report, Dec. 2016, pg. 24. CHAPTER 15: NAPA RIVER RECLAMATION DISTRICT NO. 2109 403 Napa River Reclamation District No. 2109 (NRRD) M ilto n R o a d Green Island Road NRRD American Canyon # Figure 15-1 r e v i R a p a N Legend NRRD Jurisdictional Boundary NRRD Sphere of Influence 0 0.1 0.2Miles Lake Yolo Calistoga December 12, 2019 St. Helena Prepared by LAFCO Staff Sonoma Yountville Napa Solano LAFCO of Napa County 1030 Seminary Street, Suite B Napa River Napa, California 94559 American Marin Canyon http://www.napa.lafco.ca.gov NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR ACCOUNTABILITY AND GOVERNANCE NRRD is organized as an independent special district under the Reclamation District Act, Division 15 California Water Code empowered to construct, maintain, and operate reclamation works necessary for the unwatering and watering of district land. In addition, the Water Code provides that NRRD “may provide for the disposal of sewage, industrial waste, or other waste and, for that purpose, may design, finance, construct, operate, and maintain sewage treatment works.”879 NRRD’s five-member board of trustees are elected by a landowner-voter system880 for a four-year term on a rotating basis. All seats have remained filled, and any vacancies that have occurred have been filled by Board of Supervisors’ appointment.881 Board meetings are held the first Thursday of each month at 7:00 P.M. at 1598 Milton Road, Napa, California 94559. The meeting room is wheelchair accessible.882 The Financial Auditor and the Legal Counsel for NRRD (Napa County Counsel) are contracted services. The County Auditor-Controller provides bookkeeping services.883 The District’s Auditor prepares an annual Financial Report every two years; the report is completed within a timely manner. The NRRD budget and Financial Report are not available on its website but were provided to the MSR consultant. NRRD maintains a website that includes agendas for forthcoming meetings and agendas and minutes of past meetings, although it is lacking basic financial documents (e.g., budget, financial audits). The District was responsive when agenda documents not posted to the website were requested. Public workshops are held to provide the community with information about District plans, and the public is invited to Board planning retreats. The District is sponsoring an ongoing series of community meetings to discuss District flood control improvements and funding options; the District hopes to make decisions based on resident input by mid-2020.884 The District distributes a newsletter annually describing preparations and emergency procedures to manage potential flooding. GROWTH AND POPULATION PROJECTIONS The District reports 134 developed and 14 empty parcels in the District.885 Population estimates indicate 132 households and population of 333,886 a slight decline from the 340 estimated in the 2016 NRRD MSR. Forecasts predict a 2030 population of 340.887 The District 879 California Water Code 50905 (added 1981). 880 The landowner-voter system allows each landowner one vote for each dollar that his or her property is assessed. 881 Interview with NRRD, Dec. 12, 2019. 882 NRRD Meeting Agenda, Oct. 3, 2019. 883 Interview with NRRD, Dec. 12, 2019. 884 Interview with NRRD, Dec. 12, 2019. 885 Correspondence from NRRD, 10/8/19. 886 2019 Population estimates by County Planning Dept. as reported by LAFCO (6/13/19). 887 Population forecasts by LAFCO and Cal. Dept. of Finance as reported by LAFCO (6/13/19). CHAPTER 15: NAPA RIVER RECLAMATION DISTRICT NO. 2109 405 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR reports approximately two new service connections over the past ten years, and overall a net reduction due to the replacement of multiple older units with a single new project.888 Development of the 14 empty parcels would add approximately 35 residents, indicating a buildout population of about 368. Buildout population estimate assumes full occupancy of 14 additional units at 2.52 persons per household reported in LAFCO’s population forecast estimates for unincorporated areas. DISADVANTAGED UNINCORPORATED COMMUNITIES LAFCO is required to evaluate disadvantaged unincorporated communities as part of this service review, including the location and characteristics of any such communities. According to Napa LAFCO’s definition of DUCs, NRRD does not serve a disadvantaged unincorporated community.889 FINANCIAL ABILITY TO PROVIDE SERVICES The Napa River Reclamation District primarily relies on assessments890 which account for about 85 percent of its revenues,891 to fund its provision of wastewater services. Property taxes comprise the balance. Figure 15-2: Summary of Selected Financial Information, Napa River Reclamation District Napa River Reclamation District Wastewater Operations FY18-19 Water Budget Net $20,000 Revenues $192,000 Expenditures (excluding depreciation) $172,000 Ending Fund Balance as % of Operating Revenues 420% Ending Fund Balance $722,000 Debt Service as a % of Operating Revenues na Total Debt Outstanding $0 Monthly Sewer Rates as a % of Household Income 2.2% Typical Monthly Rate $148 Median Household Income (2017) $79,600 Pension+OPEB Total Payments % of Revenues N/A Unfunded Pension Liability No pensions Unfunded OPEB Liability No OPEB 2019-11-06 888 Interview with NRRD, Dec. 12, 2019. 889 Napa Local Agency Formation Commission, Policy on Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities, 2018. 890 According to the District, the County assigns the District’s assessment revenue to a category labelled “Water Use Fees” (NRRD email, 5/9/19). 891 NRRD Final Budget for FY2018/19. CHAPTER 15: NAPA RIVER RECLAMATION DISTRICT NO. 2109 406 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR Balanced Budget For any agency, recurring operating deficits are a warning sign. In the short-term, reserves can backfill deficits and maintain services. However ongoing deficits eventually will deplete reserves. The District’s FY19 budget shows revenues exceeding expenditures by $20,000 before deducting depreciation expense; after the budget subtract depreciation of $20,000 revenues equal expenditures.892 Prior financial reports also show a positive annual balance before depreciation. The District budgets receipts of approximately $24,000 of property tax annually, which is about 18.7 percent893 of each tax dollar from within its boundaries. The property tax revenues are the only source of funding for reclamation services and facilities since NRRD has no revenues dedicated for that purpose. Fund Balances, Reserves and Liquidity Fund balances and reserves should include adequate funds for cash flow and liquidity, in addition to funds to address longer-term needs. The District reported $702,400 of “Total Current Assets” (including cash and receivables) at the end of FY18,894 which represents nearly four times annual expenditures (excluding depreciation). Liquidity, which compares current assets to current liabilities, is significantly greater than 1.0, indicating substantial liquidity. The District sets aside $20,000 annually for future capital replacement; in the FY20 budget year NRRD segregated its fund balance to distinguish reserves of $566,900 at the start of FY20 for its wastewater system. Reclamation reserves, which cannot utilize wastewater system revenues, total $113,000 at the start of FY20.895 Net Position An agency’s “Net Position” as reported in its CAFR or audited financial reports represents the amount by which assets (e.g., cash, capital assets, other assets) exceed liabilities (e.g., debts, unfunded pension and OPEB liabilities, other liabilities). A positive Net Position provides an indicator of financial soundness over the long-term. The District’s total net position is approximately $1.1 million, of which about $650,000 is unrestricted. The total net position is approximately equal to assets due to minimal liabilities. Rates and Charges The District charges all lots, including vacant lots, a base fee of $286 annually. Developed lot owners pay $1,494 annually per single-family dwelling including the base charge.896 892 Napa River Reclamation District Final Budget for FY2018/19. 893 County of Napa MPTS2010 Property System – Auditor Tax Increment Distribution Report 2018, TRA 072-042. 894 Napa River Reclamation District Basic Financial Statements, June 30, 2019 and 2018, pg. 4. 895 Interview with NRRD, Dec. 12, 2019. 896 Ordinance No. 133 (Amending Ord. # 102), May 2, 2019. Inclusion of base charge per correspondence with NRRD 12/19/19. CHAPTER 15: NAPA RIVER RECLAMATION DISTRICT NO. 2109 407 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR Long-term Debt The District has no long-term debt. Pension and OPEB Liabilities The District has no pension or OPEB liabilities according to its FY17 financial report. Capital Assets Capital assets must be adequately maintained and replaced over time and expanded as needed to accommodate future demand and respond to regulatory and technical changes. The District has no CIP, however, it has recently commissioned technical studies to evaluate capital improvements for its wastewater system and for flood control alternatives for its facilities and for the community. The value of depreciable capital assets declined by about 12 percent from FY18 to FY19 as capital investments made by the District in that period did not offset depreciation.897 The net depreciated capital assets are approximately 13 percent of their total original value. Financial Planning and Reporting Achieving transparency and public accountability standards dictates that cities and agencies provide easily accessible and clear documentation of their activities, including financial information. Website – The District maintains a website.898 The website does not provide financial documents but does have a link to agendas and minutes. Financial documents and other reports generally can be found in meeting minutes posted on the website if the applicable meeting dates are known. The website also has copies of recent engineering reports posted. The District was very responsive in providing requested documents not found on its website. Annual Financial Reports – The District prepares a biennial financial audit. The FY18/FY19 audit was prepared in a timely manner within about 3 months of the end of the prior fiscal year. Capital Improvement Program (CIP) – The District has no CIP, but in 2018 the District contracted for services to identify reclamation needs, potential costs and funding.899 A 2018 sewer system evaluation identified system conditions and need, but not costs. The evaluation did provide a template for the District to forecast and plan for ongoing maintenance and replacement costs.900 Financial Forecasts – The District does not prepare financial forecasts beyond the current year budget. 897 Napa River Reclamation District Basic Financial Statements, June 30, 2019 and 2018, Note 3 – Changes in Capital Assets. 898 http://nrrd2109.org/ 899 Napa River Reclamation District Wastewater Treatment and Disposal System Evaluation Technical Memorandum 2018, Bracewell Engineering, Inc., January 28, 2019. 900 Edgerly Island and Ingersoll Tract Flood Management Plan and Adaptation Study, ESA, August 30, 2018 and addendum. CHAPTER 15: NAPA RIVER RECLAMATION DISTRICT NO. 2109 408 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR RECLAMATION SERVICES Type and Extent of Services As described above, NRRD was formed as a reclamation district and has provided authorized services, including flood control, as well as sewer services added by special legislation. The 2006 LAFCO Governance Study of NRRD concluded that reclamation services represent an authorized, active service. However, according to the District, it is the only reclamation district in California that does not own levees,901 which limits its ability to mitigate flood risks. The absence of a dedicated funding source also constrains the extent of its services. Services Provided Current reclamation services provided by NRRD are limited to maintaining and operating a pump station on Edgerly Island to remove flood and storm water out of the island’s roadside drainage ditch. As described in the 2016 MSR, the pump station was “inherited by NRRD from NCFCWCD upon its [NRRD’s] formation.”902 The pump station on Edgerly Island was funded through an annual assessment paid by local property owners as part of a benefit zone established by NCFCWCD in 1952. This benefit zone was dissolved, and the pump station was turned over to the Napa River Reclamation District No. 2109 following its formation in 1975.903 The District has also provided advisory services related to flood control practices and standards. However, Napa County Superior Court determined that NRRD did not have the authority to issue a nuisance complaint. Private ownership of levees precludes the District’s ability to maintain levees to desired standards. In the early 2000’s, NRRD attempted to enforce maintenance standards by issuing nuisance complaints to property owners not meeting levee standards; however, litigation determined that the District did not have authority to issue nuisance complaints despite its objective of protecting its wastewater facilities. Although deed covenants imposed by the original subdivision developer required property owners to maintain privately property on levees, those requirements expired after 20 years; private property owners have had some success encouraging their neighbors to make levee improvements to avoid the risk of adjacent property damage and resulting private lawsuits.904 NRRD indicated that the County’s building code enabled the County to enforce flood protection requirements, however those requirements were removed from the code.905 Water Code section 50652 specifies that reclamation districts have powers over the reclamation works that the districts own. The NRRD did not construct and does not own the residential levees within the District. It does own one flood control pump station and the levees/berms on NRRD property. Therefore, the District does not have power over the resident owned/non-NRRD levees. Residents are responsible for maintaining their own levees. The Governance Options section notes options that may provide for increased public 901 Interview with NRRD, Dec. 12, 2019. 902 Napa River Reclamation District No. 2109 MSR & SOI Update, LAFCO of Napa County, Final Report, Dec. 2016. 903 NCFCWCD MSR and SOI Checklist, Napa LAFCO, June 2016. 904 Interview with NRRD, Dec. 12, 2019. 905 Interview with NRRD, Dec. 12, 2019. CHAPTER 15: NAPA RIVER RECLAMATION DISTRICT NO. 2109 409 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR oversight and enforcement of maintenance standards on private land and/or the improved ability to obtain easements for maintenance purposes. The District is investigating expansion of reclamation services (see “Infrastructure Needs”, below). Recently the District authorized the purchase of “Tiger Dams” to help control flooding.906 Service Area The District encompasses 54 acres, as described above in “Boundaries”. The Ingersoll Subdivision portion of the District is not served by the District’s pump station; however, a mobile pump station purchased in 2004 by NCFCWCD is stored at the NRRD treatment facility and is available for use in the event of flooding. Services to Other Agencies NRRD does not provide sewer services to other agencies. Contracts for Services NRRD contracts with County departments for administrative services including legal counsel and bookkeeping services. Overlapping Service Providers Two other agencies are empowered to provide reclamation services and overlap the NRRD service area. The agencies are the Napa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (NCFCWCD) and the Napa County Resource Conservation District (NCRCD). Prior to formation of NRRD, NCFCWCD formed a zone of benefit to charge an assessment to property owners for flood control purposes. According to prior MSRs, NRRD formation was prompted by a County consultant’s recommendation to dissolve the zone and create an independent reclamation district in recognition of the desire of property owners “to retain local control with regard to costs and standards.”907 Collaboration NRRD collaborates with NCFCWCD. The two agencies recently completed a flood management plan for Edgerly Island and Ingersoll Tract; each agency contributed $75,000 towards the plan’s costs.908 As noted above, NRRD stores and utilizes a portable pump purchased by the NCFCWCD, and NFCWCD helped pay for repair of the permanent pump facility in 2015.909 A sandbag station is provided by the County for residents’ use. Staffing NRRD reclamation services are provided by District staff, with contract services for maintenance and engineering as needed. The District has one part-time assistant manager 906 Interview with NRRD, Dec. 12, 2019. 907 NRRD MSR 2005. 908 Interview with NRRD, Dec. 12, 2019. Edgerly Island and Ingersoll Tract Flood Management Plan and Adaptation Study, ESA, August 30, 2018 and addendum. NRRD provided the plan’s funding shares. 909 Interview with NRRD, Dec. 12, 2019. CHAPTER 15: NAPA RIVER RECLAMATION DISTRICT NO. 2109 410 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR who handles administrative matters, and a part-time sewer plant operator. Residents assist, when needed in an emergency, with operations of the flood water pumps. Reclamation Infrastructure and Facilities Pumps The pump station consists of three pumps that discharge water into the Napa River. Parts of one of the pumps were replaced 2015 with a cost share agreement with NCFCWCD. One of the pumps is electric and automatically senses water levels requiring pumping from drainage areas back into the Napa River; two of the pumps are diesel and require manual operation. Levees The District has been provided access to about 10 private properties in the event of a flood emergency, but otherwise has no ability to maintain privately-owned levees. Other Property The District owns 20-acres utilized for its treatment facilities and office. A portable pump is stored at the site. As noted above, recently the District authorized the purchase of “Tiger Dams” to help control flooding.910 Shared Facilities The District utilizes a portable pump purchased by the NCFCWCD. Infrastructure Needs The NRRD, in collaboration with the NCFCWCD, funded an engineer’s report to evaluate options to address long-term flood protection needs, costs and funding.911 The engineer’s report described conditions that have led to substantial flooding occurring about once every decade, and additional adverse contributions of sea-level rise. The report identified three options and their costs, ranging from Plan 1 “preparedness and planning” to Plan 3 “Sheet Pile Floodwalls”. Cost estimates ranged from $3.5 million to $79.3 million respectively. Specific outside funding was not identified, although the report suggested that up to half of the total cost could come from outside sources. A community meeting to review the report was held in February 2019 and was “sparsely attended”; the 18 property owners at the meeting indicated a preference for Plan 1 with possible additional investments in the future.912 Community meetings are ongoing and anticipated to continue into mid-2020 when decisions will be made about improvements and funding.913 910 Interview with NRRD, Dec. 12, 2019. 911 Edgerly Island and Ingersoll Tract Flood Management Plan and Adaptation Study, ESA, August 30, 2018 and addendum. 912 NRRD #2109 minutes for the meeting of the Board of Trustees March 7, 2019. 913 Interview with NRRD, Dec. 12, 2019. CHAPTER 15: NAPA RIVER RECLAMATION DISTRICT NO. 2109 411 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR WASTEWATER SERVICES The District provides sewage collection, treatment and disposal services to its service population of 134 single-family connections (as of 2019).914 Treatment facilities have a maximum design capacity of 40,000 gallons per day (mgd). Type and Extent of Services Services Provided NRRD provides collection, secondary treatment and disposal of wastewater via its 35- year old treatment plant. The sewer system consists of 15 community septic tanks that deliver effluent to a central treatment plant that utilizes a mound system. Disinfected effluent is pumped from the mounds to evaporation ponds. Service Area NRRD’s 74-acre service area includes 134 residential units and 14 undeveloped lots in Ingersoll Tract and Edgerly Island. The NRRD SOI is approximately 54 acres and excludes a 20-acre parcel owned by the District and utilized for its treatment plant. Services to Other Agencies NRRD does not provide sewer services to other agencies. Contracts for Services NRRD contracts with County departments for administrative services including legal counsel and bookkeeping services. Overlapping Service Providers There are no overlapping sewer service providers. Collaboration No sewer-related collaboration was identified. Staffing NRRD has an Assistant Manager, a Chief Plant Operator, and a Plant Operator. Other services are contracted. NRRD contracts with County departments for administrative services including legal counsel and bookkeeping services. Wastewater Flow The system assessment prepared for NRRD in 2019 was unable to draw conclusions about hydraulic influent vs. effluent flows due to apparently unreliable measurements; the assessment indicated that the accuracy of flow measurements needed to be addressed. 914 Correspondence from NRRD, 10/8/19. CHAPTER 15: NAPA RIVER RECLAMATION DISTRICT NO. 2109 412 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR Wastewater Infrastructure and Facilities The sewer system consists of 15 community septic tanks that deliver effluent to a central treatment plant that utilizes a mound system. Disinfected effluent is pumped from the mounds to evaporation ponds. The District owns approximately 1.5 miles of sewer lines.915 A recently prepared assessment of the sewer system determined that the system is treating effluent “…as well as it was designed to and with a higher hydraulic efficiency.”916 The system’s theoretical treatment capacity is 44,000 gallons per day (gpd) compared to its original design capacity of 40,000 gpd. The assessment recommended steps to further improve the efficiency of mound bed percolation and increase disposal capacity. Treatment performance appeared to be excellent. The system assessment prepared for NRRD in 2019 was unable to draw conclusions about hydraulic performance of wet vs. dry weather due to apparently unreliable measurements; the assessment indicated that the accuracy of flow measurements needed to be addressed. The assessment strongly recommended that “…the siphon cycle counter, the siphon discharge cycle volumes, and the mound effluent pumping rates be verified so that influent and effluent flow measurements can be analyzed with confidence.”917 Heavy rainfall and rising groundwater have required discharges from evaporation ponds into Mud Slough; these discharges occurred several days each year but have been infrequent in recent drought years. In the past, NRRD operated under an NPDES permit (Order No. 93-19) allowing discharge to Mud Slough; however, after the permit’s expiration in 1998 no new permit was issued. The permit was rescinded in 2006 apparently due to a misunderstanding that discharge had never occurred, and the permit was not required. The State Water Board indicated that it would adopt an order indicating NRRD was not subject to State water discharge requirements, but the order was never adopted. NRRD continues to operate as it did under the original NPDES permit pending further action by the State Water Board.918 No SSO events are reported by the State Water Board. The District provides reports monthly to the State Water Board.919 Infrastructure Needs The assessment concluded that “overall the condition of the 35 year old treatment plant is still quite good” although some repairs were needed to address various issues.920 The assessment did not estimate costs, but did provide a worksheet with estimated equipment life expectancy values for revision and use by the District. The District anticipates the need to repair and replace its siphon and related equipment due to age in the near future; costs have not been estimated, although the District indicates the costs are likely to be under $100,000 and well within the capacity of its reserves.921 The District also anticipates a need 915 Interview with NRRD, Dec. 12, 2019. 916 Napa River Reclamation District Wastewater Treatment and Disposal System Evaluation Technical Memorandum 2018, Bracewell Engineering, Inc., January 28, 2019. 917 ibid, Bracewell, 2019. 918 ibid, Bracewell, 2019. 919 Interview with NRRD, Dec. 12, 2019. 920 ibid, Bracewell, 2019. 921 Interview with NRRD, Dec. 12, 2019. CHAPTER 15: NAPA RIVER RECLAMATION DISTRICT NO. 2109 413 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR to expend reserve funds to raise the heights of manhole covers when planned road resurfacing occurs.922 Shared Facilities NRRD has no shared sewer facilities. 922 Interview with NRRD, Dec. 12, 2019. CHAPTER 15: NAPA RIVER RECLAMATION DISTRICT NO. 2109 414 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE OPTIONS Prior MSRs and SOI reviews determined that the District’s status as a reclamation district created a “disconnect between its operational and governance authority”923 due to inaction of the District related to levee control services. The District’s primary services, added by amendments to the District’s governing authority, remain the provision of wastewater collection and disposal. Expansion of Services Currently the District is investigating expansion of reclamation services beyond its current advisory role and management of flood water pumps. Community meetings are ongoing and anticipated to continue into mid-2020 when decisions will be made about improvements and funding.924 If the community and the District pursue expanded reclamation services, the District’s new reclamation infrastructure and services would eliminate the “disconnect” between its reclamation authority and its provision of services. If the District does not undertake funding, construction and maintenance of levee improvements and other flood control measures, several governance structure options could mitigate the “disconnect” between its name, its authority, liability, and its actual services provided under the “Status Quo”. These options potentially could improve governance structure and service delivery even if the District expands its reclamation services. Reorganization as a Community Service District As a community service district (CSD), selected services would be activated by the District with LAFCO approval, depending on community needs and preferences, including eliminating potential liability for reclamation services authorized but not provided under the current governance structure. A CSD provides a governance structure consistent with Statewide practices and continual legislative review and revision. The CSD would be empowered with the same authority to raise revenues, issue debt, construct and maintain improvements for reclamation services and/or wastewater services as enabled for by the current reclamation district authority as amended for NRRD. According to NRRD, Several years ago, the District voted against converting to a CSD.925 Becoming a CSD may be an option to continue wastewater services if the area becomes a zone of NCFCWCD for reclamation purposes. Reorganize as a Zone of NCFCWCD for Reclamation Services This option would place the area under the jurisdiction of NCFCWCD and enable the creation of assessments, with the approval of residents, to fund increased reclamation and flood control services. This option would formalize the current collaboration between NRRD 923 Napa LAFCO Resolution No. 2016-5, Dec. 5, 2016, Statement of Determinations, 6b. 924 Interview with NRRD, Dec. 12, 2019. 925 NRRD letter 6/24/2020. CHAPTER 15: NAPA RIVER RECLAMATION DISTRICT NO. 2109 415 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR and NCFCWCD, and the area would benefit from the larger organization and staff expertise of NCFCWCD. Additionally, the County could levy its enforcement ability as the land use authority in unincorporated territory to ensure proper maintenance of levees on private property. NRRD’s wastewater services could continue as is or could be reorganized into a CSD as described above with wastewater as an authorized service separate from reclamation services. Other Options Prior MSRs and SOI reviews identified other governance structure options which were not pursued further: 1. Reorganize into a county water district926 – similar to formation of a CSD, this option allows for selective activation of desired services including wastewater services and reclamation services. However, the designation as a “water district” perpetuates a potential “disconnect” between the district’s name and actual services provided. The water district offers no advantages compared to a CSD. 2. Form a geologic hazard abatement district (GHAD)927 – this option would add a new district authorized to address flooding hazards but would not further empower any additional services; the 2016 NRRD MSR stated that formation of a GHAD appeared unnecessary. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. NRRD should develop a capital plan to anticipate future system repair and replacement costs, and to assure that current rates and reserves will be adequate to address future needs. 2. NRRD should expand the content available on its website to include financial documents such as past and current budgets and financial reports. Additional content can be added, as resources permit, to improve public access to District information and to comply with Assembly Bill 2257 (Government Code §54954.2). 3. NRRD and LAFCO should defer any governance reorganization actions pending the outcome of current community meetings underway that will result in decisions about expansion of reclamation funding, infrastructure and services. The outcome of these meetings and NRRD decisions will influence the governance options that could be considered at that time. 4. Depending on further NRRD decisions about reclamation services to be provided, NRRD and NCFCWCD should further investigate the potential for NRRD to become a zone of NCFCWCD, solely for the purpose of reclamation services (wastewater services would continue under NRRD), and evaluate potential costs and benefits including increased enforcement authority, clarification of liability issues related to levee maintenance, and the benefits of sharing of technical expertise and resources. Reorganization could depend upon property owner approval of additional tax or assessment funding. 926 Napa River Reclamation District No. 2109 SOI Review, Final Report, April 2007. 927 Napa River Reclamation District No. 2109 MSR & SOI Update, LAFCO of Napa County, Final Report, Dec. 2016. CHAPTER 15: NAPA RIVER RECLAMATION DISTRICT NO. 2109 416 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR NAPA RIVER RECLAMATION DISTRICT NO. 2109 DETERMINATIONS Growth and Population Projections v No significant increase in current District population and service demand that would affect service delivery and infrastructure is anticipated within the timeframe of this MSR. The Location and Characteristics of Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities Within or Contiguous to the Agency’s SOI v No DUCs exist within or contiguous to the Agency’s SOI. Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities and Adequacy of Public Services, Including Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies v Current wastewater capacity and services are adequate. The District anticipates the need to replace aging facilities including its siphon in the near future. v NRRD is in the process of studying its reclamation needs and engaging the community in discussions about alternatives for future reclamation funding, facilities and services to address concerns about potential flood risks. Financial Ability of Agencies to Provide Services v NRRD has the ability to continue providing wastewater services. Reserves appear to be sufficient to fund anticipated repair and replacement of aging infrastructure, however, NRRD does not have a CIP or other plan to identify future capital needs and funding sources. v The expansion of reclamation services depends on additional funding such as assessments, which are currently being discussed by NRRD with the community. Status of, and Opportunities for, Shared Facilities v NRRD collaborates with NCFCWCD on various reclamation-related activities, including shared funding of a study of reclamation needs. Governance structure options exist whereby this collaboration could be formalized and expanded, for example, if NRRD were to become a zone of NCFCWCD for reclamation purposes. v As noted by prior MSRs and SOI reviews, NRRD and its residents should explore opportunities to work with the Napa County Resource Conservation District (NCRCD) to educate constituents with regard to activities to control settlement along their portion of the levee.928 928 Napa River Reclamation District No. 2109 MSR & SOI Update, LAFCO of Napa County, Final Report, Dec. 2016. CHAPTER 15: NAPA RIVER RECLAMATION DISTRICT NO. 2109 417 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR Accountability for Community Service Needs, Including Governmental Structure and Operational Efficiencies v NRRD conducts regular public hearings in conformance with the Brown Act and maintains a website to provide information to its residents. Relationship with Regional Growth Goals and Policies v NRRD’s SOI excludes substantial areas within its boundaries which are owned and utilized by NRRD for its wastewater plant, and which are designated by the County as “Agriculture, Watershed, and Open Space” similar to adjacent lands outside the District. v Excluding approximately 20 acres consisting of NRRD’s wastewater plant from NRRD’s SOI is consistent with LAFCO’s policy to not promote “urban development within land designated as agriculture or open-space under the County General Plan.”929 929 Napa LAFCO Resolution No. 2016-5, Dec. 5, 2016. CHAPTER 15: NAPA RIVER RECLAMATION DISTRICT NO. 2109 418 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR 16. NA PA SA N I TATI O N DI STRI CT AGENCY OVERVIEW Napa Sanitation District Profile Contact Information Contact: Andrew Damron, Technical Services Director 1515 Soscol Ferry Road Address: Napa, CA 94558 Website: https://www.napasan.com/ Phone: 707-258-6000 Email: info@napasan.com Formation Information Date of Formation: 1945 Agency type: Independent special district Governing Body Governing Body: Board of Directors Members: 5 The mayor and one council member of the City of Napa, a County Supervisor, and Manner of one Director appointed by Length of Selection: each the City and the County. term: Varies Soscol WRF 1515 Soscol Ferry Road Board Room First and third Wednesdays of Meetings Location: Napa, CA 94558 Meeting date: each month Mapping and Population Population GIS Date: 2019 (2018): 83,061 (2019)930 Purpose Wastewater and reclaimed water (active) Operation of a refuse or disposal Enabling Health and Safety Code 4700 Empowered system and street cleaning Legislation: et. seq. Services: (latent) Municipal Services Provided (directly Wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal or by contract) Treatment, storage, and distribution of non-potable water supplies Area Served LAFCO-approved Boundary Size/Wastewater Overlapping and surrounding Service Area: 22.1 square miles Location: the City of Napa in Central Napa 930 LAFCO estimate based on an aggregate of the NapaSan’s estimate of encompassing 93 percent of the City of Napa’s population (79,490), the islands surrounded by the City of Napa (2,291), and the Silverado unincorporated community (1,280). CHAPTER 16: NAPA SANITATION DISTRICT 419 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR Napa Sanitation District Profile Most recent Current SOI: 26.4 square miles SOI update: 2014931 Includes existing customers in Recycled Water unincorporated areas of Napa Service Area: 13.4 square miles County Municipal Service Reviews 2014 Central County Region Municipal Service Review 2005 Comprehensive Sanitation and Wastewater Treatment Study Past MSRs: 2004 Comprehensive Water Service Study Boundaries NapaSan’s boundaries overlap nearly all of the City of Napa as well as most surrounding unincorporated development, including the Silverado area and the Napa Valley Gateway Business Park. NapaSan’s existing boundary is approximately 22.1 square miles in size and covers 14,132 acres. All developed parcels have established wastewater services with NapaSan. The Commission has approved and recorded 440 annexations covering 7,498 acres since 1963 increasing the District’s service area by one-half. Since the most recent MSR was adopted for NapaSan in 2014, LAFCO has processed 20 annexation applications for the District comprised of 297.6 acres. Sphere of Influence NapaSan’s SOI–which includes two distinct and non-contiguous areas centering on the City of Napa and the Silverado area–was most recently amended in 2015 to include the County Jail site932 that was later annexed and again in 2018 to include the Alston Park territory that was simultaneously annexed.933 The District’s sphere presently encompasses 26.4 square miles or 16,895 acres. For a detailed description of the history of NapaSan’s SOI, refer to LAFCO’s Municipal Service Review on the Central County Region (2014). 931 The District’s most recent comprehensive SOI update was in 2014. Most recent SOI amendment was the Alston Park SOI Amendment on December 3, 2018. 932 LAFCO Resolution 2015-07. 933 LAFCO Resolution 2018-16. CHAPTER 16: NAPA SANITATION DISTRICT 420 Napa Sanitation District (NSD) Figure 16-1 £¤ 29 B ig R a D n r y C c h R S ilv R e d w r e e k R o a d o a d e r a d o T r a il o nti c ell o R o a d o M o d R o Trancas Street a d C a J lif e f o f r e n r Browns Valley Road ia B o u le v a r d s o n S t r e e t S o s c o l A Coombsville Road v e n Old Sonoma Road u e Imola Avenue £¤ 12 Stanly Lane £¤ 221 £¤ 29 Airport Legend Boulevard NSD Jurisdictional Boundary £¤ 12 NSD Sphere of Influence 0 0.5 1Miles Lake Yolo Calistoga December 12, 2019 St. Helena Prepared by LAFCO Staff Sonoma Yountville Sonoma NSD Napa Solano LAFCO of Napa County 1030 Seminary Street, Suite B Napa, California 94559 American Marin Canyon http://www.napa.lafco.ca.gov NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR ACCOUNTABILITY AND GOVERNANCE NapaSan is organized as a “dependent” special district, meaning that its Board is not directly elected, but consists of appointed officials from the Napa City Council and County Board of Supervisors. NapaSan’s Board is comprised of five board members, which serve different terms of office, depending on the agencies they represent. One of the two City members is the Mayor of the City of Napa, the other City member serves at the pleasure of the Mayor. The County member is appointed or re-appointed annually by the County Board of Supervisors. The public member appointed by the City is appointed to a four-year term. The public member appointed by the County Board of Supervisors is appointed to a two-year term of office. Board meetings are held on the first and third Wednesdays of each month at 4 pm in the Board room at the Soscol Water Recycling Facility. Agendas are posted at the District’s office and on the District’s website at least 72 hours prior to a meeting. Meeting minutes are also made available on the District’s website. Former agendas and minutes that are not available online are made available for review at the District’s office. The Financial Auditor and the Legal Counsel for NapaSan are contracted services. These functions report directly to the Board. All other functions report to the General Manager. NapaSan is organized into three departments—Operations Services, Technical Services and Administrative Services, each headed by a Director. Under each Director, there are several departments. The District primarily conducts outreach via its website, which makes available information on meetings, bill paying, rates and fees, wastewater services, recycled water services, water quality results, current project descriptions, and planning documents. The website also solicits sign up for subject specific mailing lists on areas of constituent interest and invites the public to come for tours of its facility. In addition to its website, the District also operates the Community Outreach & Pollution Prevention Program, which is a cross- departmental program designed to ensure that NapaSan communicates transparently with ratepayers and stakeholders, and acts proactively to disseminate its pollution prevention message through school programs, community events and treatment plant tours. Additionally, every year, NapaSan puts out a Spring and Fall Pipeline newsletter that goes to every customer in the District. The newsletter contains information about pollution prevention, NapaSan events, and any new NapaSan programs. As part of the District’s most recent Strategic Plan, the Board adopted a goal to focus on community outreach and communications in order to provide ratepayers with the information they need to understand NapaSan’s mission, operations, finances and rate structures. In order to accomplish this goal, the District created the following departmental objectives which are ongoing:934 v Work with community partners to promote NapaSan’s services and rate structure (Community Outreach & Pollution Prevention), 934 NapaSan, Budget FY 19-20, p. 23. CHAPTER 16: NAPA SANITATION DISTRICT 422 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR v Respond to requests for information from the general public and other local agencies within three working days of request (Engineering), 935 v Partner with local agencies for collection of unwanted medications from drop-off sites (Community Outreach & Pollution Prevention), v Conduct plant tours and make public presentations (Community Outreach & Pollution Prevention), v Promote and deliver classroom presentations targeting elementary school students (Community Outreach & Pollution Prevention), v Continue public outreach on proper disposal of fats, oil and grease (FOG) (Community Outreach & Pollution Prevention), v Develop and disseminate to stakeholders pollution prevention best management practices (BMPs) as necessary Community Outreach & Pollution Prevention), and v Continue Spanish language outreach for pollution prevention messages (Community Outreach & Pollution Prevention). As a result of the standard of services provided by NapaSan, the District has won awards for its performance over the last three years. v In 2018, NapaSan was designated a “Utility of the Future Today” by the National Association of Clean Water Agencies, the Water Environment Federation, WateReuse Association and the Water Research Foundation. v The Government Finance Officers Association of the United States and Canada presented the Distinguished Budget Presentation Award to NapaSan for its annual budget for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2018. In order to receive this award, a governmental unit must publish a budget document that meets program criteria as a policy document, as an operations guide, as a financial plan, and as a communications device. v California Water Environment Association Redwood Empire Section Awards 2018 - NapaSan was awarded the Supervisor of the Year Award, and the Collection Systems Person of the Year Award. v NapaSan was awarded the Popular Annual Financial Reporting Award in 2017 and 2018 by the Government Finance Officers Association. v WateReuse Agricultural Project of the Year in 2016 - This award was for the expansion of the recycled water system including the pipelines into the MST and LCWD use areas. As mentioned, NapaSan maintains a website with information readily available for the public. The Special District Transparency Act (SB 929) signed into law in 2018 requires special districts in California to have websites be set up by January 1, 2020 and holds special districts accountable to the Brown Act, which mandates transparency. NapaSan’s website meets the requirements of SB 929. 935 NapaSan, Budget FY 19-20, p. 23. CHAPTER 16: NAPA SANITATION DISTRICT 423 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR In 2016, the State Legislature enacted Assembly Bill 2257 (Government Code §54954.2) to update the Brown Act with new requirements governing the location, platform and methods by which an agenda must be accessible on the agency’s website for all meetings occurring on or after January 1, 2019. NapaSan is compliant with the AB 2257 requirements as it has a dedicated webpage that provides the required agenda information. The District has demonstrated transparency and accountability throughout the MSR process by responding promptly and thoroughly to requests for information, participating in an interview and workshops, and reviewing draft reports comprehensively. GROWTH AND POPULATION PROJECTIONS Based on the District’s estimates, residents of the City currently account for approximately 93 percent of the District’s total population.936 The remainder of the population is divided between three unincorporated areas with the bulk lying within 13 islands surrounded by Napa but served by NapaSan followed by the Silverado and Penny Lane areas. It is estimated that as of January 1, 2019 there were approximately 83,061 residents within NapaSan. This estimate is based on an aggregate of 93 percent of the City of Napa’s population (79,490), the islands surrounded by the City of Napa (2,291), and the Silverado unincorporated community (1,280).937 Recent growth trends between 2012 and 2017 show that the area within the City has had an average annual growth rate of 0.57 percent, which is greater than the unincorporated areas that experienced an average annual growth rate of 0.21 percent during that same time period.938 The District projects population growth to be 0.75 percent annually over the next four years in its current financial plans; although, growth will likely be higher in the short term inside the Napa City limits. Based on this estimate, the District’s population would reach 85,581 by 2023. By comparison, should the population continue to grow at a slightly slower pace as was experienced in recent years (0.57 percent in incorporated areas and 0.21 percent in unincorporated areas), then the District is projected to have a population of 85,825 by 2025 and 88,128 by 2030. The District plans to serve three new developments and has provided Will Serve letters for all three. Stanly Ranch is a luxury Resort, Winery and Residential Community in Napa, California, to be developed on the vineyards of the historic 712-acre Stanly Ranch. When completed, the 500,000 SF development will include a luxury 135-room Resort & Spa, 70 Vineyard Homes, 40 Villas and Winery. Stanly Ranch construction commenced Fall 2018 and is anticipated to open Q1 2021. 936 Napa Sanitation District, Budget FY 19-20, p. 123. 937 Napa LAFCO, Memo: Current and projected (2025 & 2030) population for the County, cities and affected districts 938 Annual percentage change calculation: Department of Finance data for years 2012-2017 was used. The change in population, especially unincorporated area, between 2017-2018 was significant due to wildfires and loss of homes. Therefore, the time period from 2012-2017 was used to calculate average annual growth, as it was more indicative of normal population change. CHAPTER 16: NAPA SANITATION DISTRICT 424 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR Development has long been considered on a 305-acre Montalcino Napa Valley property. The site is fully entitled, with a 379-room full-service, high-end resort hotel being contemplated. The Napa Pipe site is located at 1025 Kaiser Road in unincorporated Napa County, about three miles south of downtown Napa, on the east side of the Napa River, and northwest of the intersection of SRs 29 and 221. The owner of the 154-acre property has proposed a high- density residential neighborhood with open space, neighborhood-serving retail, restaurants and a hotel on the western portion of the site (about 63 acres), and a Costco on the eastern portion of the site. The project, which calls for 945 housing units over several phases along with the retail development, is spread across two jurisdictions — the City of Napa and Napa County. DISADVANTAGED UNINCORPORATED COMMUNITIES LAFCO is required to evaluate disadvantaged unincorporated communities as part of this service review, including the location and characteristics of any such communities. NapaSan does not serve any DUCs. According to Napa LAFCO’s definition of DUCs, there are currently no disadvantaged unincorporated communities in Napa County. Based on the adopted policy, the Commission annually reviews Census Bureau American Community Survey data to determine if local and/or statewide median household income levels have changed.939 939 Napa Local Agency Formation Commission, Policy on Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities, 2018. CHAPTER 16: NAPA SANITATION DISTRICT 425 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR FINANCIAL ABILITY TO PROVIDE SERVICES The Napa Sanitation District provides wastewater services supported by rate revenues and charges; no property tax revenue accrues to NapaSan. The following table summarizes selected financial information for NapaSan’s wastewater operations. The agency’s Fiscal Profile in Appendix A provides additional detail and indicators. Figure 16-2: Summary of Selected Financial Information, Napa Sanitation District Napa Sanitation District FY18-19 Sanitation Budget Net $10,080,000 Operating Revenues $30,670,000 Operating Expenditures (inc. debt service) $20,590,000 Ending Fund Balance as % of Operating Revenues 62% Ending Fund Balance $18,910,000 Debt as a % of Operating Revenues 15% Total Debt Outstanding (as of 6/30/2019) $50,490,000 Monthly Wastewater Rates as a % of Household Income 0.8% Typical Monthly Rate $56 Median Household Income (2017) $82,361 Pension+OPEB Total Payments % of Revenue 9.1% Pension+OPEB Payments (before additional contributions) $2,800,000 Unfunded Pension Liability $14,050,000 Unfunded OPEB Liability $6,550,000 See Appendix A-16 2019-07-22 Balanced Budget Recurring operating deficits are a warning sign of fiscal distress. In the short-term, reserves can backfill deficits and maintain services. However ongoing deficits eventually will deplete reserves. NapaSan’s projected FY19 operating revenues (excluding capacity charges) exceed expenditures (including debt) by $10.1 million, or about 49%. Fund Balances, Reserves and Liquidity Fund balances and reserves should include funds for cash flow and liquidity, in addition to funds to address longer-term needs. Cash reserves should be adequate to respond to system emergencies, temporary deficits, economic downturns and fiscal emergencies, as well as to fund needed capital improvements. After accounting for capital expenditures, the District’s projected balance declined about $2.2 million from FY18 to FY19, to an ending balance of $18.9 million or about 62 percent of operating revenues; this ending balance is allocated to operating reserves ($6 million) and CHAPTER 16: NAPA SANITATION DISTRICT 426 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR operating cashflow reserves ($12.5 million); $400,000 are the net additional funds undesignated but available for use.940 The NapaSan’s wastewater service charges, representing about 80 percent of total revenues, are collected on property tax bills and therefore minimal revenue is received from July through November; NapaSan must retain sufficient cash for expenditures during this period. NapaSan’s liquidity ratio, which is positive (current assets exceed current liabilities), indicates the short-term (less than one year) availability of these funds if needed. NapaSan’s financial policies require cash flow reserves to exceed operating expenditures for July 1 through November 30 (in addition to operating reserves).941 Net Position An agency’s “Net Position” as reported in its CAFR represents the amount by which assets (e.g., cash, capital assets, other assets) exceed liabilities (e.g., debts, unfunded pension and OPEB liabilities, other liabilities). A positive Net Position provides an indicator of financial soundness over the long-term. NapaSan has an unrestricted net balance of $11.65 million;942 the balance of its net position (assets exceeding liabilities) is invested in capital assets and/or restricted. Rates and Charges Wastewater and recycled water operations are primarily funded by service charges. Enterprises are allowed to establish charges sufficient to fund their cost of service. NapaSan’s rates are less than one percent of median household incomes.943 Rates typically are expected not to exceed 2-2.5 percent of household income, for each utility.944 NapaSan offers a low-income assistance program that provides for a 28 percent reduction in sewer service rates; the program’s $141,000 costs are funded by NapaSan lease revenues (not from rate revenues).945 NapaSan established a 5-year schedule of rate increases for FY17 through FY21.946 After initial rate increases of about 15 percent for FY17 and FY18, increases slowed to about 4-6 percent.947 A low-income assistance program provides rebates to property owners meeting certain criteria. NapaSan collects a “capacity charge” (also called a connection fee) from new development to address impacts on system expansion. The fee in FY19 for a single-family unit is $9,520.948 NapaSan prepared a Capacity Charges Report for FY18 documenting that 940 NapaSan Operating and Capital Budget Fiscal Year 2018/19, pg. 36. 941 NapaSan Financial Policies, Reserve Policies 2.3, Updated May 16, 2018. 942 (NapaSan, 2018), Statement of Net Position, pg. 9. 943 Based on median household income of $82,361 for the City of Napa, according to the American Community Survey 2017, DP03, 5-Year estimates. See appendix for detailed estimate of typical household charges. 944 Teodoro, et al, (2018) cite USEPA’s Financial Capability Guidebook (USEPA 1984) as original source for the use of personal income as a measure, although it was not applied to rates in the 1984 document. 945 NapaSan Interview, April 4, 2019. 946 Napa Sanitation District Sewer Service Charge Rate Study, January 2016, NBS. 947 Napa Sanitation District Code “5.01.010 Rates”. 948 NapaSan website (NapaSan, n.d.) CHAPTER 16: NAPA SANITATION DISTRICT 427 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR the charges were being used for their intended purpose consistent with Government Code §66013.949 NapaSan collects its wastewater service charges on property tax bills. While an alternative method of more frequent direct billing was considered, analysis recommended NapaSan continue with its current, lower cost billing method.950 Long-term Debt Excessive long-term debt incurs interest charges that consume financial resources that could otherwise fund needed services and capital improvements. Studies indicate that a majority of debt-paying water and wastewater agencies surveyed spent between 10% and 30% of their total operating revenues on debt service.951 NapaSan spends about 15 percent of operating revenues for debt service,952 which falls within a reasonable range of 10 percent to 25 percent.953 In 2017, NapaSan issued $14.185 million of bonds to refund 2009 Certificates of Participation, and secured by revenues which provide significantly more than a minimum 1.2 coverage ratio relative to debt service of approximately $1.8 million annually and $4.5 million for all debt.954 S&P rated the debt AA/Positive Outlook, an improvement compared to NapaSan’s prior 2012 AA-/Stable Outlook rating.955 Both ratings are defined as “high investment-grade” indicating a “Very Strong” capacity to meet financial commitments and differing from the highest rating only to a small degree.956 Pension and OPEB Liabilities Unfunded pension and OPEB liabilities present one of the most serious fiscal challenges facing many cities and districts. Total annual pension payments and potential changes in current Napa Sanitation pension costs do not appear to be a significant adverse factor relative to its total budget. NapaSan has established a trust to accrue funds to paydown its OPEB obligations. The Napa Sanitation District provides pension benefits to its employees through NapaSan’s CalPERS plan, which is divided into three tiers, or benefit levels, based on date of hire. NapaSan’s unfunded pension liability is approximately $14 million.957 NapaSan’s Tier 1 pension liabilities are approximately 69 percent funded as of the end of FY17, while the Tier 2 pension liabilities are approximately 90% funded and the Tier 3/PEPRA pension liabilities are approximately 96% funded.958 CalPERS projections indicate a stable payment towards 949 Capacity Charges Report for Fiscal Year 2017-18. 950 Napa Sanitation District Cost of Service Rate and Capacity Charge Study, FINAL, August 2018. 951 http://efc.web.unc.edu/2014/02/17/napshot-debt-service-as-percent-of-total-operating-revenues/ 952 Appendix A, Napa Sanitation District Fiscal Profile. 953 Benchmarking and Measuring Debt Capacity, Government Finance Officers Association, June 2000. 954 NapaSan FY18 CAFR, Note 4 – Long-Term Debt, pg. 20, and Debt Service Coverage past Ten Years, pg. 42. 955 NapaSan Operating and Capital Budget Fiscal Year 2018/19, pg. 254. 956 Bond Credit Rating, Wikipedia, retrieved 2/28/19 from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bond_credit_rating#Rating_tier_definitions (Wikipedia, n.d.) 957 NapaSan FY18 CAFR, Statement of Net Position, pg. 9. 958 CalPERS Actuarial Valuation as of June 30, 2017 for the Napa Sanitation District, pg. 5. CHAPTER 16: NAPA SANITATION DISTRICT 428 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR “normal” pension costs and a decline in payments towards unfunded pension liabilities by FY25 compared to FY20.959 NapaSan provides Other Post Employment Benefits (OPEB) to retired employees and their surviving spouses through CalPERS. For the year ending FY18 NapaSan’s actuarially determined contribution rate is 18.09 percent of covered employee payroll. The net unfunded OPEB liability was $6.6 million at the end of FY18 of a total OPEB liability of $10,072,678.960 In 2010 NapaSan established an OPEB Trust Fund that is about 35-40 percent funded and is expected to be fully funded in about eight to ten years.961 The combined pension payments (normal and unfunded liabilities) plus OPEB payments is about $2.8 million annually, or 9.1 percent of operating revenues.962 In FY19 NapaSan made an additional $135,000 retirement liability payment to CalPERS in excess of the minimum required contribution.963 Capital Assets Capital assets must be adequately maintained and replaced over time and expanded as needed to accommodate future demand and respond to regulatory and technical changes. As a general indicator, the California Municipal Financial Health Diagnostic compares changes in the value of assets and asset improvements.964 Persistent and substantially negative trends, particularly without a reasonable plan for stabilizing declines, raise caution and warning signs. This negative condition can occur if repairs and replacements do not keep pace with aging infrastructure. Depreciation typically spreads the life of a facility over time to calculate a depreciation amount for accounting purposes. The actual timing and amount of annual capital investments require detailed engineering analysis and will differ from the annual depreciation amount, although depreciation is a useful initial indicator of sustainable capital expenditures. The value of depreciable capital assets increased about 7.5 percent from FY17 to FY18. The change in accumulated depreciation of $8.6 million (after deducting depreciation attributed to retired assets)965 was more than offset by additions to capital value. NapaSan’s performance goals include: “Rehabilitate or replace at least 1.3% of the Collection System sewer mains” annually; this goal is expected to increase to 2.0% in 2020.966 The FY19 budget reports that it has achieved or exceeded this goal since 2014, except for 2016 when NapaSan achieved 1.1%.967 NapaSan rehabilitated 2.2% of the collection system in 2017, 2.5% in 2018, and 2.4% in 2019.968 959 (NapaSan, 2017) 960 NapaSan FY18 CAFR, Required Supplementary Information, pg. 32. See also: (NapaSan, 2017). 961 (NapaSan Interview, 2019). 962 CalPERS Actuarial Valuations June 30, 2017, estimated FY19, and GASB 75 Report, Oct. 20, 2017, pg. 3, projected FY18. 963 Correspondence with J.Tucker, NapaSan, 1/13/2020. 964 The California Municipal Financial Health Diagnostic: Financial Health Indicators, League of California Cities, 2014. 965 NapaSan FY18 CAFR, Note 3 – Capital Assets, pg. 19, including reduction in accumulated depreciation due to retirement of assets. 966 NapaSan Strategic Plan 2019-2021, Goal 1, Objective 1A. 967 NapaSan Operating and Capital Budget Fiscal Year 2018/19, pg. 19. 968 NapaSan comments 3/6/2020 on Admin. Draft Report. CHAPTER 16: NAPA SANITATION DISTRICT 429 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR NapaSan maintains and regularly updates a 10-year Capital Improvement Plan.969 The Plan identifies each project, its cost, its funding, and impacts on NapaSan’s operating budget (e.g., potential energy savings). NapaSan generally has funded the Plan each year consistent with the needs identified in the Plan. Financial Planning and Reporting Achieving transparency and public accountability standards dictates that cities and agencies provide easily accessible and clear documentation of their activities, including financial information. Website – NapaSan’s website includes descriptions of and access to current and past water and wastewater financial documents. Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) -- NapaSan’s CAFR is published in a timely manner within six months of the end of the fiscal year. Operating and Capital Budget – NapaSan’s budget is produced annually and describes the annual spending plan for operations and capital. The budget includes long-term budget forecasts and descriptions of forecasting assumptions. Popular Annual Financial Report (PAFR) – NapaSan’s PAFR is published alongside the CAFR and conveys a summary of financial information, plus narrative and charts to clarify and add context to financial data for non-financial readers. Capital Improvement Program – The annual 10-year CIP is updated each year as part of the budget process. Asset Management Plan (AMP) – NapaSan has an Asset Management Plan.970 Cost of Service/Rate Study – The basis for NapaSan’s current rates is a study prepared in 2016.971 969 Capital Improvement Plan, NapaSan FY19 Budget, pg. 73. 970 Napa Sanitation District Asset Management Plan, Prepared by GHD, July 2017. 971 Napa Sanitation District Sewer Service Charge Rate Study, January 2016, NBS. CHAPTER 16: NAPA SANITATION DISTRICT 430 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR RECYCLED WATER SERVICES NapaSan provides recycled/reclaimed water to several connections for irrigation purposes. The non-potable water is produced at Soscol Water Recycling Facility (SWRF) and distributed to connections via the dedicated reclaimed pipeline system or pumped and trucked to customers. The District’s recycled water system was prompted by limitations on the amount of discharge from the treatment facility into the Napa River during non-discharge periods and NapaSan’s desire to allow for growth of demand and its treatment system. Type and Extent of Services Services Provided NapaSan’s core recycled water program currently distributes approximately 2,000 afy for irrigating landscaping, industrial parks, golf courses, pasture lands, feed and fodder crops, cemeteries, the Napa State Hospital, Napa Valley College ball fields and landscaping, a recreational park, and vineyards. Pipelines have been extended to serve the Milliken-Sarco- Tulocay (MST) area east of the City of Napa, the Stanly Ranch area to the west of the facility, and the residents of the Los Carneros Water District, located west of the Stanly Ranch pipeline. Figure 16-3: Recycled Service Connections by Type Recycled Water Connections in Service Area Commercial/Institutional 13 Industrial 3 Landscape Irrigation 10 Agricultural Irrigation 77 Total 103 Source: NapaSan Annual Recycled Water Report, 2018 Service Area NapaSan’s recycled water service area differs from its LAFCO approved boundaries, as recycled water services are exempt from needing LAFCO approval prior to extension of services beyond an agency’s boundaries under Government Code §56133. The District’s recycled water service area in comparison to its wastewater service area is shown in Figure 16-4. As shown, the District’s recycled distribution system serves areas to the northeast, southeast, and west of its boundaries. It should be noted that this service area is based on the extent of the District’s existing pipeline infrastructure. The District serves outside of the defined service area shown in Figure 16-4 via trucking of recycled water to local customers for agricultural purposes, such as irrigation of vineyards CHAPTER 16: NAPA SANITATION DISTRICT 431 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR and pastureland. The District has two truck filling stations at its treatment facility, and another in the Coombsville area at Silverado Middle School. The service area for distribution of trucked water is limited by district policies and supply capacity. Growers can either haul the water themselves or hire a company to haul recycled water to their property; NapaSan does not provide recycled water delivery by truck. NapaSan has adopted program requirements that must be met prior to the commencement of hauling recycled water, as follows: 1. An agreement must be entered into between the recycled water user and NapaSan, which sets forth the reuse program authority and contractually binds the user to abide by the reuse program rules. 2. Each tanker truck that will be used to transport recycled water must be labeled to notify the public, users, and workers that recycled water is being hauled in the tank and that it is not fit for human consumption. Inspection by NapaSan staff will verify that this requirement has been met. 3. Training by NapaSan will be provided to the truck driver regarding the procedures to follow when filling the truck tank under normal conditions, and what to do in case of an emergency. 4. NapaSan will issue a truck hauling permit to the user, which must be carried in the truck at all times. An annual fee of $50 is required at the time of permit issuance. Additionally, NapaSan has adopted a policy to prioritize recycled water allocation as follows:972 1. Current recycled water customers; 2. Parcels within the District’s existing service area close to the District’s existing recycled water system that either have not yet developed, or have already developed but not yet connected to the District’s recycled water; 3. Parcels for which an agreement has been executed with the District committing recycled water in the future; 4. Parcels that have been or will be required to use recycled water by local land use authorities or retail water suppliers; and 5. Parcels in areas where a recycled water delivery system has been studied and funding is being arranged for construction of piping. 972 Napa Sanitation District, Resolution No. 11-004, p. 2. CHAPTER 16: NAPA SANITATION DISTRICT 432 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR Figure 16-4: Wastewater and Recycled Water Service Area S ta te H ig h R d w a y 2 9 B ig R an ch R S ilv Atl a s P e ak d e ra P artrick R R edw o od R d D ry C reek R d d o T rl Monticello H R a d gen Rd 3 rd A d Je ve ffe rso n S t M ain S t 1st St 1 s t A 3rd St v e Henry Rd d R a m o n o S d Ol d R g ih u D M ilton R d CHAPTER 16: NAPA SANITATION DISTRICT 433 dR retsoF M ou nt V e eder R d Dr D iv r e iv w e a w y ay O S o la r n c o A h ve ard L A uk v S e e a D l D v r a ri d E ve o l w r C H a A u e y n v n t e e t O r r D o a R r k a i A v n K e c v n h w e o R a l d l y A D ve rivewa P y e D t r r i a ve D w a r y S o d a C a n y o n R d Drivew H D i a ll r c W y i r v e e s s e t t g w D at r e a Dri v e w ay D n y r de D A D v ya w e r v irD e ri i v v ew e a w y ay D riv e w a y Driv e w ay H a ire L n Lea D T r n ive w w D i a y n e i a g n ly O L O n S a a c B k k u e W h m s D n a i n t r D i A h c v e e r r D s T h r T o R m p s r o n d A o v A e w rgy e le r S A t ve K L S in d i a S V l t is b t a a A i v u e e t C L e a r ro r l n D P U a r r H a u i A t n a i r g A v e e h T h e H v l S r w e o S S a S G ol d e m n G at t e a Dr t n t t G e y a P c P V n H C E 1 a i i C S e l n l i l v 2 y l s a l l a t a e a R S W L L r S y n S t n S T t S I t r t m O e E t e o l a m l k L a n S S Dri v A e w ay B t t v S a o e s s c S o a K l t A l R o t a v e n R n o C e E a d s s s t W A I v e C c m o e a r e S y o t a s t e e o H D d ig h a w m a s y 2 a 2 l A 1 r a t t r t b D v D D A s A r e i r r v v v v e i e e l w le a P L M y R a a G a d l ra m dr o D N n r 2 n d e o Av e R a r p D p t 4t h A L v h e n r A D rive w W v a y e L i a l k K d B E e r M a e H 3 a u r r z i r o r C e d e o G R r r o w d s r A L u e e n v e n L e V n n t r a V y l a l L e lle n y y R Rd d Drive way D rive w a y Drive way B e ntl e y W h arf R d Las Amiga B s a D R y r v d iv i e e w w a y Ave Drive way d N Airport R A d irport R D d e d R n ilve D vlin N R K d e d R y lle K S lly R D d riveway State P ols H o n R d ighway 12 Driv e w ay Green Island Rd Driv e w ay Driveway ya w d a o rB B ro a d w a y yawevirD NapaSan Sewer Service and RW Service Areas ± NapaSan Sewer Service Area NapaSan RW Service Area Admin Office, Corporate Yard, Soscol WWTP Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community I:\Dept\Engineering\11 Topics\GIS mapping\Website maps\NapaSan Sewer Service and RW Service Areas.mxd 2019-03-14 Miles 0 0.5 1 2 3 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR Services to Other Agencies NapaSan provides water and services to Los Carneros Water District (LCWD). In 2018, a pipeline was extended to LCWD allowing NapaSan to provide 100 percent of irrigation water to LCWD residents that chose to connect to the distribution system. NapaSan owns and operates the distribution system within LCWD’s boundaries and bills the connections directly. Assessments to fund the pipeline and new infrastructure extended to LCWD are collected through the County Auditor’s office. Additionally, NapaSan has an agreement with City of Napa to serve those areas within the city limits that receive recycled water. The recycled water distribution system to these areas is owned and operated by NapaSan. Contracts for Services The County provides IT, accounting, treasury, and assessor services to NapaSan by contract. Overlapping Service Providers While NapaSan largely overlaps the City of Napa, there are no known concerns of overlapping or duplicative service deliveries, as NapaSan provides the only source of recycled water to City customers. The two agencies appear to capitalize on collaborative efforts and a close communicative relationship, which minimizes the potential for duplication of services. In order to formalize the two agencies’ roles, NapaSan reached a 20-year agreement with Napa in 1998 allowing the District to solicit and provide reclaimed water service within a specified area of the City’s water service area. Referred to as the “reuse area,” the agreement defines NapaSan’s recycled service area as lands east of the Napa River, south of Imola Avenue, west of SR 221, and north of American Canyon. The agreement also allows NapaSan to deliver reclaimed water to the Napa State Hospital, Stanly Ranch, and the South Napa Market Place. NapaSan agrees to reimburse Napa for the loss of potable water sales revenue in the event customers take delivery of recycled water in lieu of potable water from the City. NapaSan also agrees to furnish up to 50 acre-feet per year of reclaimed water to Kennedy Park and Napa Valley College in exchange for 11 acre-feet of potable water usage. The existing agreement terms automatically extend if the agreement is not renewed. The City of Napa has indicated that they wish to modify the terms of the agreement. NapaSan is waiting for the City’s proposal. Collaboration NapaSan and the City of Napa collaborate on various aspects of service provision to improve efficiency and effectiveness. The two agencies benefit from a joint water conservation program and collaboration on pipeline projects where the City can plan to make street improvements in tandem with NapaSan pipeline renewal/construction projects. Also, NapaSan, the City of Napa, and Napa Recycling coordinate scheduled tours of the wastewater treatment plant, water treatment plant, and recycling facility for Napa area students. Additionally, the recently completed Coombsville recycled water truck filling station in the MST area is a joint project with the County and funding coming from the MST CFD and the State. CHAPTER 16: NAPA SANITATION DISTRICT 434 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR Staffing NapaSan recycled water distribution services are managed by the Water and Biosolids Reclamation Department. The Department is staffed by three positions—the Reclamation Systems Director, and two maintenance workers. Recycled water is produced by the SWRF staff, as a result of wastewater operations. Recycled Water Supply Up until 2015, NapaSan was only able to produce reliably about 2,000 acre-feet of recycled water during the irrigation season (May-October), and during this time was successful in delivering the water to customers or for application on NapaSan property. In FY15, NapaSan completed construction of the recycled water system expansion at the treatment plant. This allowed NapaSan to deliver reliably about 3,700 acre-feet of recycled water during the irrigation season. In FY16, NapaSan completed construction of five miles of recycled water pipeline in the MST area, and nine miles of recycled water pipeline in the LCWD area. The expansion of pipeline to these areas allows for increased distribution, which is expected to reach the production capacity of NapaSan once new customers connect to the system.973 During the non-irrigation season (November-April), the District will pump recycled water to those that want to fill storage for later months at a reduced rate. March of every year has the lowest rate of the year. Water pumped during the off season does not count against the allocation to those areas. In 2018, 281 acre-feet of water were pumped for storage during the off season by NapaSan customers.974 The volume of recycled water produced annually from 2014 to 2018 during the irrigation season is shown in Figure 16-5. As shown, the total amount of water produced has increased, which is attributable to the increased capacity at the treatment facility and the extension of pipelines leading to greater demand than in previous years. Figure 16-5: Recycled Water Produced During Irrigation Season (2014-2018) Water Produced (acre-feet) 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Recycled Water 1,777 1,816 1,988 2,166 2,222 Source: Napa Sanitation District, Response to Request for Information, January 22, 2019. Recycled water supplies are highly reliable during drought events; although, total wastewater flows may be reduced slightly. This is because wastewater flows are primarily generated by indoor water uses which are not reduced significantly during drought conditions compared to outdoor uses. Additionally, in cases where recycled water use is replacing the use of potable water, it increases the reliability of potable supplies. 973 NapaSan, Performance Measurement Report, 2017, p. 95. 974 NapaSan, Response to Request for Information, Flow Data, January 22, 2019. CHAPTER 16: NAPA SANITATION DISTRICT 435 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR Recycled Water Demand Recycled water sales are affected by the weather—cooler, wetter spring and summer months result in less need to irrigate and, therefore, lower volumes of water are sold. Similar to the volume of water produced, NapaSan has experienced an increase in sales of 52 percent of recycled water over the last five-year period from 2014 to 2018. It is anticipated that sales will continue to rise as additional customers are connected to the system. Figure 16-6: Recycled Water Sales (2014-2018) Demand for Recycled Water (acre-feet) User Type Level of 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Treatment Landscape and Recycled 1,337 1,422 1,603 1,799 2,035 Ag Irrigation Water Source: NapaSan, Budget FY 19-20, p. 131 Sales do not account for all recycled water uses in the District’s system, as a portion is applied on District-owned property to grow crops where biosolids have been applied or for disposal, and thus was non-billable. The recycled water is used entirely for irrigation of landscape and agriculture by several different land use types. Figure 16-7 breaks down the water use by connection type in 2018. As shown, golf courses constituted NapaSan’s largest recycled water user, while vineyards made use of the second largest volume. Figure 16-7: Recycled Water Use by Type (2018)975 Schools Parks Cemeteries 2% 1% 4% NSD use 8% Commercial Golf courses landscape 45% 15% Vineyards 25% 975 NapaSan, 2018 Recycled Water Annual Report, p. 1 CHAPTER 16: NAPA SANITATION DISTRICT 436 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR Recycled Water Infrastructure and Facilities Recycled water is produced by the Napa Sanitation District at the Soscol Water Recycling Facility, located along the Napa River just south of the SR 29 bridge. Wastewater enters the facility and is treated to secondary levels and discharged to the Napa River or treated to tertiary levels and beneficially reused for irrigation. NapaSan is permitted to discharge to the Napa River from November 1 through April 30 (the wet season period). From May 1 through October 31 (the dry season period) discharge to the Napa River is prohibited and the wastewater is either stored in stabilization ponds or treated to the tertiary level and distributed within the recycled water system. At present, the recycled water system consists of 27 miles of pipeline composed of PVC and ductile iron pipe. Figure 16-8 illustrates NapaSan’s recycled water distribution system. Figure 16-8: Recycled Water Distribution Pipelines NapaSan Recycled Water Pipeline Map ± NapaSan Sewer Service Area Parcels Irrigated with Recycled Water Existing RW Pipelines MST RW Pipelines LCWD RW Pipelines Napa, CA NapaSan Water Resource Recovery Facility I:\Dept\Engineering\11 Topics\GIS mapping\Website maps\NapaSan Recycled Water Pipeline Map.mxd 2019-03-14 Miles 0 0.5 1 2 3 CHAPTER 16: NAPA SANITATION DISTRICT 437 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR At the treatment plant, major investments were made to expand the treatment process to accommodate increased recycled water demand and distribution in southern Napa County. The sand filter system was expanded, and an equalization basin was constructed to provide a constant flow of water to the filters and increase filter efficiency. The recycled water pump station was expanded and enhanced to provide different pressures in the system and increase distribution capacity. A dissolved air flotation (DAF) clarifier was built to increase treatment capacity. Together, these projects allowed NapaSan to increase recycled water production from 2,000 acre-feet to 3,700 acre-feet per year. Construction of the five-mile MST recycled water pipeline was completed at the end of 2015 in partnership with NapaSan, Napa County and local landowners. The MST pipeline was built to deliver 2,000 acre-feet per year and up to 700 acre-feet of water per year in the near term. The nine-mile LCWD pipeline was also completed at the end of 2015 in partnership with the LCWD. It was built to deliver 1,600 acre-feet per year and up to 450 acre-feet of water in the near term. At present, demand for recycled water is well within capacity of the treatment plant. In 2018, 2,222 acre-feet of recycled water was produced, which constitutes 60 percent of the plant’s maximum production capacity of 3,700 acre-feet. Demand for recycled water is anticipated to continue to rise in the coming years, as demonstrated in Figure 16-9. The District has made projections for recycled water needs in the Recycled Water Strategic Plan (2005) and the Recycled Water Cost of Service and Rate Study Report (2012); however, conditions have since changed, and these projections are outdated. Figure 16-9: Recycled Water Forecasted Production (2020-2040) Recycled Water Production Projections (acre-feet) Use Type 2018 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 Irrigation/Landscape 2,222 2,400 2,800 3,700 3,700 3,700 Source: NapaSan, Request for Information, 9/23/19 The pipelines and distribution system were designed to accommodate the area to be served; consequently, capacity is not presently nor is it anticipated to be a concern in the near term. The recycled water distribution system was constructed relatively recently. While NapaSan has been using reclaimed water for spraying on district-owned property since the 70s, the first paying customer for recycled water was connected to the new Kirkland Pipeline in 1998. The older portion of the system is considered to be in generally good condition; although the age and material of the pipeline indicate a need to confirm condition through an assessment which is scheduled to occur this year. There were no leaks in the system in 2018. The Kirkland Pipeline is scheduled for rehabilitation in FY 20-21, should the condition be worse than expected. In 2015, the District installed both the MST and Los Carneros pipelines, which are considered to be in excellent condition. CHAPTER 16: NAPA SANITATION DISTRICT 438 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR Shared Facilities While the District does not practice facility sharing with other agencies, it collaborates with other agencies on joint projects and initiatives as previously described. The District did not identify any potential for future facility sharing with regard to recycled water services. Infrastructure Needs Since the District’s Recycled Water Master Plan was compiled in 2005, conditions have changed, and the plan has become outdated. The plan proposed extending service to the Silverado area as Phase 3 of the expansion of the system; however, it has since become apparent that extension to that area is challenging. Future expansion strategies will need to be outlined in a new plan. Overall, the District anticipates the potential for small expansions to the system, but nothing significant, at least not in the short term. NapaSan identified a need for storage of recycled winter water for use during summer months.976 Additionally, the District is considering the potential for potable reuse; however, the State is still developing a framework for regulation. NapaSan’s 10-year CIP plans for capital projects to the recycled water system. These capital projects are also accounted for in the District’s annual budget. Projects in FY 19-20 include the completion of the Coombsville Recycled Water Truck Fill Station, rehabilitation of the Kirkland Pipeline, and continued environmental plan development and grant applications with the North Bay Water Reuse Authority. Additionally, the District has planned for replacement of the Badger meters and replacement of tractor attachments used in biosolids application. These projects combined are allocated $619,700 in FY 19-20. Over the next 10 years through FY 27-28, planned major capital improvements include the Kirkland Recycled Water Pipeline Rehabilitation, the North Bay Water Reuse Project, a third water reservoir, Phase 2 expansion of the recycled water system, and an upgrade of a Soscol pump station. These projects have been allocated $9.7 million over the time frame.977 Recycled Water Quality Water recyclers are required to meet State quality standards for beneficial reuse. Title 22 of California’s Water Recycling Criteria refers to California state guidelines for how treated and recycled water is discharged and used. Title 22 requires the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) to develop bacteriological and treatment standards for each level of treated water that is recycled or reused. The regional water boards issue permits for individual water recycling projects in accordance with statewide criteria established by CDPH. Revisions to Title 22 were adopted and published in December 2000. The revamped Title 22 lists 40 specific uses allowed with disinfected tertiary recycled water (such as irrigating parks), 24 specific uses allowed with disinfected secondary recycled water (such as irrigating animal feed and other unprocessed crops), and seven specific uses allowed with undisinfected secondary recycled water (such industrial uses). 976 Interview with NapaSan staff, April 4, 2019. 977 NapaSan, FY 18-19 Budget, p. 87. CHAPTER 16: NAPA SANITATION DISTRICT 439 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR NapaSan treats recycled water for reuse to tertiary standards, meaning the reclaimed water can be made available for the widest variety of uses. The District met the treatment standards established by CDPH every day in 2018. The District has struggled in the past with high chloride levels and continues to monitor chloride levels. During the fall of 2014, NapaSan staff noticed an increase in chloride concentrations in wastewater influent flow and recycled water produced at the treatment plant. Since wine grape vineyards have a low tolerance for chloride in irrigation water, NapaSan staff monitored the chloride levels. When chloride concentrations continued to increase during the fall of 2015, NapaSan began investigating commercial and industrial wastewater sources and exploring what could be happening in the collection system that could contribute to higher chloride concentrations. Collection system videos of the sewer pipelines in areas of high chloride concentration identified two locations of substantial groundwater infiltration. Spot repairs to these damaged areas resulted in a 20 percent reduction in chloride concentration in wastewater influent flow and recycled water produced by NapaSan. Additional sewer collection system rehabilitation was performed to reduce saline groundwater infiltration and adjustments were made at the treatment plant to reduce chloride concentrations. Because of the collection system fixes and operational changes at the treatment plant, peak chloride levels in 2017 were approximately 30 percent lower than in 2016 and 40 percent lower than 2015. NapaSan continues to monitor chloride levels in influent and recycled water. Because of collection system fixes and operational changes at the treatment plant, chloride levels in 2018 remained low. NapaSan will continue to monitor chlorides and keep recycled water users informed of current chloride levels. 978 978 NapaSan, 2018 Recycled Water Annual Report, p. 1 CHAPTER 16: NAPA SANITATION DISTRICT 440 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR WASTEWATER SERVICES The District provides sewage collection, treatment and disposal services to its service population through approximately 37,535 connections (as of 2018)979 and 270 miles of collection system pipelines. Upgraded treatment facilities have a dry weather treatment design capacity of 15.4 million gallons per day (mgd). Type and Extent of Services Services Provided NapaSan provides collection, treatment and disposal of wastewater via its Soscol Water Recycling Facility. Service Area All developed parcels within NapaSan’s boundaries are connected to the District’s system, meaning there are no developed properties that rely on septic systems. NapaSan serves four connections outside of its boundaries—four residences (two served by one connection) and the Napa State Hospital.980 The location of the out of area service connections are shown in Figure 16-10. Government Code §56133 mandates that a city or district may only provide new or extended services by contract or agreement outside its jurisdictional boundary if it first requests and receives written approval from LAFCO with certain exceptions. This requirement went into effect as of January 1, 2001; therefore, any connections that occurred prior to that date are considered in essence “grandfathered in.” Of NapaSan’s out of area connections, two occurred prior to the State mandated date; the Napa State Hospital connected sometime in the 1950s and the residential connection on El Centro981 occurred in approximately 1977. The other two residential connections were appropriately approved by application to LAFCO in 2013982 and in 2015.983 NapaSan does not have policies specific to the extension of services outside of its boundaries or sphere of influence. NapaSan’s service area is further defined in a JPA dissolution agreement with the City of American Canyon. NapaSan owns and operates the sewer collection system and recycled water distribution system in the unincorporated areas (business/industrial parks) in the areas north of Fagan Creek. The City of American canyon is responsible for areas south of Fagan Creek. There are a few properties that are exceptions (Chardonnay/Eagle Vines Golf Course and the Napa County Airport) that are south of Fagan Creek, but sewer/recycled water service is provided by NapaSan. Services to Other Agencies NapaSan does not provide wastewater services to other agencies. 979 NapaSan, Budget FY 19-20, p. 125. 980 APNs 038-110-035, 039-310-017, 052-080-026, 046-450-020-000 (primary APN for Napa State Hospital, however the facility extends to multiple APNs) 981 APN 038-110-035 982 LAFCO Resolution No. 2013-09. 983 LAFCO Resolution No. 2015-08. CHAPTER 16: NAPA SANITATION DISTRICT 441 Napa Sanitation District (NSD) Figure 16-10 £¤ 29 B ig R a D n r y C c h R S ilv R e d w r e e k R o a d o a d e r a d o T r a il o nti c ell o R o a d o M o d R o Trancas Street a d C a J lif e f o f r e n r Browns Valley Road ia B o u le v a r d s o n S t r e e t S o s c o l A Coombsville Road v e n Old Sonoma Road u e Imola Avenue £¤ 12 Stanly Lane £¤ 221 £¤ 29 Legend Airport Boulevard NSD Jurisdictional Boundary NSD £¤ Sphere of Influence 12 NSD Outside Sewer Connections 0 0.5 1Miles Lake Yolo Calistoga December 30, 2019 St. Helena Prepared by LAFCO Staff Sonoma Yountville Sonoma NSD Napa Solano LAFCO of Napa County 1030 Seminary Street, Suite B Napa, California 94559 American Marin Canyon http://www.napa.lafco.ca.gov NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR Contracts for Services The County provides IT, accounting, treasury, and assessor services to NapaSan by contract. Overlapping Service Providers While NapaSan largely overlaps the City of Napa, the two agencies provide two distinct services—wastewater and water utilities—and there are no known concerns of overlapping or duplicative service deliveries. The two agencies appear to capitalize on collaborative efforts (as described below) and a close communicative relationship, which minimizes the potential for duplication of services. Collaboration NapaSan and the City of Napa collaborate on various aspects of service provision to improve efficiency and effectiveness. NapaSan partners with the City to run a large recycling program for oils (Recycle More Program), which directly benefits NapaSan by minimizing the cooking oils that are entering the wastewater system. The two agencies also benefit from a joint water conservation program and collaboration on pipeline projects where the City can plan to make street improvements in tandem with NapaSan pipeline renewal/construction projects In the past, NapaSan was part of a joint-powers agreement with the American Canyon County Water District, which was known as the Napa-American Canyon Wastewater Management Authority (“Authority”) in 1975. The Authority, which paralleled an existing service arrangement between the two affected parties in which NapaSan was already providing treatment through a common force main located near the Napa County Airport, facilitated the construction of the SWRF in 1978 to supplement ongoing operations at the Imola WTP.984 The Authority was dissolved in 1994 following the incorporation of American Canyon and subsequent dissolution of the water district; however, NapaSan continues to provide services to the Napa County Airport via an agreement with the City of American Canyon. Staffing In total, NapaSan has 53 positions to manage and operate all services provided by the District—one in the General Manager’s Office, seven in Administrative Services, 33 in Operations Services, and 12 in Technical Services. Of the Operations Services staff, 29 full- time equivalents are dedicated to operation and maintenance of the wastewater collection, treatment and disposal system. The 53 positions here include the three positions also contributing to the recycled water distribution previously mentioned. Wastewater Flow Wastewater is collected throughout NapaSan’s service area from 37,535 connections (23,849 single family, 8,393 multi-family, and 5,293 commercial/industrial) and transmitted to the Soscol Water Recycling Facility. The District operates under Order No. R2-2016-0035 984 Napa LAFCO, Central County MSR, 2014, p. 66. CHAPTER 16: NAPA SANITATION DISTRICT 443 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR (NPDES No. CA0037575) issued by the RWQCB2. The permit limits influent flow into the plant to an average dry weather flow no greater than 15.4 mgd.985 The average dry weather flow (May-October) of wastewater into the treatment facility was approximately 6.2 mgd, while the average wastewater flow for the entire year was approximately 7.4 mgd in calendar year 2018. Figure 16-11: NapaSan Average Annual Wastewater Influent Flows (2014-2018) Napa Sanitation District Average Annual Influent Flows (mgd) 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 7.6 7.7 8.1 10.6 7.4 Source: NapaSan, Budget FY 19-20, p. 124 While the number of connections served by NapaSan has risen over the last five years, the District has experienced generally declining wastewater flows due to drought and resulting conservations measures, with 2017 being the exception given that it was the third wettest winter in recorded history for the area. Figure 16-12 shows average dry weather flows for the same time period, which are generally not impacted by wet weather. The Districts dry weather flow has been relatively constant over the five-year period. Figure 16-12: NapaSan Average Dry Weather Wastewater Influent Flows (2014-2018) Napa Sanitation District Average Dry Weather Influent Flows (mgd) 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 6.5 5.9 6.4 6.6 6.2 Source: NapaSan, Request for Information Flow Data, January 20, 2019 Wastewater collection systems can be impacted by significant wet weather events due to infiltration and inflow (I/I). All wastewater providers experience I/I to some degree, which results in higher flows at the treatment facilities. During these events, NapaSan’s wet weather flow is directed in part through the open 340-acre Oxidation Pond system. The Oxidation ponds provide treatment, allow flow equalization and flow management of the hydraulic load through the facility. On average, NapaSan discharges approximately 13.7 million gallons per day of treated wastewater to the Napa River during the wet season. During 2017, NapaSan experienced a peak wet weather discharge of 29.5. 985 RWQCB Order No. R2-2016-0035 (NPDES No. CA0037575). CHAPTER 16: NAPA SANITATION DISTRICT 444 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR Figure 16-13: NapaSan Peak Wet Weather Discharge (2014-2018) Napa Sanitation District Peak Wet Weather Discharge (mgd) 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 20.6 20.1 20.5 29.5 19.7 Source: NapaSan, Response to Request for Information, 9/23/19. Wastewater Infrastructure and Facilities Wastewater Treatment Plant NapaSan owns and operates the Soscol Water Recycling Facility (SWRF), which was built in 1978 (upgraded in the 1990’s and again in 2015), and its associated collection system. The SWRF is a secondary and tertiary biological physical-chemical treatment facility that treats a mixture of domestic and industrial wastewater. NapaSan wastewater processes include primary treatment, activated sludge facilities, four oxidation ponds, clarifiers, sludge digestion and solids de-watering facilities. As previously noted, NapaSan’s permit for the treatment facility limits influent flow into the plant to an average dry weather influent flow no greater than 15.4 million gallons per day. Additionally, treatment capacity is further constrained by permitted discharge limits. NapaSan is permitted to discharge to the Napa River from November 1 through April 30 (the wet season period). The District provides full secondary treatment at its wastewater facility whenever discharging to the Napa River. From May 1 through October 31 (the dry season period) discharge to the Napa River is prohibited and wastewater is either stored in stabilization ponds or treated to the tertiary level and beneficially reused for irrigation of landscaping, industrial parks, golf courses, pastures, feed and fodder crops, cemeteries, Napa Valley College ball fields, a recreational park, and vineyards. At present, the District has the capacity to treat and distribute up to 3,700 acre-feet of recycled water during the irrigation season. During the reclamation season, influent wastewater is treated in the same manner as during the wet season; however, after secondary treatment, oxidation pond system effluent is commingled with activated sludge effluent and then sent for coagulation, filtration, and chlorination before reclamation. Flows not used for reclamation remain in the oxidation ponds and do not undergo clarification until the wet season begins and discharge to the Napa River is allowed. Reclamation is regulated under Regional Water Board Order No. 96-011 (General Water Reuse Order). The District created a Wastewater Treatment Master Plan in 2011 to prioritize improvements and expansion projects through 2030. The Plan found that over the next 20 years, the District needs to expand the influent pump station, add activated sludge treatment capacity, expand recycled water production facilities, and complete the second egg-shaped CHAPTER 16: NAPA SANITATION DISTRICT 445 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR digester to accommodate more biosolids.986 While the influent pump station (2016) was replaced and the recycled water capacity has been expanded (2015), the construction of the second digester and third aeration basin start dates were pushed back to FY 24-25 based on the current and projected flow and loading numbers. The completed improvements expanded capacity at the treatment plant and increased capacity to reclaim water. The District reported that it plans to continue expansion efforts; however, given the updates to the treatment system and the changes in conditions since the Master Plan was compiled, the District recognizes the need to update the master plan within the next two years. In addition, the District has had to address unplanned capital projects due to the South Napa Earthquake in August 2014, which damaged several parts of the treatment plant, including the digester tower. NapaSan was able to complete these repairs in FY 2017/18, with financial assistance from the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the California Office of Emergency Services. The District has made significant strides towards improving efficiency of its system and making use of alternative energy sources. In FY 17-18, the District was able to power the treatment facility with 53 percent of self-generated energy. The District 1) optimized controls to minimize energy use, 2) installed jockeys at pump station to only used what is needed, 3) changed overhead lighting to lower use, 4) accepts high-strength fats, oil, and grease (FOG) into the anaerobic digester for increased methane production; 5) burns methane from the anaerobic digester in a cogeneration engine to produce electricity; 6) invited review by PG&E to make recommendations on how to reduce energy use, 7) installed solar, and 8) stores excess energy in Tesla batteries for when needed. Collection System NapaSan owns and maintains its sewer collection system, which includes gravity sewer mains, street service laterals, and pump stations. The majority of the collection system was constructed between 1942 and 2006 but some pipes are over 100 years old. The system includes approximately 270 miles of sewer pipelines, 33,000 street service laterals, approximately 5,565 sanitary sewer manholes and an estimated 50 to 75 flush holes. Gravity sewer pipe sizes range from 4- to 66-inch diameter and are constructed of vitrify clay pipe (VCP), polyvinyl chloride (PVC), reinforced concrete (RCP), and asbestos cement (ACP). Figure 4-1 shows the type of pipe comprising the collection system by age and by size. The majority of the pipe is ACP with diameters of 12-inch or smaller.987 NapaSan regularly cleans and inspects a substantial portion of its collection system every year. In 2017, NapaSan cleaned 115 miles of sewer mains, which is 42.5 percent of the system. Crews also video inspected over 25 miles of pipeline to assess its condition.988 In 2018, NapaSan cleaned 156 miles of sewer main (58 percent of the system) and video inspected over 45 miles of pipeline (17 percent of the system). The District’s 2007 Collection System Master Plan reported that the District’s collection system was composed of many older sewers that were installed prior to the Clean Water Act, when I/I flows were not a concern and pipeline construction methods did not achieve watertight joints. The District completed wet weather flow monitoring studies, which 986 NapaSan, Wastewater Treatment Master Plan, 2011, FAQ-2. 987 NapaSan Collection System Master Plan, 2007, p. 4-1. 988 NapaSan, PAFR FY 17-18, p. 8. CHAPTER 16: NAPA SANITATION DISTRICT 446 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR confirmed that the District’s collection system had high I/I flows, but otherwise had been maintained in good condition for its age. In 2017, the third wettest year on record, the District’s system experienced a peaking factor (peak wet weather flow/average dry weather flow) of approximately eight, which is indicative of a high level of I/I. The level of I/I in the collection system is the primary capacity constraint for NapaSan. NapaSan is aware of the I/I and has initiated a long-term targeted program to address problem areas. As a part of the plan, the District aims to replace approximately two percent of its system annually. The District is on track to meet this target. In FY 17-18, NapaSan repaired or replaced 5.8 miles of aging sewer pipeline, which represent 2.1 percent of the entire system. NapaSan also repaired or replaced 578 laterals throughout the system in the same year.989 The District conducts flow monitoring prior to the start of a project and following completion to quantify the impact of the capital improvement. Between 2011 and 2018, collection system rehabilitation projects resulted in a reduction of peak flow of 16.4 mgd. Locations that have had overflow problems in the past have been corrected. However, the District foresees that projects and improvements will be ongoing in order to fully address the issue. To provide more details regarding the integrity of the District’s sewer system and adequacy of its services this report includes analysis of sanitary sewer overflow information and regulatory compliance data. All wastewater agencies are required to report sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs) to SWRCB. Sewer overflows are discharges from sewer pipes, pumps and manholes. Overflows reflect the capacity and condition of collection system piping and the effectiveness of routine maintenance. The sewer overflow rate is calculated as the number of overflows per 100 miles of collection piping per year. Over the last five complete years (2014-2018) there were 436 SSO events including all categories. A breakdown by year is shown in Figure 16-14. Averaged over the five-year period, the District’s SSO category 1 mainline spill rate was about 4.13 spills per 100 miles of mains. By comparison, other wastewater agencies in California average 4.69 category 1 mainline SSOs per 100 miles per year.990 Figure 16-14: NapaSan Sanitary Sewer Overflows (2014-2018) Sanitary Sewer Overflows (spills/100mi/yr) 5-Year Average Category 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 NapaSan State Region 1-Mainlines 4.79 0.0 1.47 13.64 0.74 4.13 4.69 6.27 1-Laterals 1.36 1.60 2.72 0.0 1.36 1.41 20.06 1.87 2-Mainlines 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.86 2.62 2-Laterals 0.0 0.0 0.68 0.0 0.0 0.14 8.22 12.94 3-Mainlines 4.42 2.58 1.47 2.58 1.47 2.50 7.37 10.49 989 NapaSan, PAFR FY 17-18, p. 8. 990CIWQS Reporting System, 8/14/2019. CHAPTER 16: NAPA SANITATION DISTRICT 447 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR Sanitary Sewer Overflows (spills/100mi/yr) 5-Year Average Category 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 NapaSan State Region 3-Laterals 68.21 49.8 37.41 41.61 39.56 47.32 24.81 22.41 NapaSan Total 78.78 53.98 43.75 57.83 43.13 55.49 State Total 126.46 57.49 81.68 41.44 83.23 78.06 Region Total 60.53 47.97 129.53 42.66 43.59 64.86 Source: CIWQS Reporting System, 3/27/19 RWQCB2 enforces the Clean Water Act, permit conditions and other requirements of wastewater providers. Violations of State requirements for wastewater providers and treatment facilities are recorded by SWRCB. The Board may levy fines or order the provider to take specific actions to comply with water quality regulations. The District has both a permit for treatment and discharge at the treatment facility (NPDES Permit No. CA0037575) and a general permit for its collection system. The District received one violation for its collection system in 2016 for failing to timely certify an SSO. In 2017, the District had three violations due to flows exceeding collection system capacity during storm events, which resulted in SSOs. The District received two Notices of Violation and a Staff Enforcement Letter as a result of these events.991 Infrastructure Needs At present the District’s Collection and Treatment Master Plans are both out of date. The District is in the process of updating its Collection System Master Plan and plans to update the Treatment Master Plan in the next two years. These plans are essential for appropriately planning for long-term capital needs. In lieu of up to date master planning documents, NapaSan has continued to plan financially for rehabilitation and expansion projects in its 10- year CIP. The budget for FY 19-20 allocates $4,305,000 towards treatment plant capital projects, including dredging solids from Pond 1, the completion of the 2019 Treatment Plant Improvement Project and the beginning of the 2020 Treatment Plant Improvement Project. These funds will also cover the beginning of the Treatment Plant Master Plan Update. Treatment equipment replacements include projects to replace equipment in the Headworks building, repairing and coating equipment in the primary clarifier and DAF clarifier, conducting elevator control updates, and replacing the telehandler. The total FY 19- 20 allocation is $2,872,300. Collection system capital projects represent significant and routine replacement or rehabilitation of existing pipeline or equipment. These projects are designed to replace or 991 SWRCB, California Integrated Water Quality System report, 3/27/19. CHAPTER 16: NAPA SANITATION DISTRICT 448 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR improve assets to extend their useful lives and to reduce I/I entering the collection system. Major projects beginning or continuing this year include the Browns Valley Trunk project, the Summer 2019 Sewer Rehabilitation project, the Summer 2020 Sewer Rehabilitation project, and the 66-inch trunk rehabilitation project. This budget item also includes the development of the Collection System Master Plan update. Collection system projects for the fiscal year total $20,201,500. Additionally, in FY 19-20, the West Napa Pump Station replacement project will begin. Lift Station capital projects for the year total $5,500,000. Over the 10-year period of the CIP, $70,785,300 is allocated to treatment projects and equipment and $162,720,150 is allocated to collection system projects, equipment, and lift stations. The most significant treatment plant projects are the installation of the second digester ($19.1 million) and the expansion of the aeration basin ($7 million), both of which are scheduled to start in FY 24-25. The most significant collection system projects are the Brown Valley Trunk ($28 million), 66-inch trunk rehabilitation ($18 million), and the West Napa pump station replacement ($11 million). Shared Facilities While the District does not practice facility sharing with other agencies, it collaborates with other agencies on joint projects and initiatives as previously described. The District did not identify any potential for future facility sharing with regard to wastewater services. CHAPTER 16: NAPA SANITATION DISTRICT 449 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE OPTIONS Over the course of this review, several NapaSan governance structure options were identified with respect to NapaSan, including possible service structure modifications, territorial changes, governance alterations, and reorganizations with other agencies. The feasibility of each of these options is generally assessed here; however, more in-depth review would be required to refine specifics of process and structure should the affected agencies or LAFCO choose to move forward. Merger with the City of Napa There have been at least three separate reviews over the last 25 years regarding the merits of reorganizing NapaSan. The first formal review was initiated by NapaSan in 1995 in response to a grand jury report. The review considered–among other items–two alternatives: 1) reorganizing the District as an independent special district with a directly elected board or 2) merging with the City of Napa. This review–prepared by a NapaSan subcommittee in consultation with LAFCO, the City of Napa, and the County–produced a recommendation that was ultimately enacted through special legislation to increase the number of appointed board members of the existing sanitation district from three to five with the two new seats belonging to members of the public—one new seat appointed by the City and the other new seat by the County. The second review was performed directly by the Commission as part of its inaugural municipal service review of NapaSan. This review determined that the current governance structure appropriately balances the interests of both the City and the County while allowing NapaSan to remain independent in matters affecting local land use decisions. The third review was performed as part of the 2014 Central County Region MSR. The review considered transition to an independent sanitary district, functional consolidation with the City of Napa through contract, becoming a subsidiary district of or merger with the City of Napa, and transition into a County-dependent county service area. The study ultimately found that there was debate about the potential for greater accountability with an independent district, unclear benefits to a functional consolidation with the City, and no cost savings were associated with becoming another form of a dependent district. The study did not find significant advantages to reorganization of NapaSan in terms of cost efficiency, accountability, or governance. The current MSR assessment concurs with the previous analyses and adds that, in addition to a lack of identifiable benefits to a reorganization of NapaSan, there is also a lack of impetus for change. NapaSan is a well-managed agency that provides a high level of services as indicated in the MSR review and determinations for NapaSan. NapaSan is financially stable and continuously makes efforts to innovate and to improve efficiency. Additionally, there is no duplication of services, deficiency in service levels, nor inefficiency in the existing structure that requires repair. It is recommended that the district type, service structure, and governance structure remain unchanged. CHAPTER 16: NAPA SANITATION DISTRICT 450 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR Annexation of Los Carneros Water District Given that NapaSan provides almost all services to the customers within LCWD’s boundaries, which in essence is a “functional consolidation,” there is potential to streamline the service structure by eliminating a level of administration through a “full consolidation” of the two agencies. While there is no duplication of services, there is certainly potential for greater efficiency of service structure and elimination of duplicative overhead costs, as two separate agencies are not needed to offer the current level of services. It was recommended in LCWD’s 2016 MSR that the potential for reorganization of LCWD with NSD be assessed prior to 2023. At present, NapaSan is responsible for all aspects of treatment, distribution, and delivery of the reclaimed water to LCWD customers. NapaSan provides 100 percent of the water distributed within LCWD, owns and maintains the distribution system to the customer connections, acts as Water Manager, and bills the customers directly. LCWD was instrumental in getting the Carneros Pipeline completed by coordinating the funding and spearheading the existing assessment district. LCWD’s primary responsibility is repaying the loan, which partially funded the new infrastructure. Assessments to fund the pipeline and new infrastructure extended to LCWD are collected through the County Auditor’s office and used to repay the loan, which is to be paid off by 2028. LCWD is currently all volunteer; it has no employees. LCWD reported that it acts as a liaison between NapaSan and LCWD customers, disseminates information regarding rules of water use to customers, and fields all questions regarding the assessment district. At present, LCWD does not have a plan to extend or expand services offered. Given that NapaSan is providing all core services within LCWD and owns and operates the infrastructure, dissolution of LCWD and annexation of the territory by NapaSan would be relatively straightforward. The Assessment District would remain intact and the property owners would continue to be responsible for and secure the loan with the property assessment, while the manner of collection and payment on the loan would continue to be conducted by the County Auditor. While it does not appear that this would have adverse financial impacts, NapaSan has indicated concerns regarding the possibility of unintended consequences—for example on NapaSan’s current and future debt issuances. This reorganization option would require further analysis to assess impacts on existing debt indentures, consistency with bond council opinion and direction, reporting requirements to various State agencies, and GASB reporting guidelines or standards. As part of this process for this scenario, all financial and physical assets of LCWD would likely be transferred to NapaSan. LCWD does not have any equipment or infrastructure in its name. Financial assets of LCWD consist of a Restricted Debt Service Fund with a balance of $794,890 at the end of FY19992 and General Fund balance of approximately $55,000. Should NapaSan become the fiscal agent for the loan associated with LCWD’s assessment district as part of the reorganization, then the debt service fund requirements would transfer as well along with the entirety of the debt service fund balance. The quantifiable benefits of this reorganization would be a savings of approximately $20,000 to $30,000 each year, which is presently allocated to LCWD administrative costs, 992 LCWD Basic Financial Statements for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2019, Governmental Funds Balance Sheet, pg. 5. CHAPTER 16: NAPA SANITATION DISTRICT 451 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR including board expenses, legal and financial services. These services could likely be covered at little or no additional expense to NapaSan. Beyond cost savings, other potential benefits of a reorganization consist of 1) streamlining and improving clarity of service structure for customers, 2) elimination of duplicative administration and governance services, and 3) provision of all services by a well-managed professional agency with full-time staff and extensive expertise and resources. There are drawbacks to the potential reorganization of NapaSan and LCWD, including 1) elimination of a governing body with entirely local trustees that represent the interests of the landowners within LCWD and 2) limiting future water services offered in the area to the distribution of reclaimed water or other services which NapaSan is empowered to provide; although no service expansion has been nor is under consideration. Should LCWD not be interested in expanding its role in water provision in the area, then it would be appropriate to consider dissolution and annexation by NapaSan to realize cost savings and the other benefits of annexation. It is recommended that NapaSan and LCWD begin discussions regarding the possibility of moving forward with reorganization. Expansion of Services to other Agencies There are several small wastewater systems in Napa County which struggle to provide an adequate level of services. Smaller service providers in rural areas often must focus on day-to-day operations and do not have the staff capacity to conduct pre-planning and highly technical services. These agencies have expressed interest in either receiving support services or being fully taken over by a larger service provider. One such option is for NapaSan to take on the role of a regional sanitation provider by providing contract services to these small systems outside of its boundaries. Alternatively, NapaSan could expand its boundaries and annex the interested agencies; however, there are certain limitations to this option as a majority of the wastewater providers also provide potable water services. Smaller water service providers are facing challenges similar to the wastewater service providers; however, NapaSan could only take on wastewater services for the multi-service agencies, as sanitation districts are not empowered to provide potable water services. Separating the water and wastewater utility operations that are already offered together may result in a loss of efficiencies. Therefore, providing contract services is the preferred option. Contracting out services to agencies, or what also might be referred to as “functional consolidation,” allows for flexibility of service structure and, if successful, may be a step towards eventual “full consolidation” that would consist of annexation of the subject territory and dissolution of the agency or divestiture of wastewater powers (multi-service agencies) through LAFCO action. Although a long-term goal may well be a “full consolidation,” a “functional consolidation” may be better suited as an initial step in the process. The benefits of NapaSan providing its services by contract to interested agencies includes the following: 1. The provision of contract support services would allow for flexibility in the manner and nature of services to be provided to allow for tailoring to the needs of the CHAPTER 16: NAPA SANITATION DISTRICT 452 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR contracting agency, which could include provision of specific or limited services or consist of all administration and operations. 2. Contracting to agencies for services outside of the boundaries of NapaSan does not require LAFCO approval. 3. A contract would allow NapaSan and the contracting agency to test out the alternative service structure without making a long-term commitment. 4. The contracting agency would continue to exist and maintain local control. 5. “Functional consolidation” would allow each agency to retain its identity while at the same time combining resources or specialty assets and improving efficiencies. 6. Contracting could result in a reduction in equipment needs and duplication of efforts. 7. Contracting for services would not face the labor concerns that may result from a “full consolidation.” 8. Customers of the contracting agency would receive a high level of services and broader expertise from a larger, professionally operated service provider. While certainly beneficial to the contract agencies, this structure would only allow NapaSan to take on sewer services at multi-service agencies that may also desire water delivery support services. Another option identified during this review is the potential for a countywide county water district that could provide support or take on both water and wastewater services for interested agencies. This governance structure option is discussed in more detail in the Overview chapter of this report. Expansion of Services to Monticello Park The Monticello Park subdivision is located outside of NapaSan’s boundaries to the north. The subdivision is comprised of 131 developed parcels with single-family residences, all of which rely on septic systems. Some of the septic systems have started to fail, and replacements are cost prohibitive. Residents of Monticello Park have indicated an interest in receiving services from NapaSan in lieu of replacement of the failed septic systems. Expansion of NapaSan’s SOI to include the Monticello Road area was reviewed during the last SOI update in 2015 and was deemed not timely or feasible. Extension of needed services to the already developed area through provisions in Government Code §56133.5 is an option that would allow for needed services to the defined developed area. Any extension of wastewater service under Government Code §56133.5 would need to be authorized by the Commission as a separate action in response to a formal request in accordance with the Section. NapaSan has indicated that it is willing to extend services to the area, if residents expressed interest and submitted a request for services. However, given that the pipeline to the area is reportedly undersized to serve the additional demand from the Monticello Park community, extension of services to the area would require an engineering study to plan for a parallel pipeline or to resize the existing pipeline and to identify financing for the project, such as an assessment district. CHAPTER 16: NAPA SANITATION DISTRICT 453 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR RECOMMENDATIONS During the process of this review, the following recommendations are made to NapaSan regarding its wastewater and recycled water service delivery. 1. It is recommended that NapaSan and LCWD begin discussions about the possibility of moving forward with reorganization. 2. Given NapaSan’s level of services and expertise, it is recommended that NapaSan make technical support services available by contract to interested agencies. 3. NapaSan does not have policies specific to the extension of services outside of its boundaries or sphere of influence. It is recommended that NapaSan consider defining where outside services will be considered to prevent conflict with land use authority growth policies. 4. It is recommended that NapaSan's district type, service structure, and governance structure remain unchanged. 5. It is recommended that NapaSan consider defining where outside services will be considered. CHAPTER 16: NAPA SANITATION DISTRICT 454 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR NAPA SANITATION DISTRICT DETERMINATIONS Growth and Population Projections v Napa Sanitation District’s population, as of 2019, was approximately 83,061. v NapaSan’s population increased by 0.57 percent annually between 2012 and 2017. v NapaSan plans to serve three new developments and has provided Will Serve letters for all three—Stanly Ranch, Montalcino Napa Valley, and the Napa Pipe Project. Combined these projects would add two resorts, 1,015 housing units, a winery, and commercial/retail space. v LAFCO anticipates continued growth within NapaSan similar to the most recent five- year trend of 0.57 percent annually, with an anticipated population of 88,128 by 2030. The Location and Characteristics of Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities Within or Contiguous to the Agency’s SOI v According to Napa LAFCO’s definition of disadvantaged unincorporated communities (DUCs), there are currently no DUCs in Napa County. Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities and Adequacy of Public Services, Including Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies v At present, demand for recycled water is well within capacity of the treatment plant. In 2018, 2,222 acre-feet of recycled water was produced, which constitutes 60 percent of the plant’s maximum production capacity of 3,700 acre-feet during irrigation season. Demand for recycled water is anticipated to continue to rise in the coming years, reaching the maximum supply capacity of 3,700 acre-feet by 2030. v The level of recycled water services offered by NapaSan were found to be more than adequate based on integrity of the recycled water distribution system and compliance with water treatment requirements. The integrity of NapaSan’s distribution system is excellent as measured by the degree of annual water loss and the rate of main breaks and leaks per 100 miles of main. The District met the treatment standards established by CDPH every day in 2018. v NapaSan appropriately plans for its recycled water infrastructure needs in a 10-year Capital Improvement Plan. Over the next 10 years through FY 27-28, planned major capital improvements include the Kirkland Recycled Water Pipeline Rehabilitation, the North Bay Water Reuse Project, a third water reservoir, Phase 2 expansion of the recycled water system, and an upgrade of a Soscol pump station. v NapaSan has more than adequate capacity to accommodate existing and projected demand at its wastewater treatment plant. In 2018, NapaSan made use of 40 percent of the available treatment capacity at its plant. CHAPTER 16: NAPA SANITATION DISTRICT 455 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR v In 2017, the third wettest year on record, the District’s system experienced a peaking factor of approximately eight, which is indicative of a high level of infiltration and inflow (I/I). The District exceeded the wet weather capacity of its collection system at that time. The level of I/I in the collection system is the primary capacity constraint for NapaSan. NapaSan is aware of the I/I and has initiated a long-term targeted program to address problem areas. v The level of wastewater services offered by NapaSan were found to be adequate based on integrity of the wastewater collection system and regulatory compliance. Addressing the I/I issues will improve the level of service offered by the District. Financial Ability of Agencies to Provide Services v NapaSan has the ability to continue providing wastewater services. Revenues exceed expenditures (including debt) by about $10 million, or almost 50 percent of expenditures. q v The District allocates net revenues to reserves, which exceed minimum targets, and to capital improvements. Ending fund balances, net position and liquidity measures are all positive and indicate a stable position. v NapaSan established a five-year schedule of rate increases through FY21. Current rates are well below maximum burdens given median household incomes in the District. v The District’s increase in net capital assets in FY18 exceeded depreciation. The District maintains and regularly updates its 10-year capital improvement plan that includes anticipates costs and available funding. The District generally has funded the Plan each year consistent with the needs identified in the Plan. Status of, and Opportunities for, Shared Facilities v While the District does not practice facility sharing with regard to wastewater and recycled water infrastructure with other agencies, it collaborates with other agencies on joint projects and initiatives. v NapaSan partners with the City of Napa to run a large recycling program for oils (Recycle More Program). The two agencies also benefit from a joint water conservation program and collaboration on pipeline projects. Also, NapaSan, the City of Napa, and Napa Recycling coordinate scheduled tours of the wastewater treatment plant, water treatment plant, and recycling facility for Napa area students. v The recently completed Coombsville recycled water truck filling station in the MST area is a joint project with the County and funding coming from the MST CFD and the State. v No further opportunities for facility sharing were identified. CHAPTER 16: NAPA SANITATION DISTRICT 456 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR Accountability for Community Service Needs, Including Governmental Structure and Operational Efficiencies v The District Board holds regular appropriately noticed meetings. v The District primarily conducts outreach via its website, which makes available comprehensive information and documents to the public and solicits input from customers. The website complies with SB 929 and AB 2257 requirements. v The District has made significant strides towards improving efficiency of its system and making use of alternative energy sources. In FY 17-18, the District was able to power the treatment facility with 53 percent of self-generated energy through efforts to reduce energy usage and increase energy production and storage. Relationship with Regional Growth Goals and Policies v NapaSan is not a land use authority that takes part in regional planning efforts and therefore does not impact growth policy. v NapaSan provides outside wastewater services to four connections outside of its boundaries—four residences (two served by one connection) and the Napa State Hospital. Two connections were established prior to G.C. §56133 and are specifically exempt given that the service was extended prior to January 1, 2001. For the other two connections, LAFCO approval was appropriately sought. NapaSan does not have policies specific to the extension of services outside of its boundaries or sphere of influence. It is recommended that NapaSan consider defining where outside services will be considered. v A majority of the NapaSan’s recycled water service area lies outside of its boundaries to the northeast, southeast, and west. Recycled water services are exempt from requiring LAFCO approval prior to extension of services beyond an agency’s boundaries under Government Code §56133. v NapaSan makes its recycled water available for trucking through two filling stations. The District has appropriately adopted limitations on the location and type of uses for trucked water, to which users are required to sign agreement. v The Monticello Park community is experiencing failing septic systems, and replacement is cost prohibitive. There is a need for wastewater services in the area that could be provided by NapaSan. Extension of needed services to the already developed area through provisions in Government Code §56133.5 is an option that would allow for needed services to the defined developed area. CHAPTER 16: NAPA SANITATION DISTRICT 457 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR 17. SPANISH FLAT WATE R DI STRI CT AGENCY OVERVIEW SFWD Profile Contact Information Contact: Paul Quarneri, District Manager 4340 Spanish Flat Loop http://spanishflat.specialdistrict Address: Road, Napa CA 94558 Website: .org Phone: 707-966-1607 Email: spanishflatwd@gmail.com Formation Information Date of Formation: 1963 District type: Independent Governing Body 5 landowners or their legal Governing Body: Board of Directors Members: representatives Landowner-voter Manner of Selection: system Length of term: 4 years District office: 4340 Second Thursday of every Meetings Location: Meeting date: Spanish Flat Loop Road month. Mapping and Population GIS Date: December 2019 Population (2019): 413 Purpose Enabling California Water Code Water, wastewater, Legislation: 34000-38501 Empowered Services: hydroelectric power Municipal Services Provided (directly or by contract) Water, wastewater Area Served 1.9 square miles or Size: 1.185 acres Location: Lake Berryessa Region 2.1 square miles or Current SOI: 1,339 acres Most recent SOI update: 2013 Municipal Service Reviews 2011 Lake Berryessa Region MSR Past MSRs: 2005 Comprehensive Sanitation and Wastewater Treatment Study 2004 Comprehensive Water Service Study CHAPTER 17: SPANISH FLAT WATER DISTRICT 458 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR Boundaries Spanish Flat Water District (SFWD) is located in the eastern portion of Napa County along Lake Berryessa and includes four non-contiguous areas with the two distinct communities of Spanish Flat and Berryessa Pines, as shown in Figure 17-1. The District’s boundary area consists of approximately 1.9 square miles.993 There have been no boundary reorganizations since at least 2010. The District reported that it considers the current boundaries appropriate. Sphere of Influence The District’s current SOI consists of about 1,339 acres or 2.1 square miles. SFWD’s sphere of influence (SOI) was last updated in 2013 when it was expanded by 5.3 acres or 0.01 square miles to include two non-contiguous lots immediately adjacent to the Berryessa Pines subdivision and separated from each other by a 60-foot panhandle section of SFWD boundary area. At the time of the SOI amendment, these two lots had been already receiving domestic water and wastewater services from SFWD through out-of-area service agreements.994 Another area that is currently out of the District’s boundaries but within its SOI is a recreational storage facility north of Berryessa Pines along Berryessa-Knoxville Road.995 The District Board has reportedly voted to annex this area but has not yet submitted an application to LAFCO. 993 2011 Lake Berryessa Region MSR. 994 LAFCO Resolution No. 2013-08. 995 Spanish Flat Water District SOI Update 2007. CHAPTER 17: SPANISH FLAT WATER DISTRICT 459 Spanish Flat Water District (SFWD) Figure 17-1 Lake Berryessa B e r r y e s s a K n o x v ille R o a d S Lp o o p a n is Legend R o a h F la dt SFWD Jurisdictional Boundary SFWD Sphere of Influence 0 0.325 0.65Miles Lake Lake Berryessa Yolo Calistoga December 11, 2019 St. Helena Prepared by LAFCO Staff Sonoma SFWD Yountville Napa Solano LAFCO of Napa County 1030 Seminary Street, Suite B Napa, California 94559 American Marin Canyon http://www.napa.lafco.ca.gov NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR ACCOUNTABILITY AND GOVERNANCE SFWD is governed by a five-member Board of Directors elected to four-year staggered terms. Directors must be landowners within SFWD or their legal representatives. Voters also have to be landowners; each landowner has one vote for each dollar that his or her property is assessed. Because of the lack of contested elections, the Board of Supervisors has been consistently appointing directors to the District’s Board. There are currently no vacancies on the District’s Board of Directors. The Board meets on the second Thursday of each month at the District’s office at 4340 Spanish Flat Loop Road. Agendas are posted on two bulletin boards—one located by the mailboxes at the Spanish Flat Country Store area and one at the entrance to the Berryessa Pines subdivision. SFWD has published a website, but it does not yet meet all legal requirements. The Special District Transparency Act (SB 929) signed into law in 2018 requires special districts in California to have websites be set up by January 1st, 2020 and holds special districts accountable to the Brown Act, which mandates transparency. SFWD is in the process of constructing a new website and has recently published it but is still compiling information on the site and it cannot be found through a web search. While the site meets the minimum requirements of having an established website, it is unclear if the content meets all SB 929 requirements as the website is still being finalized. While finishing construction of the website, SFWD should ensure that it is also meeting the agenda posting requirements in AB 2257. SFWD demonstrated marginal accountability and transparency in its disclosure of information and cooperation with Napa LAFCO. The District cooperated with some of the requests for information; however, the District’s limited cooperation required numerous follow-up attempts. GROWTH AND POPULATION PROJECTIONS Based on the number of households in the District and an average number of persons per household, SFWD has an estimated population of 413.996 Residential uses comprise the majority of development within SFWD’s two service areas. Spanish Flat is the slightly larger of the two service areas. Besides single-family homes, it contains a mobile home park. Berryessa Pines is entirely comprised of single-family residences.997 Of note is the impact of the August 2020 Lightning Complex Fires, which razed the 59- home mobile home park within the Spanish Flat community leaving 56 mobile homes destroyed and 35 additional single family homes burned. Additionally, the fire destroyed a portion of SFWD’s water and wastewater facilities serving the community, including the wastewater pump station building and controls, lake pump controls and power pole, water tank tops on west hillside. Given this drastic and recent change in the composition of the area, the following discussion regarding potential for growth and development may not be relevant until the area is substantially rebuilt. 996 Napa County Planning Department. 997 Napa LAFCO, Lake Berryessa Region Municipal Service Review, 2011. CHAPTER 17: SPANISH FLAT WATER DISTRICT 461 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR The buildout population within SFWD is expected to total 560. This projection assumes the development of all 62 existing undeveloped lots presently within SFWD. Although the undeveloped lots gradually may get developed, some do not connect to the District’s utility systems. The District expects slow growth in the next five to 10 years.998 Current non-residential uses within SFWD are limited to the Spanish Flat service area. Future non-residential uses in SFWD are expected to increase as a result of the planned and pending redevelopment of the Spanish Flat Resort site, which closed in 2008. The concession area is now known as the Foothill Pines Resort but is not developed and is operated as a campground and for recreational vehicle uses by the U.S Bureau of Reclamation. The campground is connected to the SFWD water system but has its own private septic system. Potential plans for the area consisted of the addition of 130 guest cabins; however, these plans have not yet come to fruition. Aside from the potential development of the Foothill Pines Resort, the potential for other non-residential uses in and around SFWD’s two service areas is limited, due to County zoning regulations. The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) projects that the population of unincorporated Napa County and the entire County as a whole will grow by about six percent from 2020 to 2030. The California Department of Finance (DOF) has similar projections for Napa County. Thus, the average annual population growth in the unincorporated areas as well as Napa County as a whole is anticipated to be approximately 0.6 percent. Based on these projections, the District’s population would increase from 413 in 2019 to 438 in 2030. Napa LAFCO has developed its own population projections. To project future growth, LAFCO calculated the annual percentage change between 2012 and 2017, based on DOF population estimates for these years.999 Population growth was projected in five-year increments through 2030. According to the LAFCO’s projections, the population of unincorporated Napa County is expected to grow by about 0.21 percent a year. LAFCO projects that SFWD will grow from 413 people in 2019 to 418 residents in 2025 and to 423 people in 2030. SFWD is not a land use authority; the District’s boundary area is entirely unincorporated and subject to the land use policies and regulations of Napa County with the exception of the 241-acres of shoreline owned by the Bureau of Reclamation. The District’s two distinct communities of Spanish Flat and Berryessa Pines are both identified under the County General Plan as two of the 17 unincorporated communities in Napa County.1000 DISADVANTAGED UNINCORPORATED COMMUNITIES LAFCO is required to evaluate disadvantaged unincorporated communities as part of this service review, including the location and characteristics of any such communities. SFWD does not serve any DUCs. 998 Interview with Spanish Flat Water District, Paul Quarneri, August 6, 2019. 999 The change in population, especially unincorporated area, between 2017-2018 was significant due to the wildfires and loss of homes. Therefore, LAFCO used the timeframe from 2012 to 2017. 1000 2013 SOI Report. CHAPTER 17: SPANISH FLAT WATER DISTRICT 462 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR According to Napa LAFCO’s definition of DUCs, there are currently no disadvantaged unincorporated communities in Napa County. Based on the adopted policy, the Commission annually reviews Census Bureau American Community Survey data to determine if local and/or statewide median household income levels have changed.1001 FINANCIAL ABILITY TO PROVIDE SERVICES The Spanish Flat Water District provides water and wastewater services to the communities of Spanish Flat and Berryessa Pines. The District funds operations, maintenance and capital improvements for water treatment and distribution facilities, and wastewater collection, treatment and disposal. Figure 17-2: Summary of Selected Financial Information, Spanish Flats Water District Water and Wastewater Operations Spanish Flat Water District - Water & Wastewater Operations FY18-19 Water Budget Net $18,000 Revenues $303,000 Expenditures (inc. debt) $285,000 Ending Fund Balance as % of Operating Revenues 64% Ending Fund Balance $194,000 Debt Service as a % of Operating Revenues 5.3% Total Debt Outstanding $144,000 Monthly Rates as a % of Household Income 2.0% Typical Monthly Water and Wastewater Rates $130 Median Household Income (County, 2017) $79,600 Pension+OPEB Total Payments % of Revenues no obligations 2019-09-15 Balanced Budget A Balanced Budget requires that an agency have sufficient funds to pay for its expenditures. The District’s projected FY19 operating revenues (excluding hook-up fees) exceed expenditures (including debt) by $18,100, or about 6%.1002 Fund Balances, Reserves and Liquidity Fund balances and reserves should include adequate funds for cash flow and liquidity, in addition to funds to address longer-term needs. Current Cash Assets at the end of FY18 of $194,400 indicate adequate current liquidity by comparison to Current Liabilities of $34,200.1003 The cash represents about 8 months of expenditures (including debt service). 1001 Napa Local Agency Formation Commission, Policy on Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities, 2018. 1002 Spanish Flat Water District Financial Statements, Year ended June 30, 2018, Management Discussion Highlights, pg. 2. Note: Revenue total shown in Discussion do not match the sum of individual revenue items. Expenditures shown exclude depreciation. 1003 Spanish Flat Water District Financial Statements, Year ended June 30, 2018, Statement of Financial Position, pg. 5. CHAPTER 17: SPANISH FLAT WATER DISTRICT 463 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR The District’s financial statements report approximately $83,000 of its Net Position is designated for debt service and capital replacement without a separate breakdown of each designation. Net Position The District’s has a positive total Net Position, and a positive Unrestricted Net Position of $116,000 indicating that net assets, other than capital assets, exceed total liabilities. The Unrestricted Net Position represents about 41% of annual expenditures (including debt service). The District’s Net Position declined about $90,000 in FY18, largely due to depreciation that was not offset by revenues or other increases in net value. Rates and Charges Water and wastewater operations are primarily funded by service charges. Enterprises are allowed to establish charges sufficient to fund their cost of service. SFWD’s combined rates are about 2 percent of median household incomes.1004 Rates typically are expected to not exceed 2-2.5 percent of household income, for each utility, or 4-5 percent for water and wastewater combined.1005 In FY18, $24,000 of revenues derive from an “energy surcharge” of approximately 24% in addition to basic water rates.1006 Other than changes in the energy surcharge, water and sewer rates have not been changed since 2009. 1007 Long-term Debt The District reports two outstanding loans for its two water treatment plants that were put into service in 2008; outstanding principal at the end of FY18 totals $144,300.1008 Annual payments for debt service total approximately $13,600 and increase slightly (less than 1 percent) each year. The District maintains required debt service reserves, and debt service coverage appears to exceed 2.0 which is sufficient. Debt service is approximately 6 percent of the annual budget. The District’s FY18 budget reports $18,100 in “revenues for debt service” but does not indicate the source and does not show debt service as a line item in its budget.1009 The District’s FY18 budget projects $18,113 of “revenues for loan repayments”. Loan payments, and funding (e.g., the $18,113) are not reported in the FY18 budget, nor the basis 1004 Based on median household income of $79,637 for the County of Napa, according to the American Community Survey 2017, DP03, 5-Year estimates. Income data is unavailable for the District. See appendix for detailed estimate of typical household charges. 1005 Teodoro, et al, (2018) cite USEPA’s Financial Capability Guidebook (USEPA 1984) as original source for the use of personal income as a measure, although it was not applied to rates in the 1984 document. 1006 Spanish Flat Water District FY18 Budget (file: “BUDGET 2018.xls” received from District 8/21/19). 1007 The rate schedule provided by the District (8/21/19) lists rates effective June 10, 2009, and indicates that “An energy surcharge calculated each year by the Board of Directors will be assessed. The surcharge is currently [2009] set at 15% of the water bill costs for each user.” 1008 Spanish Flat Water District Financial Statements, Year Ended June 30, 2018, Note 5-6, pg. 9. 1009 Spanish Flat Water District FY18 Budget. CHAPTER 17: SPANISH FLAT WATER DISTRICT 464 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR for their allocation and collection. The FY18 Financial Statements do not appear to report these revenues.1010 The District’s financial statements report a schedule of future principal payments but do not show future interest obligations, and do not show individual debt issuance schedules for each of the two outstanding debts. The final year and final payments are not shown.1011 Pension and OPEB Liabilities The District offers no pension or OPEB benefits and has no corresponding liabilities. Capital Assets Capital assets must be adequately maintained and replaced over time and expanded as needed to accommodate future demand and respond to regulatory and technical changes. The value of the District’s depreciable structures and improvements declined by $126,000 of depreciation; the District’s financial reports do not show changes in capital assets in its notes as is typically done in financial statements. The depreciated value is about 50 percent of total value. Financial Planning and Reporting Achieving transparency and public accountability standards dictates that cities and agencies provide easily accessible and clear documentation of their activities, including financial information. Website – The District has developed a website; however, it does not yet meet AB 2257 requirements. Financial Policies – No financial policies were included in the District’s financial reports, budget, or separately included with requested financial studies. Annual Financial Report – The District prepares an annual audited financial report. However, the report does not provide important information typically found in a financial report (e.g., the debt service schedule does not detail debt issuances or include interest payments; changes in capital assets are not detailed in notes; no comparison to prior year is provided). Capital Improvement Program (CIP) – The District has no CIP. Cost of Service/Rate Study – The District has not revised its rates since 2009. The District adds energy surcharges, however, no documentation of annual adjustments or their basis was provided by the District. 1010 The FY18 Financial Report (Management Discussion, pg. 2) includes a “Misc. Income” item of $41,100 but does not indicate any further detail. 1011 Spanish Flat Water District Financial Statements, Year Ended June 30, 2018, Note 6, pg. 9. CHAPTER 17: SPANISH FLAT WATER DISTRICT 465 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR WATER SERVICES As previously mentioned, the Lightning Complex fire of August 2020 destroyed a majority of the structures within the Spanish Flat community, including several of the District’s utility facilities. The Berryessa Pines community and related SFWD facilities are still standing and operating, although all facilities are running on generators until power is returned to the area. The following description is of District’s water services as they existed prior to the fire. The District plans to rebuild all utility systems as soon as possible. Well-operated public agencies conduct long-term planning activities for the services they provide. SFWD reportedly does not adopt any planning documents. Infrastructure improvement needs are not documented in a capital improvement plan and are performed on an as-needed basis. Some planning for the area of Spanish Flat Water District related to water services is performed by Napa County in its General Plan and the Environmental Impact Report, updated in 2008. Additionally, the area was included in the planning efforts conducted as part of the 2050 Napa Valley Water Resources Study in 2005. Type and Extent of Services Services Provided SFWD provides potable water services in the form of treatment and distribution to its customers. The District has a water conservation program. Recycled water is not available within the District’s boundaries. Service Area The District’s service area is primarily low-density residential, characterized by estate homes on minimum one-acre lots. There are also some institutional uses, including Foothill College. The District’s infrastructure is extended to all developed lots within its bounds. There are approximately three parcels that are operating off of private wells, where the landowners have chosen not to connect to the District’s system; however, the District reported that these properties could easily connect to the system if they desired. There are also approximately 300 private wells scattered throughout the District that supplement each property’s water supply. SFWD does not provide services outside of its bounds. The District reported that there are no out of boundary areas where SFWD could potentially provide services. The District is divided into two separate services areas consisting of the Spanish Flat and Berryessa Pines service areas. These two areas are served by two separate water and wastewater systems. Services to Other Agencies The District does not provide services to other agencies under contract. Contracts for Services The District contracts with Napa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (NCFCWCD) for its water supply. The contractual arrangements are described in more detail in the Water Supply section. CHAPTER 17: SPANISH FLAT WATER DISTRICT 466 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR Overlapping Service Providers There are no overlapping providers within the District’s boundary area. There are, however, some properties in SFWD that use private wells for their water supply, as previously described in the Service Area section. Collaboration SFWD collaborates with Circle Oaks Water District by sharing a general manager. Staffing SFWD’s administration and operation is the collective responsibility of 2.5 full-time equivalent employees. A plant operator and a maintenance worker manage the water and sewer systems. A part-time office manager responds to constituent inquiries and performs billing and payroll services. There is also a contract Manager that oversees all operations and performs required admirative duties. Water Supply SFWD’s water supply is drawn from Lake Berryessa. The District’s right to draw water from Lake Berryessa is secured through a 1999 agreement with the Napa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (NCFCWCD). NCFCWCD presently administers an agreement with the United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, for an annual water entitlement of 1,500 acre-feet from Lake Berryessa. In turn, NCFCWCD subcontracts this entitlement to several property owners in the Lake Berryessa area along with three special districts, including SFWD. As a subcontractor to NCFCWD, the District is annually entitled to 200 acre-feet of water from Lake Berryessa through 2024. This entitlement serves the District’s two service areas: Spanish Flat and Berryessa Pines.1012 Pursuant to the Agreement with NCFCWCD, the District may request an increase to its annual entitlement of up to 20 percent or 40 afy. The District has not experienced reductions or limitations in this water supply in drought years. The District anticipates that the same contract will be extended in 2024. The District’s water sources with the allotted amounts are shown in Figure 17-3. Figure 17-3: SFWD Water Sources (acre-feet per year) Potable Water Supply by Source Source Normal Year Supply Dry Year Supply Lake Berryessa 200 200 TOTAL 200 200 Source: County of Napa, General Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report, Public Services and Utilities, 2007, p. 4.13-32. Note: Pursuant to the Agreement with NCFCWCD, the District may request an increase to its annual entitlement of up to 20 percent or 40 afy. The full delivery of SFWD’s entitlement is considered reliable given the current and historical storage levels at Lake Berryessa relative to the location of the intake systems. The 1012 County of Napa, General Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report, Public Services and Utilities, 2007, p. 4.13-32. CHAPTER 17: SPANISH FLAT WATER DISTRICT 467 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR supply entitlement also appears sufficient to accommodate current as well as projected demands. Emergency Preparedness The District has not identified any specific water supply hazards. Emergency water supply is provided through the current contract with NCFCWCD. SFWD may request an increase to its annual entitlement of up to 20 percent, or 40 af. Water Demand SFWD provides water services to 97 (87 residential and 10 commercial) connections in Spanish Flat service area and 78 connections in Berryessa Pines service area. Spanish Flat water system serves the Spanish Flat Shopping Center and Spanish Flat Recreation Area. Non-residential uses may increase should the redevelopment of the Foothill Pines Resort come to fruition. All of the connections within Berryessa Pines are residential. Water demand for the years 2014 through 2018 is shown in Figure 17-4. In 2018, the demand for potable water in both service areas amounted to 10.6 million gallons (mg) or 62.98 acre-feet. Figure 17-4: Demand for Potable Water by Service Area (acre-feet) Demand for Potable Water User Type 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Spanish Flat 40.35 40.05 31.41 41.80 44.38 Berryessa Pines 25.55 21.24 16.26 17.47 18.60 TOTAL DEMAND 65.9 61.29 47.67 59.27 62.98 Source: Spanish Flat Water District MSR Request for Information. Spanish Flat SFWD’s total water demand within its Spanish Flat service area in 2018 equaled approximately 44.38 acre-feet. This amount represents an average daily demand of nearly 39,210 gallons. The peak day water demand in 2018 totaled 67,286 gallons and was about 1.7 times the daily average.1013 The District is expecting no or slow residential growth in the next five to 10 years, as was already mentioned in the Growth and Population section. Growth in demand, however, may come from the development of the Foothill Pines Resort should it be completed. Spanish Flat service area has 39 undeveloped lots which if developed would potentially connect to the District’s water system. The water demand projected at buildout is expected to total 67.6 acre-feet. This projected buildout demand within Spanish Flat coupled with the projected buildout demand in Berryessa Pines can be adequately accommodated by the current supply given the combined buildout amount of 94.5 acre-feet between the two service areas would only represent 47 percent of the available supply. Berryessa Pines 1013 County of Napa, Spanish Flat Water System Inspection Report, 2019. CHAPTER 17: SPANISH FLAT WATER DISTRICT 468 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR SFWD’s total water demand within the Berryessa Pines service area in 2018 equaled approximately 18.6 acre-feet. This amount represents an average daily demand of nearly 16,560 gallons. The peak day water demand in 2018 totaled 48,804 gallons and was about three times the daily average.1014 The buildout of the Berryessa Pines service area would involve the development of an additional 23 lots. Assuming all the remaining lots are connected, the annual water demand at buildout would total 26.9 acre-feet. Water Infrastructure and Facilities Two separate water systems serve the District’s Spanish Flat and Berryessa Pines service areas. Raw water from Lake Berryessa is captured from separate stationary intake systems serving each service area. Both intake systems are powered by dual pump systems with daily conveyance capacities of 0.5 acre-feet at Berryessa Pines and 1.1 acre-feet at Spanish Flat. The District’s overall distribution system is in good condition. The distribution system’s integrity is indicated by the District’s rate of distribution loss and number of breaks and leaks in 2018. The District estimates that there is less than five percent unaccounted for distribution loss from the point of treatment to the delivery point to each of the connections. The District did not provide the number of main breaks and leaks in 2018. The District reported that there is sufficient capacity in both water systems for existing and projected demand. Spanish Flat Service Area Water Treatment Plant Spanish Flat Water Treatment Plant (WTP) serves the Spanish Flat service area by filtering raw water from Lake Berryessa. Filtered water is conveyed to an onsite 5,200-gallon clearwell tank for disinfection where it is stored until storage levels in the distribution system require recharge. The plant has an alternative filtration, contact clarification filtration system. Treatment includes polymer (coagulant) addition, inline static mixer, flocculation in contact filters, multi-media pressure filtration and calcium hypochlorite injection for disinfection. The system runs between six and 20 hours per day.1015 The Spanish Flat WTP has a rated treatment capacity of 152 gallons per minute.1016 However, the actual treatment capacity is about 120 gallons per minute, resulting in a daily capacity of 172,800 gallons or 0.53 acre-feet. The current peak day demand was not provided by the District. The projected peak day demand at buildout is expected to increase to 0.52 acre-feet. This amount includes the development of Foothill Pines Resort and would equal 98 percent of the facility’s daily capacity; however, development of the Resort does not appear likely to occur in the near term. 1014 County of Napa, Berryessa Pines Water System Inspection Report, 2019. 1015 County of Napa, Spanish Flat Water System Inspection Report, 2019. 1016 County of Napa, General Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report, Public Services and Utilities, 2007, p. 4.13-33. CHAPTER 17: SPANISH FLAT WATER DISTRICT 469 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR Distribution and Storage System The distribution system serving the Spanish Flat service area comprises three independent pressure zones that are each maintained by six storage tanks. All six storage tanks work in conjunction with one another to maintain adequate pressure in the system by using gravity. The distribution system operates on a supply and demand basis and responds to storage levels at the Spanish Flat service area’s main pressure zone. The distribution system includes a network of six- and eight-inch water lines. Due to the service area’s topography, a pump station is required to lift potable water from the Spanish Flat WTP’s clearwell tank into the distribution system. The service area’s distribution system is in fair to good condition.1017 The District’s storage facilities in the Spanish Flat service area are shown in Figure 17-5. Figure 17-5: Spanish Flat Storage Facilities Material Storage Capacity Condition Steel Contact Tank 1 25,000 gallons Good Concrete Contact Tank 2 24,000 gallons Good Steel Contact Tank 3 44,000 gallons Good Concrete Storage Tank 1 24,000 gallons Good Concrete Storage Tank 2 24,000 gallons Good Polyethylene Storage Tank 3 6,000 gallons Good Total 147,000 gallons* Source: WTP Inspection Report, 2019. *Note: does not include storage capacity at the clearwell tank. The 2011 MSR identified that there is a distribution system capacity issue associated with deficient storage within the initial pressure zone. This issue has not been addressed to date. The District noted that when the fires occurred in 2018, that there was not sufficient water storage to weather the outage. In response, the District is working to purchase generators to continue water production during electrical outages. Berryessa Pines Service Area Water Treatment Plant Berryessa Pines Water Treatment Plant treats raw water conveyed from Lake Berryessa and serves the Berryessa Pines service area. While rated treatment capacity is unknown, the WTP is currently able to process up to 100 gallons per minute resulting in a daily capacity of 144,000 gallons or 0.44 acre-feet. The District reported that currently about 60 gallons a minute are pumped from Berryessa Lake, which translates into 84,400 gallons per day or 0.27 acre-feet per day. The plant has an alternative filtration, contact clarification filtration system. Treatment includes polymer (coagulant) addition, inline static mixer, flocculation in contact filters, 1017 County of Napa, Spanish Flat Water System Inspection Report, 2019. CHAPTER 17: SPANISH FLAT WATER DISTRICT 470 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR multi-media pressure filtration and calcium hypochlorite injection for disinfection. The system runs between six and 20 hours per day.1018 The current peak day demand was not provided by the District; therefore, the portion of the treatment plant’s capacity in use is not calculable. The projected peak day demand at buildout is expected to total 0.22 acre-feet and can be accommodated by the facility’s existing daily capacity without any further expansions. Treated water is conveyed to an onsite 1,800-gallon clearwell tank where the disinfection takes place. Treated water remains in the tank until storage levels in the distribution system require recharge. Distribution and Storage System The distribution system in Berryessa Pines includes a network of six, eight, ten, and 12- inch water lines. The distribution system comprises one contiguous pressure zone serving all users within the Berryessa Pines service area. Topography requires finished water in the treatment facility’s adjacent 1,800-gallon clearwell tank be lifted through a single electric pump to recharge the distribution system when levels within the pressure zone’s 100,000 gallon or 0.31-acre-foot storage tank fall below a designated operating level. The tank was reported to be in good condition. The service area’s distribution system is reportedly in fair to good condition.1019 The District’s storage facilities in the Berryessa Pines service area are shown in Figure 17-6. Figure 17-6: Berryessa Pines Storage Facilities Material Storage Capacity Condition Steel Contact Tank 24,000 gallons Good Concrete Storage Tank 100,000 gallons Good Total 124,000 gallons Source: County of Napa, Berryessa Pines Water System Inspection Report, 2019. Similar to the Spanish Flat service area, there is not sufficient water storage to weather an extended outage. The District is working to purchase generators to continue water production during electrical outages. Shared Facilities The District practices resource sharing with other agencies by sharing a general manager with Circle Oaks Water District. There are no facility sharing practices. Infrastructure Needs The District does not adopt a Capital Improvement Plan. All capital improvements are performed as needed. 1018 County of Napa, Berryessa Pines Water System Inspection Report, 2019. 1019 County of Napa, Berryessa Pines Water System Inspection Report, 2019. CHAPTER 17: SPANISH FLAT WATER DISTRICT 471 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR The District reported that its primary need was backup generators for both water systems. Water Quality The State Water Resources Control Board Division of Drinking Water (DDW) implements the Safe Drinking Water Act in California. DDW requires public water systems to perform routine monitoring for regulated contaminants. To meet water quality standards and comply with regulations, a water system with a contaminant exceeding a maximum contaminant limit (MCL) must notify the public and remove the source from service or initiate a process and schedule to install treatment for removing the contaminant. Health violations occur when the contaminant amount exceeds the safety standard (MCL) or when water is not treated properly. In California, compliance is usually determined at the wellhead or the surface water intake. Monitoring violations involve failure to conduct or to report in a timely fashion the results of required monitoring. As a small water system, the SFWD system is under the purview of the County of Napa Planning, Building, & Environmental Services Department. SFWD submits regular reports to the Department, and the Department conducts regular inspections of SFWD’s facilities. Source Water Lake Berryessa is most vulnerable to contamination from boats, personal watercraft, confirmed leaking underground fuel storage tanks, known contaminant plumes, historic gas stations, active gas stations, wastewater treatment plants, historic mining operations, active mining operations, and animal feeding operations. The known contaminant plumes were associated with gas stations. Methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) has been detected in Lake Berryessa. Boats and personal watercraft are possible sources of MTBE, if they use fuel that contains MTBE. Other possible MTBE sources at Lake Berryessa include confirmed leaking underground fuel storage tanks, known contaminant plumes, historic gas stations, and active gas stations. Treated Water Quality of treated water can be evaluated according to several measures. For the purposes of this report, the following indicators are used: the number of violations as reported by the EPA since 2008 and the number of days in full compliance with Primary Drinking Water Regulations in 2018. The District experienced one health violation since 2008 related to its Berryessa Pines water system. The health violation occurred in 2011 and was regarding a positive coliform test. The EPA did not report any monitoring violations in the 10-year time frame. In 2018, the District was in compliance with drinking water regulations 100 percent of the time, with no violations. By comparison, the industry standard for compliance with Primary Drinking Water Regulations is 99 percent (361 days) of the year. CHAPTER 17: SPANISH FLAT WATER DISTRICT 472 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR WASTEWATER SERVICES As previously mentioned, the Lightning Complex Fire of August 2020 destroyed a majority of the structures within the Spanish Flat community, including several of the District’s utility facilities. The Berryessa Pines community and related SFWD facilities are still standing and operating, although all facilities are running on generators until power is returned to the area. The following description is of District’s wastewater services as they existed prior to the fire. The District plans to rebuild all utility systems as soon as possible. Similar to water services, the District does not adopt any planning documents for its wastewater services. Infrastructure improvement needs are not documented in a capital improvement plan and are performed on an as-needed basis. It is generally recommended that public agencies conduct long-term planning for the services they provide. The County conducts some long-term planning for the area within Spanish Flat Water District related to wastewater in its General Plan and the Environmental Impact Report last updated in 2008. Type and Extent of Services Services Provided SFWD provides collection and secondary level of treatment to raw sewage within its boundary area. Service Area The District does not provide wastewater services outside of its boundaries. Services to Other Agencies No wastewater related services are provided to other agencies. Contracts for Services The District does not have any contracts related to wastewater services. Overlapping Service Providers There are an unknown number of residences within SFWD that are not connected to the District’s sewer system and are served by private septic tanks. Collaboration SFWD collaborates with Circle Oaks Water District by sharing a general manager. Staffing SFWD’s administration and operation is the collective responsibility of 2.5 full-time equivalent employees. A plant operator and a maintenance worker manage water and sewer systems. A part-time office manager responds to constituent inquiries and performs billing and payroll services. There is also a contract Manager that oversees all operations and performs required admirative duties. CHAPTER 17: SPANISH FLAT WATER DISTRICT 473 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR Wastewater Flow The District did not provide the number of sewer connections served in the Spanish Flat and Berryessa Pine service areas. Additionally, the District did not provide average dry weather flow and peak wet weather flow for the two systems. Figure 17-7: ADWF Wastewater Flows 2014-2018 and Buildout Conditions, million gallons SFWD ADWF Sewer Flows Year 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Buildout Spanish Flat (mgd) NP NP NP NP NP NP Berryessa Pines (mgd) NP NP NP NP NP NP Source: Spanish Flat Water District MSR Request for Information. NP = Not provided Because the District did not provide ADWF and peak wet weather flow for the two systems, the degree of infiltration and inflow is unable to be determined. Wastewater Infrastructure and Facilities As with the District’s water services, there are two wastewater systems serving Spanish Flat and Berryessa Pines service areas. Spanish Flat Service Area Wastewater Treatment Plant The WWTP consists of an extended aeration package treatment plant with an aeration tank, a clarifier, and a chlorine contact chamber. Wastewater is stored and disposed of in an unlined 13 acre-foot percolation/evaporation pond. During the summer, wastewater is also spray-irrigated on a 2.5-acre disposal field managed by the District, or at the 3.7-acre Monticello Cemetery. The SWRCB has assigned Spanish Flat WWTP a cap of a maximum daily discharge of 0.53 mgd and average monthly dry weather discharge flow of 0.025 mgd. This capacity appears to sufficiently accommodate current flows; however, without flow information the portion of capacity that is in use could not be calculated. Buildout of the Spanish Flat service area is expected to involve the development of the remaining 39 lots. Connection to Foothill Pines Resort is not expected based on past practices of the site’s concessionaire to operate a private septic system. If the remaining lots develop and all new development connects with usage similar to current demands, the daily average dry-weather and wet-weather flows would increase to 20,300 and 56,000 gallons, respectively. These projected demands could be accommodated based on existing design capacities. The expected peak day wet-weather flow—in the absence of significant improvements to the collection system—nonetheless would increase to 122,000 gallons and exceed existing capacity. However, it should be noted that the District does not have any records identifying the actual design capacities for either sewer system. This prevents the District from accurately estimating its capacity to service new growth for either of its two service communities. CHAPTER 17: SPANISH FLAT WATER DISTRICT 474 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR To provide more details regarding the integrity of the District’s sewer system and adequacy of its services this report includes analysis of sanitary sewer overflow information and regulatory compliance data. All wastewater agencies are required to report sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs) to SWRCB. Sewer overflows are discharges from sewer pipes, pumps and manholes. Overflows reflect the capacity and condition of collection system piping and the effectiveness of routine maintenance. The sewer overflow rate is calculated as the number of overflows per 100 miles of collection piping per year. Over the last six years (2014-2019) there were no reported SSO events within Spanish Flat service area, which means that the average SSO rate is 0 per 100 miles of sewer mains. By comparison, other wastewater agencies in California average 4.73 SSOs per 100 miles per year.1020 RWQCB5 enforces the Clean Water Act, permit conditions and other requirements of wastewater providers. Violations of State requirements for wastewater providers and treatment facilities are recorded by SWRCB. The Board may levy fines or order the provider to take specific actions to comply with water quality regulations. The District has both a permit for treatment and discharge at the WWTP and a general permit for its collection system in Spanish Flat service area. For its Spanish Flat collection system, the District encountered one regulatory measure in 2006. The District had no violations or enforcement actions related to the collection system. With regard to the Spanish Flat WWTP, there was a total of 34 violations at the Spanish Flat WWTP, from 2009 to 2019. The most recent five violations were for violations of order conditions; the remaining violations were for late or deficient reporting. During that same time period, the District encountered three enforcement actions in relation to the Spanish Flat WWTP, all of which were notices of violation. Collection System Sewage from Spanish Flat is conveyed through a series of gravity lines, force mains, and a pump station into the Spanish Flat Wastewater Treatment Plant located off Spanish Flat Loop Road and near the Spanish Flat Mobile Villa Park. SFWD’s Spanish Flat collection system consists of approximately 16 miles of sewer lines and one pump station. The majority of the sewer lines comprise clay pipe and are over 40 years of age. Berryessa Pines Service Area Wastewater Treatment Plant Spanish Flat Water District owns and operates a wastewater treatment plant, which serves the Berryessa Pines service area. Napa County owns the land on which the treatment plant and main storage/disposal pond have been constructed. 1020 SWRCB, Sanitary Sewer Overflow Reduction Program Annual Compliance Report, March 26, 2015, p 16. CHAPTER 17: SPANISH FLAT WATER DISTRICT 475 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR The SWRCB has assigned a cap for the monthly average dry weather discharge flow of 0.14 mgd for the Berryessa Pines WWTP. The facility has a design daily dry-weather capacity of 14,000 gallons. This capacity appears to sufficiently accommodate current flows; however, without flow information the portion of capacity that is in use could not be calculated. The daily wet-weather capacity is unknown. The District reported, however, that peak wet weather flows are sufficiently accommodated by the plant. The buildout of the Berryessa Pines service area is expected to involve the development of the remaining 23 lots. If this assumption proves accurate, and all new development connects with usage similar to current demands, the daily average dry-weather and wet- weather flows would increase to 3,800 and 15,400 gallons, respectively. These projected demands could be accommodated based on the existing design capacities. The expected peak day wet-weather flow would increase to 28,100 gallons, which is an amount uncertain to be adequately accommodated given the uncertainty regarding the facility’s design capacity. To provide more details regarding the integrity of the City’s sewer system and adequacy of its services this report includes analysis of sanitary sewer overflow information and regulatory compliance data. All wastewater agencies are required to report sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs) to SWRCB. Sewer overflows are discharges from sewer pipes, pumps and manholes. Overflows reflect the capacity and condition of collection system piping and the effectiveness of routine maintenance. The sewer overflow rate is calculated as the number of overflows per 100 miles of collection piping per year. Over the last six years (2014-2019) there were no SSO events in Berryessa Pines service area, which means that the average SSO rate is 0 per 100 miles of sewer mains. By comparison, other wastewater agencies in California average 4.73 SSOs per 100 miles per year.1021 RWQCB5 enforces the Clean Water Act, permit conditions and other requirements of wastewater providers. Violations of State requirements for wastewater providers and treatment facilities are recorded by SWRCB. The Board may levy fines or order the provider to take specific actions to comply with water quality regulations. The District has both a permit for treatment and discharge at the WWTP and a general permit for its collection system. For its collection system in Berryessa Pines the District encountered no regulatory measures. There were no violations or enforcement actions related to the collection system. With regard to the Berryessa Pines WWTP, there were 13 violations at the Berryessa Pines WWTP, during the period 2009-2019. One of the violations in 2019 was related to vegetation in the evaporation pond, while the rest were due to late reporting. The Berryessa Pines WWTP encountered one enforcement action in 2012. Collection System Sewage from Berryessa Pines is conveyed through gravity lines and a pump station into the Berryessa Pines Wastewater Treatment Plant located at the eastern end of the subdivision. 1021 SWRCB, Sanitary Sewer Overflow Reduction Program Annual Compliance Report, March 26, 2015, p 16. CHAPTER 17: SPANISH FLAT WATER DISTRICT 476 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR SFWD’s Berryessa Pines collection system consists of approximately 10 miles of sewer lines and one pump station. The majority of the sewer lines comprise clay pipe and are over 40 years old. Infrastructure Needs The District does not adopt a Capital Improvement Plan. All capital improvements are performed as needed. The District reported that there are currently no infrastructure needs related to the wastewater systems. According to the District, the systems are in good condition and have sufficient capacity. Shared Facilities The District practices resource sharing with other agencies by sharing a general manager with Circle Oaks Water District. There are no facility sharing practices. CHAPTER 17: SPANISH FLAT WATER DISTRICT 477 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE OPTIONS Over the course of this review, several governance structure options were identified with respect to SFWD, including possible service structure alteration and reorganization with other agencies. The feasibility of these options is generally assessed here; however, more in- depth review would be required to refine specifics of process and structure should the affected agencies or LAFCO choose to move forward. Contracting for Services SFWD may wish to consider contracting for services from a larger agency such as City of Napa or Napa Sanitation District (NapaSan) for a portion of or all operational services. At present, both City of Napa and NapaSan provide contract services to other agencies and have been found to provide professional and well-managed services. Given that City of Napa provides only water services and NapaSan provides wastewater and recycled water services, contracting out to these agencies would require separate agreements with each agency for the specific service. In addition to SFWD, there are other small water and wastewater systems in Napa County that struggle to provide an adequate level of services. Smaller service providers in rural areas often must focus on day-to-day operations and do not have the staff capacity to conduct pre-planning and highly technical services. These agencies have expressed interest in either receiving support services or being fully taken over by a larger service provider. Should multiple agencies choose to contract with City of Napa and/or NapaSan, there is the potential for greater economies of scale and efficiency of services, which could result in cost savings. Contracting out services to agencies, or what also might be referred to as “functional consolidation,” allows for flexibility of service structure. SFWD could choose what degree of contract support is necessary ranging from occasional technical support to full-service provision. The benefits of these agencies providing services by contract to interested agencies includes the following: 1. The provision of contract support services would allow for flexibility in the manner and nature of services to be provided to allow for tailoring to the needs of the contracting agency, which could include provision of specific or limited services or consist of all administration and operations. 2. Contracting to agencies for services outside of the boundaries of the respective agency does not require LAFCO approval. 3. A contract would allow service provider and the contracting agency to test out the alternative service structure without making a long-term commitment. 4. The contracting agency would continue to exist and maintain local control. 5. “Functional consolidation” would allow each agency to retain its identity while at the same time combining resources or specialty assets and improving efficiencies. 6. Contracting could result in a reduction in equipment needs and duplication of efforts. CHAPTER 17: SPANISH FLAT WATER DISTRICT 478 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR 7. Contracting for services would not face the labor concerns that may result from a “full consolidation.” 8. Customers of the contracting agency would receive a high level of services and broader expertise from a larger, professionally operated service provider. Reorganization with a Countywide Water District Another option identified during this review is the potential for a countywide county water district that could provide support or take on both water and wastewater services for interested agencies. This option would involve the formation of a countywide county water district to include SFWD and other small water and wastewater systems. The small agencies would either then contract with the countywide water district or dissolve and have the countywide agency be the successor agency and provide continued services to these areas. As part of the Comprehensive Water Service Study, the Commission determined the need for a governance study to evaluate the options and merits of reorganizing the Spanish Flat Water District. This includes examining the merits of consolidating the District with the Lake Berryessa Resort Improvement District and the Napa-Berryessa Resort Improvement District to establish economies of scale and formalize service provision in the Lake Berryessa area. A countywide county water district is one manner in which these districts, as well as other interested districts, may capitalize on the benefits of consolidation. This governance structure option is discussed in more detail in the Overview chapter (Chapter 3) of this report. Transition into a County Service Area Another option is the potential for SFWD to transition into a county service area (CSA), as is being considered for Lake Berryessa Resort Improvement District (LBRID) and Napa Berryessa Resort Improvement District (NBRID). In the 2005 MSR on SFWD, consolidation or resource sharing in some manner with NBRID was analyzed. The MSR concluded that while the districts have separate systems and treatment plants, their close proximity, similar services, and shared interests regarding the Bureau’s resort plans offer the potential for shared arrangements. However, obstacles to implementing shared arrangements were identified. v Both districts have different authorizing legislation; v SFWD is an independent district while NBRID is a dependent district; v Many of NBRID’s functions are provided via contract with Napa County; and v Topography precludes the connection of the two district systems. SFWD’s 2011 MSR determined that reorganization of SFWD was not a priority given the constituents’ apparent satisfaction of the District’s governance and management. It was also determined that reorganization may be appropriate at a later time given the potential future need for additional public services that are outside SFWD’s existing powers. Since 2011, SFWD has continued to operate similar to other small utility systems— focusing on day-to-day operations with challenges in complying with regulatory reporting CHAPTER 17: SPANISH FLAT WATER DISTRICT 479 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR requirements, appropriately planning for long-term capital needs, and comprehensively tracking demand statistics, amongst others. The District may be better served by a larger entity with greater scrutiny to enhance the level of services provided. While reorganization with NBRID has been previously considered as an option, this review proposes the transition of NBRID to a county service area. Refer to the NBRID chapter (Chapter 13) for additional details. Rather than reorganization with NBRID, SFWD may reap similar benefits of cost sharing by becoming a dependent district of the County. As the County is already providing similar services to the neighboring NBRID, there is the potential for greater efficiency of services for both NBRID and SFWD should SFWD also be served by County personnel. By transitioning to a county service area, the governing body of the District would be the County Board of Supervisors. The funds of the District would be accounted for separately and operational services would be provided by the County. The challenges to reorganization previously identified are not applicable to this governance structure option. It is recommended that SFWD and the County begin discussions considering the potential for SFWD to transition into a county service area. RECOMMENDATIONS During the process of this review, the following recommendations are made to SFWD regarding its water and wastewater service delivery. 1) The SFWD 2005 MSR determined that the District requires comprehensive facilities plans for its sewer systems at Spanish Flat and Berryessa Pines and that these plans should evaluate the adequacy of existing facilities to meet present and future system demands, offer recommendations as part of long-term capital improvement programs, and evaluate funding requirements and opportunities. The District has not developed any such planning documents to date. It continues to be recommended that SFWD develop planning documents for the entirety of the two systems. 2) In 2005 it was found that SFWD should commit to monitoring and recording its daily sewer flow amounts in order to more effectively coordinate and plan system maintenance, repair, and improvement projects; however, over the course of this review it is apparent that the District does not monitor or keep detailed records on the flows in its systems. It continues to be recommended that SFWD monitor and record essential flow data for its systems. 3) While finalizing its website, SFWD should ensure that it is also meeting the agenda posting requirements in AB 2257. 4) It is recommended that SFWD and the County begin discussions considering the potential for SFWD to transition into a county service area. CHAPTER 17: SPANISH FLAT WATER DISTRICT 480 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR SPANISH FLAT WATER DISTRICT DETERMINATIONS Growth and Population Projections v Spanish Flat Water District’s (SFWD) population, as of 2019, was approximately 413. v Given the impacts of the Lightning Complex fires, as of August 2020, the District’s population is significantly lower. v The buildout population within SFWD is expected to total 560. This projection assumes the development of all undeveloped lots presently within SFWD and rebuilding of the recently destroyed homes. Although the undeveloped lots gradually get developed, some do not connect to the District’s utility systems. The District expects slow growth in the next five to 10 years. v LAFCO anticipates growth within SFWD to be similar to the most recent five-year trend of all unincorporated areas of Napa of 0.21 percent annually, with an anticipated population of 423 by 2030. The Location and Characteristics of Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities Within or Contiguous to the Agency’s SOI v According to Napa LAFCO’s definition of disadvantaged unincorporated communities (DUCs), there are currently no DUCs in Napa County. Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities and Adequacy of Public Services, Including Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies v A majority of SFWD’s utility systems in Spanish Flat were destroyed in the Lightning Complex fires in August 2020. The utility systems in Berryessa Pines remain intact and operational. The District plans to rebuild of the destroyed system as soon as possible. The determinations regarding SFWD are based on existing circumstances before the fire. v SFWD has ample supply entitlement and system capacity to accommodate current as well as projected demands. In 2018, the District made use of 31 percent of its water contract entitlement and at buildout is anticipated to use 47 percent of its entitlement. v The full delivery of SFWD’s entitlement is considered reliable given the current and historical storage levels at Lake Berryessa relative to the location of the intake systems. v The level of water services offered by SFWD were found to be minimally adequate based on integrity of the water distribution system and compliance with drinking water requirements. The integrity of the District’s water distribution system is sufficient given the estimated level of water loss. The District was in full compliance CHAPTER 17: SPANISH FLAT WATER DISTRICT 481 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR with Primary Drinking Water Regulations in 2018 and has had one violation reported by the EPA since 2008. v The 2011 MSR identified that there is a distribution system capacity issue associated with deficient storage within the initial pressure zone. This issue has not been addressed to date. v The District is working to purchase generators to continue water production during electrical outages. v Based on current operations, the Spanish Flat Water District’s sewer systems appear to have adequate collection, treatment, and discharge capacities to meet existing service demands within its jurisdiction under normal conditions. However, the District does not have any records identifying the design capacities for either sewer system. This prevents the District from accurately estimating its capacity to service new growth for either of its two service communities. v The level of wastewater services offered by SFWD were found to be minimally adequate based on integrity of the wastewater collection system and regulatory compliance. The District has had no sanitary sewer overflows in the last five years, but has had 31 violations, a majority of which were for deficient reporting. Significant improvement can be made to the District’s reporting practices. v SFWD does not adopt a Capital Improvement Plan. All capital improvements are performed as needed. The District reported that there are currently no infrastructure needs related to the wastewater systems. Financial Ability of Agencies to Provide Services v The Spanish Flat Water District has the ability to continue providing water and wastewater services. However, the value of its infrastructure is depreciating at a rate greater than can be covered by its budget surplus. The assets declined with no offsetting investment. v The District appears to have adequate liquidity and operating reserves, although declining net asset value and net annual surpluses that are less than depreciation (see above) indicate a potential need for increased capital funding. v The value of the District’s depreciated infrastructure is less than 50 percent of initial value, indicating the potential need for capital improvements. The District has no capital improvement program, no cost of service or rate study, and no long-term projections to provide the basis for determining future operating and capital needs. Status of, and Opportunities for, Shared Facilities v SFWD practices resource sharing with other agencies by sharing a general manager and operator with Circle Oaks County Water District. v An opportunity for facility sharing may be contracting with another agency for a portion or all operations, such as the City of Napa or Napa Sanitation District. v Transitioning to a CSA would allow for sharing of County staff resources. CHAPTER 17: SPANISH FLAT WATER DISTRICT 482 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR Accountability for Community Service Needs, Including Governmental Structure and Operational Efficiencies v The District Board holds regular appropriately noticed meetings. v The District struggled to respond to requests for information in a timely manner. v SFWD recently developed a website to comply with SB 929. The District continues to organize and post documents and information to the website. While finalizing the site, SFWD should ensure that it is also meeting the agenda posting requirements in AB 2257. v Governance structure alternatives include contracting with another agency for services, reorganization with a countywide county water district, and transitioning into a county service area. Relationship with Regional Growth Goals and Policies v SFWD is not a land use authority that takes part in regional planning efforts and therefore does not impact growth policy. v LAFCO’s adopted policies relating to special district spheres discourage any expansions of SFWD’s existing sphere to promote urban development based on current land use designations of lands located within close proximity to the District. CHAPTER 17: SPANISH FLAT WATER DISTRICT 483 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR A P P ENDI X A APPENDIX A 484 Table A-4a Summary Financial Profile City of American Canyon - Water Item Amount Operating Revenues (1) Water 6,349,300 Total Operating Revenues 6,349,300 Operating Expenditures (2) Water Salaries and Benefits 1,492,600 Services and Supplies 1,028,510 Water Purchases 2,538,500 Other Operating Expenditures 682,600 Total Water Operating Expenditures 5,742,210 NET OPERATING INCOME Water 607,090 Debt Service Water (3) 260,000 Total Debt Service 260,000 NET OPERATING INCOME AFTER DEBT Water 347,090 Non-Operating Revenues Water Total Non-Operating Revenues 0 NET AFTER NON-OPERATING REVENUES Water 347,090 OTHER Water Capital and Non-Recurring Revenues (contra acct) (4) 516,800 Capital and Non-Recurring Expenditures (5) 668,186 NET AFTER OTHER CAPITAL AND NON-RECURRING Water 195,704 Ending Available Balance Water (6) 5,424,684 Notes: 2019-11-15 (1) City of American Canyon Annual Budget Fiscal Year 2018 – 2019, Water Operations Summary, pg. 220. (2) ibid, FY19 Budget, pg. 220. (3) ibid, FY19 Budget, pg. 220. (4) ibid, FY19 Budget, pg. 220. Contra expense includes debt service principal ($233,200) and treatment plant capital outlay ($283,600) total $516,800. (5) ibid, FY19 Budget, pg. 227. Transfers to capital fund. (6) ibid, FY19 Budget, pg. 60. Table A-4b Summary Financial Measures and Indicators City of American Canyon - Water Item Amount 1a Balanced Budget (rev/exp inc. debt) (1) 106% Operating Revenues 6,349,300 Operating Expenditures (inc. debt) 6,002,210 Net 347,090 1b Operating Ratio (op'ing rev/exp inc. debt & deprec) 0.85 Operating Revenues 6,349,300 Operating Expenses 5,742,210 Debt Service 260,000 Depreciation (18) 1,505,950 TOTAL Expenses 7,508,160 1c Ending Fund Balance as % of Operating Revenues (2) 85% Beginning Fund Balance 5,228,980 Ending Fund Balance 5,424,684 Change in Fund Balance 195,704 2a Net Position/Total Assets (3) 0.8 Net Position 32,238,695 Unrestricted Net Position 102,209 Total Assets 41,003,587 2b Current Ratio (Short-term Liquidity) (4) 11.1 Current Assets 7,701,588 Current Liabilities 694,828 2c Months Cash on Hand (crnt cash assets/expenses w/debt) 15 Current Assets 7,701,588 Operating Expenditures (inc. debt) 6,002,210 per day 16,444 3a Change in Net Depreciable Capital Assets (FY17-FY18) -3.6% Net Capital Assets, FY17 (5) 27,866,538 Net Capital Assets, FY18 (6) 26,874,403 Total Capital Assets being Depreciated (FY18) (7) 44,610,558 4a Debt Service as % of Operating Revenues 4.1% Debt Service (8) 260,000 Operating Revenues 6,349,300 5 Bond Ratings not reported 6 Total Reserves (% of op. expend. inc. debt) 2% Operating Reserves (9) 102,209 Operating Expenditures (inc. debt) 6,002,210 Table A-4b (cont'd) 7 Rates and Charges (% of median HH income) 0.7% Monthly Service Charges (SFD) (10) $55.38 Median Household Income (2017) (11) $91,705 8 Pension Payments as % of Revenues 2.5% Unfunded Pension Liability (12) 1,019,301 % Pension Liability Funded (13) 75.8% Total Payments (normal cost + unfunded liabilities) (14) 157,100 8 OPEB Liabilities Unfunded OPEB Liability (15) 410,943 % OPEB Liability Funded (16) 53.0% Total OPEB Payments (17) 23,500 Notes: 2019-11-15 (1) City of American Canyon Annual Budget Fiscal Year 2018 – 2019, Water Operations Summary, pg. 220. (2) ibid, FY19 Budget, Water Operations Fund #510, pg. 106. (3) City of American Canyon FY18 CAFR, Statement of Net Position Proprietary Funds, pg. 27. (4) ibid, FY18 CAFR, Statement of Net Position Proprietary Funds, pg. 27. (5) City of American Canyon FY17 CAFR, Statement of Net Position Proprietary Funds, pg. 26. (6) ibid, FY18 CAFR, Statement of Net Position Proprietary Funds, pg. 27. (7) ibid, FY18 CAFR, Note F - Capital Assets, pg. 49. (8) ibid, FY19 Budget, pg. 220. (9) Unrestricted Net Position, FY18 CAFR, Statement of Net Position Proprietary Funds, pg. 27. (10) See Appendix for detailed estimates of rates. (11) American Community Survey 2017, DP03, 5-Year estimates. (12) ibid, FY18 CAFR, Statement of Net Position Proprietary Funds, pg. 27. (13) City of American Canyon Response to Request for Information, 2019-10- 11, as of June 30, 2017. (14) ibid, Budget FY19, Water Operations, pg. 223, 226, 231. (15) ibid, FY18 CAFR, Statement of Net Position Proprietary Funds, pg. 27. (16) City of American Canyon Response to Request for Information, 2019-10- 11, as of June 30, 2017. (17) City of American Canyon Annual Budget Fiscal Year 2018 – 2019, Water Operations, pg. 231. (18) City of American Canyon FY18 CAFR, Statement of Net Position Proprietary Funds, pg. 28. Table A-4c Summary Financial Profile City of American Canyon - Wastewater Item Amount Operating Revenues (1) Wastewater 4,564,500 Total Operating Revenues 4,564,500 Operating Expenditures (2) Wastewater Salaries and Benefits 1,826,000 Services and Supplies 1,475,060 Other Operating Expenditures (3) -2,184,800 Total Wastewater Operating Expenditures 1,116,260 NET OPERATING INCOME Wastewater 3,448,240 Debt Service Wastewater (3) 766,000 Total Debt Service 766,000 NET OPERATING INCOME AFTER DEBT Wastewater 2,682,240 Non-Operating Revenues Wastewater Total Non-Operating Revenues 0 NET AFTER NON-OPERATING REVENUES Wastewater 2,682,240 OTHER Wastewater Capital and Non-Recurring Revenues Capital and Non-Recurring Expenditures (4) 2,941,600 NET AFTER OTHER CAPITAL AND NON-RECURRING Wastewater (259,360) Ending Available Balance Wastewater (5) 5,393,822 Notes: 2019-11-15 (1) City of American Canyon Annual Budget Fiscal Year 2018 – 2019, Wastewater Operations Summary, pg. 236. (2) ibid, FY19 Budget, pg. 236. (3) ibid, FY19 Budget, Wastewater Operations Summary, pg. 236. Includes $35k capital outlay and $2,219,800 "Contra Expense." (4) ibid, FY19 Budget, Wastewater Operations Summary, pg. 236; includes $1,802,000 to capital. (5) ibid, FY19 Budget, Wastewater Operations Fund #540, pg. 108. Table A-4d Summary Financial Measures and Indicators City of American Canyon - Wastewater Item Amount 1a Balanced Budget (rev/exp inc. debt) (1) 243% Operating Revenues 4,564,500 Operating Expenditures (inc. debt) 1,882,260 Net 2,682,240 1b Operating Ratio (op'ing rev/exp inc. debt & deprec) 1.70 Operating Revenues 4,564,500 Operating Expenses 1,116,260 Debt Service 0 Depreciation (18) 1,566,883 TOTAL Expenses 2,683,143 1c Ending Fund Balance as % of Operating Revenues (2) 118% Beginning Fund Balance 5,653,182 Ending Fund Balance 5,393,822 Change in Fund Balance (259,360) 2a Net Position/Total Assets (3) 0.8 Net Position 34,429,066 Unrestricted Net Position 11,530,660 Total Assets 40,936,766 2b Current Ratio (Short-term Liquidity) (4) 5.1 Current Assets 7,301,370 Current Liabilities 1,439,203 2c Months Cash on Hand (crnt cash assets/expenses w/debt) 77 Current Assets 7,301,370 Operating Expenditures (inc. debt) 1,116,260 per day 3,058 3a Change in Net Depreciable Capital Assets (FY17-FY18) -2.2% Net Capital Assets, FY17 (5) 25,358,723 Net Capital Assets, FY18 (6) 24,809,204 Total Capital Assets being Depreciated (FY18) (7) 34,282,557 4a Debt Service as % of Operating Revenues 16.8% Debt Service (8) 766,000 Operating Revenues 4,564,500 5 Bond Ratings not reported 6 Total Reserves (% of op. expend. inc. debt) (13) 169% Operating Reserves (9) 11,530,660 Operating Expenditures (inc. debt) 1,882,260 Table A-4c (cont'd) 7 Rates and Charges (% of median HH income) 0.7% Monthly Service Charges (SFD) (10) $54.75 Median Household Income (2017) (11) $91,705 8 Pension Payments as % of Revenues 4.4% Unfunded Pension Liability (12) 1,285,128 % Pension Liability Funded (13) 75.8% Total Payments (normal cost + unfunded liabilities) (14) 200,400 9 OPEB Liabilities Unfunded OPEB Liability (15) 550,234 % OPEB Liability Funded (16) 53.0% Total OPEB Payments (17) 30,300 Notes: 2019-11-15 (1) City of American Canyon Annual Budget Fiscal Year 2018 – 2019, Wastewater Operations Summary, pg. 236. (2) ibid, FY19 Budget, Wastewater Operations Fund #540, pg. 108. (3) ibid, FY18 CAFR, Statement of Net Position Proprietary Funds, pg. 27. (4) ibid, FY18 CAFR, Statement of Net Position Proprietary Funds, pg. 27. (5) City of American Canyon FY17 CAFR, Statement of Net Position Proprietary (6) City of American Canyon FY18 CAFR, Statement of Net Position Proprietary (7) City of American Canyon FY18 CAFR, Note F - Capital Assets, pg. 49. (8) City of American Canyon Annual Budget Fiscal Year 2018 – 2019, (9) Unrestricted Net Position, FY18 CAFR, Statement of Net Position (10) See Appendix for detailed estimates of rates. (11) American Community Survey 2017, DP03, 5-Year estimates. (12) ibid, FY18 CAFR, Statement of Net Position Proprietary Funds, pg. 27. (13) City of American Canyon Response to Request for Information, 2019-10- 11, as of June 30, 2017. (14) City of American Canyon Annual Budget Fiscal Year 2018 – 2019, Wastewater Operations, pg. 240, 243, 245, 247. (15) ibid, FY18 CAFR, Statement of Net Position Proprietary Funds, pg. 27. (16) City of American Canyon Response to Request for Information, 2019-10- 11, as of June 30, 2017. (17) City of American Canyon Annual Budget Fiscal Year 2018 – 2019, Wastewater Operations, pg. 247. (18) City of American Canyon FY18 CAFR, Statement of Revenues, Expenses and Changes in Fund Net Position, pg. 28 Table A-5a Summary Financial Profile City of Calistoga - Water Item Amount Operating Revenues (1) Water 4,004,467 Operating Expenditures (2) Water Salaries and Benefits 971,344 Services and Supplies 1,951,771 Water Purchases Other Operating Expenditures (3) 0 Total Water Operating Expenditures 2,923,115 NET OPERATING INCOME Water 1,081,352 Debt Service (4) Water 444,636 Total Water and Wastewater Debt Service 444,636 NET OPERATING INCOME AFTER DEBT Water 636,716 Non-Operating Revenues Water Other Non-Operating Revenues (5) 564 NET AFTER NON-OPERATING REVENUES Water 637,280 OTHER Water Capital and Non-Recurring Revenues (6) 20,000 Capital and Non-Recurring Expenditures (7) 333,513 NET AFTER OTHER CAPITAL AND NON-RECURRING Water 323,767 Ending Available Balance (8) Water 1,050,864 Notes: 2019-10-01 (1) City of Calistoga Budget Fiscal Year 2018-19 Operating & Capital, pg. 131. (2) City of Calistoga Budget Fiscal Year 2018-19 Operating & Capital, pg. 134-136. (3) City of Calistoga Budget Fiscal Year 2018-19 Operating & Capital, pg. 134-136 excludes depreciation; equipment included below as "non-recurring". (4) City of Calistoga Budget Fiscal Year 2018-19 Operating & Capital, pg. 131. (5) City of Calistoga Budget Fiscal Year 2018-19 Operating & Capital, pg. 131. (6) City of Calistoga Budget Fiscal Year 2018-19 Operating & Capital, pg. 131; includes "General Fund Subsidy". (7) City of Calistoga Budget Fiscal Year 2018-19 Operating & Capital, pg. 131; includes transfer to water CIP ($282,648) and equipment ($50,865). (8) City of Calistoga Budget Fiscal Year 2018-19 Operating & Capital, pg. 131 "Ending Working Capital". Table A-5b Summary Financial Measures and Indicators City of Calistoga - Water Item Amount 1a Balanced Budget (rev/exp inc. debt) (1) 119% Operating Revenues 4,004,467 Operating Expenditures (inc. debt) 3,367,751 Net 636,716 1b Operating Ratio (op'ing rev/exp inc. debt & deprec) 1.04 Operating Revenues 4,004,467 Operating Expenses 2,923,115 Debt Service 444,636 Depreciation 500,000 TOTAL Expenses 3,867,751 1c Ending Fund Balance as % of Operating Revenues (2) 26% Beginning Fund Balance 727,097 Ending Fund Balance 1,050,864 2a Unrestricted Net Position/Operating Revenues (3) -22% Net Position 11,431,660 Unrestricted Net Position (877,527) Operating Revenues 4,004,467 2b Current Ratio (Short-term Liquidity) (3) 0.7 Current Assets 733,180 Current Liabilities 1,019,687 2c Months Cash on Hand (crnt assets/expenses w/debt) 3 Current Assets (4) 733,180 Operating Expenditures (inc. debt) 3,367,751 per day 9,227 3a Change in Net Depreciable Capital Assets (FY17-FY18) (5) 1.6% Net Capital Assets, FY17 13,710,682 Net Capital Assets, FY18 13,923,500 Total Capital Assets being Depreciated (FY18) 22,326,811 4a Debt Service as % of Operating Revenues 11.1% Debt Service 444,636 Operating Revenues 4,004,467 4b Debt Service Coverage Ratio 143.2% Operating Revenues 4,004,467 Operating Expenditures (inc. debt) 3,367,751 Net 636,716 Debt Service 444,636 Table A-5b (cont'd) 5 Bond Ratings not reported 6 Total Reserves (% of op. expend. inc. debt) 151% Operating Reserves (6) 1,050,864 Operating Expenditures (inc. debt) 3,367,751 7 Rates and Charges (% of median HH income) 2.1% Monthly Service Charges (SFD) (7) $102.30 Median Household Income (2017) (8) $58,533 8 Pension Liabilities as % of Revenues 3.4% Total Pension Liability Not Reported Unfunded Pension Liability 1,357,454 % Pension Liability Funded Not Reported Total Payments (normal cost + unfunded liabilities) (9) 136,069 9 OPEB Liability Payments as % of Revenues (10) na Unfunded OPEB Liability Not Reported % OPEB Liability Funded Not Reported Notes: 2019-10-01 (1) City of Calistoga Budget Fiscal Year 2018-19 Operating & Capital, pg. 131. (2) City of Calistoga Budget Fiscal Year 2018-19 Operating & Capital, pg. 131. (3) City of Calistoga CAFR FY18, Statement of Net Position, pg. 20. (4) Note: all current assets are reported as receivables; no cash shown. (5) City of Calistoga CAFR FY18, Note D Capital Assets Business-Type Activity, pg. (6) See Ending Fund Balance FY19. (7) See Appendix for detailed estimates of rates. (8) American Community Survey 2017, S2503, 5-Year estimates, City of Calistoga. (9) City of Calistoga Budget Fiscal Year 2018-19 Distribution, Treatment & Conservation, pg. 134-136. (10) FY18 CAFR reports net OPEB liability for city total $2,314,284; liability is not reported separately for enterprises. Table A-5c Summary Financial Profile City of Calistoga - Wastewater Services Item Amount Operating Revenues (1) Wastewater 2,824,747 Operating Expenditures (2) Wastewater Total Wastewater Operating Expenditures 2,436,793 NET OPERATING INCOME Wastewater 387,954 Debt Service (3) Wastewater 666,707 NET OPERATING INCOME AFTER DEBT Wastewater (278,753) OTHER Wastewater Capital and Non-Recurring Revenues Capital and Non-Recurring Expenditures (4) 197,213 NET AFTER OTHER CAPITAL AND NON-RECURRING Wastewater (475,966) Ending Available Balance Wastewater 541,263 Notes: 2019-10-01 (1) City of Calistoga Budget Fiscal Year 2018-19 Operating & Capital, pg. 143. (2) City of Calistoga Budget Fiscal Year 2018-19 Operating & Capital, pg. 143; excludes depreciation. (3) City of Calistoga Budget Fiscal Year 2018-19 Operating & Capital, pg. 143 (4) City of Calistoga Budget Fiscal Year 2018-19 Operating & Capital, pg. 143, equipment and transfers to CIP. (5) City of Calistoga Budget Fiscal Year 2018-19 Operating & Capital, pg. 143, "Ending Working Capital" for Operations and CIP Funds. Table A-5d Summary Financial Measures and Indicators City of Calistoga - Wastewater Services Item Amount 1a Balanced Budget (rev/exp inc. debt) (1) 116% Operating Revenues 2,824,747 Operating Expenditures (inc. debt) 2,436,793 Net 387,954 1b Operating Ratio (op'ing rev/exp inc. debt & deprec) 0.75 Operating Revenues 2,824,747 Operating Expenses 2,436,793 Debt Service 666,707 Depreciation 660,000 TOTAL Expenses 3,763,500 1c Ending Fund Balance as % of Operating Revenues (2) 19% Beginning Fund Balance 1,017,229 Ending Fund Balance 541,263 2a Unrestricted Net Position/Operating Revenues (3) 66% Net Position 8,021,913 Unrestricted Net Position 1,855,631 Operating Revenues 2,824,747 2b Current Ratio (Short-term Liquidity) 4.3 Current Assets 3,667,110 Current Liabilities 847,088 2c Months Cash on Hand (crnt assets/expenses w/debt) 18 Current Assets (4) 3,667,110 Operating Expenditures (inc. debt) 2,436,793 per day 6,676 3a Change in Net Depreciable Capital Assets (FY17-FY18) (5) 3.8% Net Capital Assets, FY17 12,048,533 Net Capital Assets, FY18 12,505,535 Total Capital Assets being Depreciated (FY18) 23,331,757 4a Debt Service as % of Operating Revenues 23.6% Debt Service 666,707 Operating Revenues 2,824,747 4b Debt Service Coverage Ratio 58.2% Operating Revenues 2,824,747 Operating Expenditures (exc. debt) 2,436,793 Net 387,954 Debt Service 666,707 Table A-5d (cont'd) 5 Bond Ratings AA 6 Total Reserves (% of op. expend. inc. debt) (13) 122% Operating Expenditures (inc. debt) 3,103,500 7 Rates and Charges (% of median HH income) 2.7% Monthly Service Charges (SFD) (7) $132.06 Median Household Income (2017) (8) $58,533 8 Pension Liabilities as % of Revenues 6.0% Total Pension Liability Not Reported Unfunded Pension Liability 1,523,006 % Pension Liability Funded Not Reported Total Payments (normal cost + unfunded liabilities) (9) 169,749 9 OPEB Liability Payments as % of Revenues (10) na Unfunded OPEB Liability Not Reported % OPEB Liability Funded Not Reported Notes: 2019-10-01 (1) City of Calistoga Budget Fiscal Year 2018-19 Operating & Capital, pg. 143. (2) City of Calistoga Budget Fiscal Year 2018-19 Operating & Capital, pg. 143. (3) City of Calistoga CAFR FY18, Statement of Net Position, pg. 20. (4) City of Calistoga CAFR FY18, Statement of Net Position, pg. 20; includes $3.1 million of cash. (5) City of Calistoga CAFR FY18, Note D Capital Assets Business-Type Activity, pg. 38. (6) See Ending Fund Balance FY19. (7) See Appendix for detailed estimates of rates. (8) American Community Survey 2017, S2503, 5-Year estimates, City of Calistoga. (9) City of Calistoga Budget Fiscal Year 2018-19 Treatment & Collection, pg. 146- 147. (10) FY18 CAFR reports net OPEB liability for city total $2,314,284. (11) 2018 Water and Wastewater Revenue Bonds: AA (rated), A- (underlying). Table A-6a Summary Financial Profile City of Napa - Water Item Amount Operating Revenues (1) Water 30,426,400 Total Operating Revenues 30,426,400 Operating Expenditures Water Salaries and Benefits (2) 9,177,010 Services and Supplies (3) 15,130,694 Water Purchases Other Operating Expenditures (4) (116,980) Total Water Operating Expenditures (5) 24,190,724 NET OPERATING INCOME Water 6,235,676 Debt Service Water (2) 3,416,500 Total Water and Wastewater Debt Service 3,416,500 NET OPERATING INCOME AFTER DEBT Water 2,819,176 NET AFTER NON-OPERATING REVENUES Water 2,819,176 OTHER Water Capital and Non-Recurring Revenues (6) 1,303,000 Capital and Non-Recurring Expenditures (7) 5,394,800 Total Other NET AFTER OTHER CAPITAL AND NON-RECURRING Water (1,272,624) Ending Available Balance Water (8) 12,488,434 Notes: 2019-11-20 (1) City of Napa FY19 Budget, pg. 192 plus FY19 mid-cycle adjustment $4,836,400 (pg. 14); increase based on new rates approved November, 2017. (2) City of Napa FY19 Budget, pg. 192. (3) City of Napa FY19 Budget, pg. 192, excludes debt (4) City of Napa FY19 mid-cycle net adjustment (pg. 14) to (5) City of Napa FY19 Budget, pg. 192; note: midcycle (6) FY19 mid-cycle net adjustment (pg. 14) to Capital and Non-Recurring Revenues. (7) FY19 mid-cycle net adjustment (pg. 14) to Capital and Non-Recurring Expenditures. (8) FY19 mid-cycle net adjustment (pg. 14); FY19 adopted budget was $8.1 mill. Table A-6b Summary Financial Measures and Indicators City of Napa - Water Item Amount 1a Balanced Budget (rev/exp inc. debt) (1) 110% Operating Revenues 30,426,400 Operating Expenditures (inc. debt) 27,607,224 Net 2,819,176 1b Operating Ratio (op'ing rev/exp inc. debt & deprec) (2) 0.94 Operating Revenues 30,426,400 Operating Expenses 24,190,724 Debt Service 3,416,500 Depreciation (3) 4,726,859 TOTAL Expenses 32,334,083 1c Ending Fund Balance as % of Operating Revenues (4) 41% Beginning Fund Balance 13,662,638 Ending Fund Balance 12,448,434 Change in Fund Balance (1,214,204) Change in Fund Balance as % of Beginning Balance -8.9% 2a Unrestricted Net Position/Operating Revenues (5) 2.5 Net Position 75,553,560 Unrestricted Net Position 21,533,728 Operating Revenues 30,426,400 2b Current Ratio (Short-term Liquidity) 5.3 Current Assets (6) 29,810,545 Current Liabilities (7) 5,662,880 2c Months Cash on Hand (crnt cash assets/expenses w/debt) 15 Current Cash Assets (8) 29,810,545 Operating Expenditures (inc. debt) (9) 24,190,724 per day 66,276 3a Change in Net Depreciable Capital Assets (FY17-FY18) (10) 3.7% Net Capital Assets, FY17 46,193,741 Net Capital Assets, FY18 47,892,357 Total Capital Assets being Depreciated (FY18) (11) 97,728,042 4a Debt Service as % of Operating Revenues 11.2% Debt Service 3,416,500 Operating Revenues 30,426,400 Total Debt (12) 42,196,409 5 Bond Ratings AA 6 Total Reserves (% of op. expend. inc. debt) (13) 52% Operating Reserves 12,488,434 7 Rates and Charges (% of median HH income) 0.8% Monthly Service Charges (SFD) $52.24 Median Household Income (2017) $82,361 Table A-6b (cont'd) 8 Pension Payments as % of Revenues 6.4% Unfunded Pension Liability (16) 14,554,528 Total Payments (normal cost + unfunded liabilities) (17) 1,934,477 9 OPEB Liability Payments as % of Revenues 0.7% Unfunded OPEB Liability (18) 0 % OPEB Liability Funded 100% Total OPEB Payments (19) 212,676 Notes: 2019-11-20 (1) FY19 operating expenditures including debt service (not including depreciation). (2) FY19 Budget, pg. 192 plus FY19 mid-cycle adjustment $4,836,400 (pg. 14). (3) City of Napa FY18 CAFR, Note 6b, pg. 71 allocated to water utility. (4) City of Napa FY19 Budget, pg. 192 plus FY19 mid-cycle adjustment, pg. 14. (5) City of Napa FY18 CAFR, Proprietary Funds, Statement of Net Position, pg. 41. (6) Cash and Investments, FY18 CAFR, Proprietary Funds, Statement of Net Position, pg. 41. (7) FY18 CAFR, Proprietary Funds, Statement of Net Position, pg. 41. (8) Cash and Investments, FY18 CAFR, Proprietary Funds, Statement of Net Position, pg. 41 (9) FY19 Budget, pg. 192 plus FY19 mid-cycle adjustment (pg. 14). (10) FY18 CAFR, Note 6, pg. 71, Transmission and Distribution. (11) FY18 CAFR, Note 6, pg. 71, Transmission and Distribution. (12) FY18 CAFR, Proprietary Funds Statement of Net Posittion, 2016 Water Revenue Refunding Bond, pg. 41. (13) FY19 mid-cycle net adjustment (pg. 14); FY19 adopted budget was $8.1 mill. (14) See Appendix for detailed estimates of rates. (15) Financial Characteristics, City of Napa, 2017 ACS 1-Year Estimates, https://www.census.gov/acs/www/data/data-tables-and-tools/american- factfinder/ (16) FY18 CAFR, Proprietary Funds Statement of Net Position, pg. 41. (17) FY18 CAFR, Proprietary Funds Statement of Cash Flows, pg. 43. (18) FY18 CAFR, Proprietary Funds Statement of Net Position, pg. 41. (19) Estimated based on City OPEB payments/employee costs (exc. benefits) for City All Funds. Table A-7a Summary Financial Profile City of St. Helena - Water Item Amount Operating Revenues (1) Water 6,093,314 Operating Expenditures (2) Water Salaries and Benefits 858,853 Services and Supplies 1,905,800 Water Purchases 0 Other Operating Expenditures (3) 2,084,049 Total Water Operating Expenditures 4,848,702 NET OPERATING INCOME Water 1,244,612 Debt Service (4) Water 1,008,973 NET OPERATING INCOME AFTER DEBT Water 1,244,612 NET AFTER OTHER CAPITAL AND NON-RECURRING Water 1,244,612 Ending Available Balance Water (5) 3,597,273 Notes: 2019-09-10 (1) City of St. Helena Operations & Capital Budget FY 2018/19 FY19 Budget, Water Enterprise Fund, pg. 156. (2) City of St. Helena Operations & Capital Budget FY 2018/19 FY19 Budget, Water Enterprise Fund, pg. 157, 163, 167. (3) City of St. Helena Operations & Capital Budget FY 2018/19 FY19 Budget, Water Enterprise Fund, pg. 157, 163, 167. (4) Debt service of $1,008,973 in 'Other' detailed in Non-Dep'l Debt Service Fund in Budget (see pg. 80). (5) City of St. Helena Operations & Capital Budget FY 2018/19 FY19 Budget, Water Enterprise Fund, pg. 156. Does not include balances in the CIP fund, impact fee fund, and bond proceeds shown in CAFR. Table A-7b Summary Financial Measures and Indicators City of St. Helena - Water Item Amount 1a Balanced Budget (rev/exp inc. debt) (1) 126% Operating Revenues 6,093,314 Operating Expenditures (inc. debt) 4,848,702 Net 1,244,612 1b Operating Ratio (op'ing rev/exp inc. debt & deprec.) 0.92 Operating Revenues 6,093,314 Operating Expenses 4,848,702 Debt Service 1,008,973 Depreciation 770,055 TOTAL Expenses 6,627,730 1c Ending Fund Balance as % of Operating Revenues (2) 59% Beginning Fund Balance 3,597,273 Ending Fund Balance 3,597,273 Change in Fund Balance 0 2a Unrestricted Net Position/Operating Revenues (3) 118% Net Position 10,439,684 Unrestricted Net Position 7,211,573 Operating Revenues 6,093,314 2b Current Ratio (Short-term Liquidity) (4) 6.7 Current Assets 8,657,207 Current Liabilities 1,283,500 2c Months Cash on Hand (crnt cash assets/expenses w/debt) 21 Current Cash Assets (4) 8,657,207 Operating Expenditures (inc. debt) 4,848,702 3a Change in Net Depreciable Capital Assets (FY17-FY18) -5.2% Net Capital Assets, FY17 (5) 7,056,072 Net Capital Assets, FY18 (5) 6,689,865 Total Capital Assets being Depreciated (FY18) (6) not reported Depreciation (7) 770,055 4a Debt Service as % of Operating Revenues 16.6% Debt Service 1,008,973 Operating Revenues 6,093,314 Total Debt 10,594,000 Table A-7b (cont'd) 5 Bond Ratings not reported 6 Total Reserves (% of op. expend. inc. debt) 74% Operating Reserves (8) 3,597,273 Operating Expenditures (inc. debt) 5,857,675 7 Rates and Charges (% of median HH income) 1.4% Monthly Service Charges (SFD) (9) $102.92 Median Household Income (2017) (10) $85,663 8 Pension Payments as % of Revenues 2.3% Unfunded Pension Liability (11) 1,692,509 % Pension Liability Funded not reported Total Payments (normal cost + unfunded liabilities) (12) 143,000 9 OPEB Liability Payments as % of Revenues na Total OPEB Payments (13) na Notes: 2019-09-10 (1) City of St. Helena Operations & Capital Budget FY 2018/19 FY19 Budget, Water Enterprise Fund, pg. 156. (2) City of St. Helena Operations & Capital Budget FY 2018/19 FY19 Budget, Water Enterprise Fund, pg. 156. Does not include balances in the CIP fund, impact fee fund, and bond proceeds shown in CAFR. (3) City of St. Helena FY18 CAFR, Statement of Net Position, Proprietary Funds, pg. 21. (4) City of St. Helena FY18 CAFR, Statement of Net Position, Proprietary Funds, pg. 21. (5) City of St. Helena FY18 CAFR, Statement of Net Position, Proprietary Funds, pg. 21. (6) Total assets (before depreciation) not reported by utility. (7) City of St. Helena FY18 CAFR, Statement of Net Position, Proprietary Funds, pg. 22. (8) See Fund Balance 1c above. (9) See Appendix for detailed estimates of rates. (10) American Community Survey 2017, S2503, 5-Year estimates, City of St. Helena. (11) City of St. Helena FY18 CAFR, Statement of Net Position, Proprietary Funds, pg. 21. (12) City of St. Helena Operations & Capital Budget FY 2018/19 FY19 Budget, Water Enterprise Fund, pg. 158, 168. (13) Liability is pre-funded. Table A-7c Summary Financial Profile City of St. Helena - Wastewater Item Amount Operating Revenues (1) Wastewater 3,155,179 Total Operating Revenues 3,155,179 Operating Expenditures (2) Wastewater Salaries and Benefits 539,588 Services and Supplies 364,750 Other Operating Expenditures (3) 1,396,466 Total Wastewater Operating Expenditures 2,300,804 NET OPERATING INCOME Wastewater 854,375 Debt Service (4) Wastewater 256,030 NET OPERATING INCOME AFTER DEBT Wastewater 854,375 NET AFTER NON-OPERATING REVENUES Wastewater 854,375 NET AFTER OTHER CAPITAL AND NON-RECURRING Wastewater 854,375 Ending Available Balance Wastewater (5) 728,074 2019-09-10 (1) City of St. Helena Operations & Capital Budget FY 2018/19, FY19 Adopted Budget, Wastewater Enterprise Fund, pg. 176. (2) City of St. Helena Operations & Capital Budget FY 2018/19, FY19 Adopted Budget, Wastewater Enterprise Fund, pg. 177, 181. (3) City of St. Helena Operations & Capital Budget FY 2018/19, FY19 Adopted (4) City of St. Helena Operations & Capital Budget FY 2018/19, FY19 Adopted Budget, Non-Dept'l - 4000 571 Wastewater Debt Service (4045), pg. 177, 181. (5) City of St. Helena Operations & Capital Budget FY 2018/19, FY19 Adopted Budget, Wastewater Enterprise Fund, pg. 176. Does not include balances in the CIP fund, impact fee fund, and bond proceeds shown in CAFR. Table A-7d Summary Financial Measures and Indicators City of St. Helena - Wastewater Item Amount 1a Balanced Budget (rev/exp inc. debt) (1) 137% Operating Revenues 3,155,179 Operating Expenditures (inc. debt) 2,300,804 Net 854,375 1b Operating Ratio (op'ing rev/exp inc. debt & deprec) 1.11 Operating Revenues 3,155,179 Operating Expenses 2,300,804 Debt Service 0 Depreciation 530,489 TOTAL Expenses 2,831,293 1c Ending Fund Balance as % of Operating Revenues (2) 23% Beginning Fund Balance 488,074 Ending Fund Balance 728,074 Change in Fund Balance 240,000 Change in Fund Balance as % of Beginning Balance 2a Unrestricted Net Position/Operating Revenues (3) 91% Net Position 7,063,134 Unrestricted Net Position 2,859,083 Operating Revenues 3,155,179 2b Current Ratio (Short-term Liquidity) (4) 11.5 Current Assets 3,908,351 Current Liabilities 339,467 2c Months Cash on Hand (crnt cash assets/expenses w/debt) 20 Current Cash Assets (4) 3,908,351 Operating Expenditures (inc. debt) 2,300,804 per day 6,304 3a Change in Net Depreciable Capital Assets (FY17-FY18) -13.5% Net Capital Assets, FY17 (5) 3,578,029 Net Capital Assets, FY18 (5) 3,095,395 Total Capital Assets being Depreciated (FY18) (6) not reported Depreciation (7) 530,489 4a Debt Service as % of Operating Revenues 8.1% Debt Service 256,030 Operating Revenues 3,155,179 Table A-7d (cont'd) 5 Bond Ratings not reported 6 Total Reserves (% of op. expend. inc. debt) 32% Operating Reserves (8) 728,074 Operating Expenditures (inc. debt) 2,556,834 7 Rates and Charges (% of median HH income) 1.3% Monthly Service Charges (SFD) (9) $91.22 Median Household Income (2017) (10) $85,663 8 Pension Payments as % of Revenues 2.5% Total Pension Liability not reported Unfunded Pension Liability (11) 1,187,504 % Pension Liability Funded not reported Total Payments (normal cost + unfunded liabilities) (12) 78,000 9 OPEB Liability Payments as % of Revenues na Total OPEB Payments (13) Notes: 2019-09-10 (1) City of St. Helena Operations & Capital Budget FY 2018/19, FY19 Adopted Budget, Wastewater Enterprise Fund, pg. 176. (2) City of St. Helena Operations & Capital Budget FY 2018/19, FY19 Adopted Budget, Wastewater Enterprise Fund, pg. 176. Does not include balances in the CIP fund, impact fee fund, and bond proceeds shown in CAFR. (3) City of St. Helena FY18 CAFR, Statement of Net Position, Proprietary Funds, pg. 21. (4) City of St. Helena FY18 CAFR, Statement of Net Position, Proprietary Funds, pg. 21. (5) City of St. Helena FY18 CAFR, Statement of Net Position, Proprietary Funds, pg. 21. (6) Total assets (before depreciation) not reported by utility. (7) City of St. Helena FY18 CAFR, Statement of Net Position, Proprietary Funds, pg. 22. (8) See Fund Balance 1c above. (9) See Appendix for detailed estimates of rates. (10) American Community Survey 2017, S2503, 5-Year estimates, City of St. Helena (11) City of St. Helena FY18 CAFR, Statement of Net Position, Proprietary Funds, pg. 21. (12) Correspondence with City of St. Helena, 1/22/2020. (13) Liability is pre-funded. Table A-8a Summary Financial Profile City of Yountville - Water Item Amount Operating Revenues (1) Water 1,330,902 Total Operating Revenues 1,330,902 Operating Expenditures (2) Water Salaries and Benefits 474,785 Services and Supplies 152,760 Water Purchases 642,000 Other Operating Expenditures (3) 5,000 Total Water Operating Expenditures 1,274,545 NET OPERATING INCOME Water 56,357 Debt Service Water 0 NET OPERATING INCOME AFTER DEBT Water 56,357 Non-Operating Revenues Water Property Tax Other Non-Operating Revenues (4) 9,250 Total Non-Operating Revenues 9,250 NET AFTER NON-OPERATING REVENUES Water 65,607 OTHER Water Capital and Non-Recurring Revenues Capital and Non-Recurring Expenditures (5) 200,000 NET AFTER OTHER CAPITAL AND NON-RECURRING Water (134,393) Ending Available Balance Water (6) 365,135 Notes: 2019-08-30 (1) Town of Yountville, FY19 Budget, Water Funds Summary, pg. 243 (minus interest and system replacement fees). (2) Town of Yountville, FY19 Budget, Water Expenditure Summary by Category, pg. 243. (3) Capital outlay (4) Town of Yountville, FY19 Budget, Water Funds Summary, pg. 243, low income subsidy (01) plus interest earnings. (5) Town of Yountville, FY19 Budget, Water Expenditure Summary by Category, pg. 244, Transfers Out. Table A-8b Summary Financial Measures and Indicators City of Yountville - Water Item Amount 1a Balanced Budget (rev/exp inc. debt) 104% Operating Revenues (1) 1,330,902 Operating Expenditures (inc. debt) (2) 1,274,545 Net 56,357 1b Operating Ratio (op'ing rev/exp inc. debt & deprec) 0.99 Operating Revenues 1,330,902 Operating Expenses 1,274,545 Debt Service 0 Depreciation 63,872 TOTAL Expenses 1,338,417 1c Ending Fund Balance as % of Operating Revenues 27% Beginning Fund Balance (3) 572,128 Ending Fund Balance (3) 365,135 Change in Fund Balance (206,993) 2a Unrestricted Net Position/Operating Revenues 246% Net Position (4) 5,114,199 Unrestricted Net Position (4) 3,279,519 Operating Revenues 1,330,902 2b Current Ratio (Short-term Liquidity) 104.4 Current Assets (5) 3,654,742 Current Liabilities (5) 35,019 2c Months Cash on Hand (current cash assets/expenses inc. debt) 33 Current Cash Assets (5) 3,519,022 Operating Expenditures (inc. debt) 1,274,545 per day 3,492 3a Change in Net Depreciable Capital Assets (FY17-FY18) -2.1% Net Capital Assets, FY17 (6) 1,874,439 Net Capital Assets, FY18 (6) 1,834,680 Total Capital Assets being Depreciated (FY18) not reported Depreciation (7) 63,872 4a Debt Service as % of Operating Revenues 0.0% Debt Service 0 Operating Revenues 1,330,902 4b Debt Service Coverage Ratio na Operating Revenues 1,330,902 Operating Expenditures (exc. debt) 1,274,545 Net 56,357 Debt Service 0 Table A-8b (cont'd) 5 Bond Ratings not reported 6 Total Reserves (% of op. expend. inc. debt) (8) 357% Operating Reserves 3,279,519 Operating Expenditures (inc. debt) 1,274,545 7 Rates and Charges (% of median HH income) 1.7% Monthly Service Charges (SFD) (9) $101.98 Median Household Income (2017) (10) $70,938 8 Pension Liabilities as % of Revenues 4.0% Total Pension Liability not reported Unfunded Pension Liability (11) 284,581 Total Payments (normal cost + unfunded liabilities) (12) 53,044 9 OPEB Liability Payments as % of Revenues 2.4% Unfunded OPEB Liability (13) 137,987 Total OPEB Payments (14) 31,597 Notes: 2019-09-10 (1) Town of Yountville, FY19 Budget, Water Funds Summary, pg. 243 (minus interest and system replacement fees). (2) FY19 operating expenditures including debt service (not including depreciation). (3) FY19 Budget, Water Utility Operating Fund Summary, pg. 245. (4) FY18 CAFR, Statement of Net Position, Proprietary Funds, pg. 34 (5) FY18 CAFR, Statement of Net Position, Proprietary Funds, pg. 34 (6) FY17 CAFR, Statement of Net Position, Proprietary Funds, pg. 34 (7) FY18 CAFR, Statement of Revenues, Expenses and Changes in Net Position, Proprietary Funds, pg. 35 (8) No reserves specific to utilities. The Town has Emergency Reserves (20% of GF expenditures) and Rev. Stabilization (29% of projected TOT); also $240,000 for budget (9) See Appendix for detailed estimates of rates. (10) American Community Survey 2017, S2503, 5-Year estimates (11) FY18 CAFR, Statement of Net Position, Proprietary Funds, pg. 34 (total liability not reported). (12) FY19 Budget, Water Expenditure Summary by Category, pg. 244 *Includes adjustment for GASB 68 . (13) FY18 CAFR, Statement of Net Position, Proprietary Funds, pg. 34 (14) FY19 Budget, Water Utility, Op./Dist. pg. 249., Treatment pg. 273. Table A-8c Summary Financial Profile City of Yountville - Wastewater Item Amount Operating Revenues (1) Wastewater 1,895,370 Total Operating Revenues 1,895,370 Operating Expenditures (2) Wastewater Salaries and Benefits 944,937 Services and Supplies 599,980 Other Operating Expenditures (3) 8,000 Total Wastewater Operating Expenditures 1,552,917 NET OPERATING INCOME Wastewater 342,453 Debt Service Wastewater 12,525 NET OPERATING INCOME AFTER DEBT Wastewater 329,928 Non-Operating Revenues Wastewater Property Tax Other Non-Operating Revenues (4) 9,000 Total Non-Operating Revenues 9,000 NET AFTER NON-OPERATING REVENUES Wastewater 338,928 OTHER Wastewater Capital and Non-Recurring Revenues Capital and Non-Recurring Expenditures (5) 300,000 NET AFTER OTHER CAPITAL AND NON-RECURRING Wastewater 38,928 Ending Available Balance Wastewater 298,696 Notes: 2019-08-30 (1) Town of Yountville, FY19 Budget, Wastewater Funds Summary, pg. 263 (minus interest, system replacement fees, impact fees, and capital recover Veterans (2) Town of Yountville, FY19 Budget, Wastewater Funds Summary, pg. 263. (3) Capital outlay. (4) Town of Yountville, FY19 Budget, Wastewater Funds Summary, pg. 265, low income subsidy (01) plus interest earnings. (5) Town of Yountville, FY19 Budget, Wastewater Funds Summary, pg. 263, capital projects. Table A-8d Summary Financial Measures and Indicators City of Yountville - Wastewater Item Amount 1a Balanced Budget (rev/exp inc. debt) 122% Operating Revenues (1) 1,895,370 Operating Expenditures (inc. debt) (2) 1,552,917 Net 342,453 1b Operating Ratio (op'ing rev/exp inc. debt & deprec) 1.02 Operating Revenues 1,895,370 Operating Expenses 1,552,917 Debt Service 0 Depreciation 313,414 TOTAL Expenses 1,866,331 1c Ending Fund Balance as % of Operating Revenues 16% Beginning Fund Balance (3) 592,123 Ending Fund Balance (3) 298,696 Change in Fund Balance (293,427) 2a Unrestricted Net Position/Operating Revenues 173% Net Position (4) 5,114,199 Unrestricted Net Position (4) 3,279,519 Operating Revenues 1,895,370 2b Current Ratio (Short-term Liquidity) 16.5 Current Assets (5) 4,366,596 Current Liabilities (5) 263,963 2c Months Cash on Hand (current cash assets/expenses inc. debt) 31 Current Cash Assets (5) 4,030,605 Operating Expenditures (inc. debt) 1,552,917 per day 4,255 3a Change in Net Depreciable Capital Assets (FY17-FY18) -3.0% Net Capital Assets, FY17 (6) 9,231,818 Net Capital Assets, FY18 (6) 8,958,040 Total Capital Assets being Depreciated (FY18) not reported Depreciation (7) 313,414 4a Debt Service as % of Operating Revenues 0.7% Debt Service 12,525 Operating Revenues 1,895,370 Table A-8d (cont'd) 5 Bond Ratings not reported 6 Total Reserves (% of op. expend. inc. debt) (8) 311% Operating Reserves 3,279,519 Operating Expenditures (inc. debt) 1,565,442 7 Rates and Charges (% of median HH income) 1.0% Monthly Service Charges (SFD) (9) $56.22 Median Household Income (2017) (10) $70,938 8 Pension Liabilities as % of Revenues 5.6% Total Pension Liability not reported Unfunded Pension Liability (11) 691,832 Total Payments (normal cost + unfunded liabilities) (12) 106,164 9 OPEB Liability Payments as % of Revenues 4.1% Unfunded OPEB Liability (13) 336,221 Total OPEB Payments (14) 76,988 2019-08-30 (1) Town of Yountville, FY19 Budget, Wastewater Funds Summary, pg. 263 (minus interest, system replacement fees, impact fees, and capital recover Veterans Home). (2) FY19 operating expenditures including debt service (not including depreciation). (3) FY19 Budget, Wastewater Utility Operating Fund Summary, pg. 265. (4) FY18 CAFR, Statement of Net Position, Proprietary Funds, pg. 34 (5) FY18 CAFR, Statement of Net Position, Proprietary Funds, pg. 34 (6) FY17 CAFR, Statement of Net Position, Proprietary Funds, pg. 34 (7) FY18 CAFR, Statement of Revenues, Expenses and Changes in Net Position, Proprietary Funds, pg. 35 (8) No reserves specific to utilities. The Town has Emergency Reserves (20% of GF expenditures) and Rev. Stabilization (29% of projected TOT); also $240,000 for budget contingencies. (9) See Appendix detailed estimates of rates. (10) American Community Survey 2017, S2503, 5-Year estimates (11) FY18 CAFR, Statement of Net Position, Proprietary Funds, pg. 34 (12) FY19 Budget, Wastewater Expenditure Summary by Category, pg. 264* (13) FY18 CAFR, Statement of Net Position, Proprietary Funds, pg. 34 (14) FY19 Budget, Wastewater Utility, Collections pg. 269., Treatment pg. 273. Table A-9a Summary Financial Profile Circle Oaks County Water District - Water and Wastewater Operations Item Amount Operating Revenues Water (1) 234,000 Wastewater (2) 159,000 Other Operating Revenues (3) 5,000 Total Operating Revenues 398,000 Operating Expenditures Water Total Water Operating Expenditures (4) 45,000 Wastewater Total Wastewater Operating Expenditures (5) 42,000 Other Expenditures (6) 253,000 Total Expenditures 340,000 NET OPERATING INCOME Total 58,000 Debt Service Total Water and Wastewater Debt Service (7) 0 Non-Operating Revenues Property Tax (8) 50,000 Total Non-Operating Revenues 50,000 NET AFTER NON-OPERATING REVENUES Total (9) 108,000 Ending Available Balance Total (10) 377,676 Notes to Table A-9a: 2019-12-19 (1) Circle Oaks Proposed Budget 2018-19, pg. 1; includes water service plus $75k water usage charges. (2) Circle Oaks Proposed Budget 2018-19, pg. 1. (3) Circle Oaks Proposed Budget 2018-19, pg. 1; includes "Late Charges". (4) Circle Oaks Proposed Budget 2018-19, pg. 2 (water transmission). (5) Circle Oaks Proposed Budget 2018-19, pg. 2. (6) Includes utilities, admin, testing, insurance, Management Fees, etc. (7) Excludes debt funded by assessments. (8) Circle Oaks Proposed Budget 2018-19, pg. 1. (9) Net annual balance before deducting depreciation. (10) Estimated based on unrestricted position ending FY18 plus annual net balance from budget shown in Table A-9a above. Table A-9b Summary Financial Measures and Indicators Circle Oaks County Water District - Water and Wastewater Operations Item Amount 1a Balanced Budget (rev/exp inc. debt) 132% Revenues (inc. property tax) (1) 448,000 Expenditures (2) 340,000 Net 108,000 1b Operating Ratio (rev/exp inc. debt & deprec) 0.86 Operating Revenues 398,000 Operating Expenses 340,000 Debt Service (3) 0 Depreciation (4) 125,000 TOTAL Expenses 465,000 1c Ending Fund Balance as % of Revenues see 2a below 2a Unrestricted Net Position/Revenues (5) 60% Net Position (5) 3,718,878 Unrestricted Net Position 269,676 Revenues 448,000 2b Current Ratio (Short-term Liquidity) (6) 8.8 Current Assets (exc. receivables) 246,569 Current Liabilities 28,105 2c Months Cash on Hand (crnt cash assets/expenses w/debt) 9 Current Assets (exc. receivables) (6) 246,569 Expenditures 340,000 3a Change in Net Depreciable Capital Assets (FY17-FY18) (7) -3.2% Net Capital Assets, FY17 3,534,586 Net Capital Assets, FY18 3,421,097 Total Capital Assets being Depreciated (FY18) 4,991,429 Depreciation 124,919 4a Debt Service as % of Revenues na Debt Service (exc. assessment debt) 0 4b Debt Service Coverage Ratio na 5 Bond Ratings na 6 Total Reserves (% of op. expend. inc. debt) see 2a above Operating Expenditures (inc. debt) 7 Rates and Charges (% of median HH income) 2.9% Monthly Service Charges (SFD) (8) $190.83 Water $118.68 Sewer $72.15 Median Household Income (2017) (9) $79,637 8 Pension Liabilities no obligations 9 OPEB Liabilities no obligations Notes to Table A-9b: 2019-12-19 (1) Circle Oaks Proposed Budget 2018-19, pg. 1; includes water service plus $75k water usage charges. (2) FY19 operating expenditures (not including depreciation). (3) Excludes assessment debt. (4) Circle Oaks Financial Statements FY18 Statement of Net Position, pg. 4. (5) Circle Oaks Financial Statements FY18 Statement of Net Position, Unrestricted, pg. 4 (cont'd). (6) Circle Oaks Financial Statements FY18 Statement of Net Position, Unrestricted, pg. 4. (7) Circle Oaks Financial Statements FY18 Statement of Net Position, pg. 4. (8) See Appendix for detailed estimates of rates. (9) American Community Survey 2017, S2503, 5-Year estimates, Napa County Median. Table A-10a Summary Financial Profile Congress Valley Water District - Water Operations Item Amount Operating Revenues Total Operating Revenues (1) 0 Operating Expenditures Total Water Operating Expenditures (2) 133,600 NET OPERATING INCOME Total (133,600) Debt Service Total Debt Service 0 NET OPERATING INCOME AFTER DEBT Total NOI after Debt (133,600) Non-Operating Revenues (3) Property Tax 85,365 Other Non-Operating Revenues 9,700 Total Non-Operating Revenues 95,065 NET AFTER NON-OPERATING REVENUES Net after Non-Operating Revenues (38,535) NET AFTER OTHER CAPITAL AND NON-RECURRING Total (38,535) Notes: 2019-09-17 (1) No user fees (users billed directly by City of Napa); revenues derived from property taxes and misc. revenues (interest) only. (2) Congress Valley WD Final 2018-19 Budget. (3) Congress Valley WD Final 2018-19 Budget; includes interest earnings and misc. Table A-10b Summary Financial Profile Congress Valley Water District - Water Operations Item Amount 1a Balanced Budget (rev/exp inc. debt) 71% Revenues (inc. property tax, interest, misc.) 95,065 Expenditures (inc. debt) 133,600 Net (38,535) 1b Operating Ratio (op'ing rev/exp inc. debt & deprec) 0.61 Revenues (inc. property tax, interest, misc.) 95,065 Expenditures (inc. debt) 133,600 Debt Service 0 Depreciation (1) 22,942 TOTAL Expenses 156,542 1c Ending Fund Balance as % of Operating Revenues 725% Beginning Fund Balance (unrestricted net position) (2) 727,855 Ending Fund Balance (3) 689,320 Change in Fund Balance (4) (38,535) 2a Unrestricted Net Position/Operating Revenues 766% Total Net Position (5) 1,099,790 Unrestricted Net Position (5) 727,855 Revenues (5) 95,065 2b Current Ratio (Short-term Liquidity) (6) 4.1 Current Assets 1,167,062 Current Liabilities 281,626 2c Months Cash on Hand (crnt cash assets/expenses w/debt) 103 Current Assets (6) 1,167,062 Operating Expenditures (inc. debt) 133,600 3a Change in Net Depreciable Capital Assets (FY17-FY18) (7) -9.2% Net Capital Assets, FY17 248,201 Net Capital Assets, FY18 225,259 Total Capital Assets being Depreciated (FY18) 971,055 Depreciation 22,942 4a Debt Service as % of Operating Revenues 0.0% Debt Service 0 4b Debt Service Coverage Ratio na Table A-10b (cont'd) 5 Bond Ratings na 6 Total Reserves (% of op. expend. inc. debt) 645% Reserves (Unrestricted Net Position) (8) 727,855 Expenditures (inc. debt) 133,600 7 Rates and Charges (% of median HH income) 1.0% Monthly Service Charges (SFD) Water $67.78 Median Household Income (2017) (9) $79,637 8 Pension Liabilities as % of Revenues na Total Pension Liability 0 9 OPEB Liability Payments as % of Revenues na Notes: 2019-09-17 (1) CVWD Basic Financial Statements for the Fiscal Years Ended June 30, 2018 and 2017, pg. 8. (2) CVWD Basic Financial Statements for the Fiscal Years Ended June 30, 2018 and 2017, FY18 Unrestricted Net Position (fund balance not reported), p(3g). B4eginning Balance minus Net Operating Revenues (fund balance not reported). (4) FY19 budget net balance. (5) CVWD Basic Financial Statements for the Fiscal Years Ended June 30, 2018 and 2017, pg. 4. (6) CVWD Basic Financial Statements for the Fiscal Years Ended June 30, 2018 and 2017, pg. 4. (7) CVWD Basic Financial Statements for the Fiscal Years Ended June 30, 2018 and 2017, Note 3, pg. 14. (8) CVWD Basic Financial Statements for the Fiscal Years Ended June 30, 2018 and 2017, pg. 4. (9) Napa County Median, American Community Survey 2017, S2503, 5-Year estimates. Table A-13a Summary Financial Profile Napa Berryessa Resort Improvement District - Water and Wastewater Operations Item Amount Operating Revenues Sewer/Water Usage Fees (1) 550,729 Other Operating Revenues (inc. Availability Chgs) (2) 121,200 Total Operating Revenues 671,929 Operating Expenditures Total Expenditures (3) 658,027 NET OPERATING INCOME Total Net Operating Income 13,902 Debt Service Total Water and Wastewater Debt Service (4) NET OPERATING INCOME AFTER DEBT Total 13,902 Non-Operating Revenues Property Tax (5) 58,302 Other Non-Operating Rev (exc.assessments) (6) 68,308 Total Non-Operating Revenues 126,610 Capital and Non-Recurring Revenues (7) 15,311 Capital and Non-Recurring Expenditures (to CIP) (7) 112,033 Net Capital and Non-Recurring Expenditures (Transfers) (96,722) NET AFTER OTHER CAPITAL AND NON-RECURRING Total 43,790 Ending Available Balance Total (Operations) (9) (1,044,969) Notes: 2020-01-28 (1) Operations, NBRID (52400) Statement of Revenues and Expenses Budget vs. Actual FY19, Actual Year to Date. (2) ibid, NBRID (52400) Statement of Actual FY19. (3) ibid, NBRID (52400) Statement of Actual FY19, Operations (inc. equipment). (4) Exc. debt service. NBRID (52410) Statement of Revenues and Expenses Budget vs. Actual FY19, Actual Year to Date. (5) NBRID (52400) Statement of Revenues and Expenses Budget vs. Actual FY19, Actual Year to Date. (6) ibid, NBRID (52400) Statement of Actual FY19. (7) ibid, NBRID (52400) Statement of Actual FY19 (Hook-up Fees & transfers in). (9) NBRID (52400) Statement of Revenues and Expenses Budget vs. Actual FY19, Actual Year to Date. Note: Debt Service funding balance is $1.5 million; financial reports show a positive balance overall. Table Table A-13b Summary Financial Measures and Indicators Napa Berryessa Resort Improvement District - Water and Wastewater Operations Item Amount 1a Balanced Budget (rev/exp inc. debt) (1) 124% Total Revenues Operations Fund (inc. avail. Chgs) 813,850 Expenditures (exc. debt; excludes transfers to CIP) 658,027 Net 155,823 1b Operating Ratio (op'ing rev/exp inc. debt & deprec) 0.98 Total Revenues (exc. hook-up fees) 813,850 Total Expenses (exc. transfers to CIP) 658,027 Debt Service (funded by assessments) 0 Depreciation (2) 170,966 TOTAL Expenses 828,993 1c Ending Fund Balance as % of Operating Fund Expenditures (3) 115% Beginning Fund Balances (operations and debt) Ending Fund Balance (cash and investments) 753,555 Change in Fund Balance (operations and debt) 2a Unrestricted Net Position/Operating Revenues (4) 58% Net Position 73,371 Unrestricted Net Position 472,090 Operating Revenues 813,850 2b Current Ratio (Short-term Liquidity) (5) 7.8 Current Assets 2,952,479 Current Liabilities 378,579 2c Months Cash on Hand (crnt cash assets/expenses w/debt) 53 Current Assets (Cash and Investments) (5) 2,952,479 Operating Expenditures (inc. debt) 658,027 3a Change in Net Depreciable Capital Assets (FY17-FY18) -5.4% Total Capital Assets being Depreciated (FY18) 12,826,249 Net Depreciable Capital Assets/Total (FY18) 71.9% 4a Debt Service as % of Total Revenues 59.9% Debt Service 487,891 Total Revenues (including property tax & assessments) 813,850 5 Bond Ratings not reported 6 Total Reserves (% of op. expend. inc. debt) 115% Operating Expenditures (exc. debt) 658,027 7 Rates and Charges (% of median HH income) 4.3% Monthly Service Charges (SFD) (8) Water $84.94 Sewer $124.88 Median Household Income (2017) (9) $58,500 Table A-13b (cont'd) 8 Pension Liabilities 0 9 OPEB Liabilities 0 Notes: 2020-01-28 (1) Inc. availability charges; not including hookup fees. (2) NBRID (52400) Statement of Revenues and Expenses Budget vs. Actual FY19, Actual Year to Date. (3) County of Napa CAFR for Fiscal Year ended June 30, 2018, Statement of Net Position Proprietary Funds, "Cash and Investments", pg. 37. (4) County of Napa CAFR for Fiscal Year ended June 30, 2018, Statement of Net Position Proprietary Funds, pg. 37. (5) County of Napa CAFR for Fiscal Year ended June 30, 2018, Statement of Net Position Proprietary Funds, ipg. 37, includes cash held for debt service. (6) County of Napa CAFR for Fiscal Year ended June 30, 2017, Statement of Net Position Proprietary Funds, pg. 35. (7) County of Napa CAFR for Fiscal Year ended June 30, 2018, Statement of Net Position Proprietary Funds, pg. 37. (8) See Appendix for detailed estimates of rates. (9) NBRID interview, 12/4/19. Table A-12a Summary Financial Profile Los Carneros Water District - Recycled Water Operations Item Amount Operating Revenues Recycled Water Total Operating Revenues (see assessments below) (1) 0 Operating Expenditures Recycled Water (District administration) (2) 21,000 Total Operating Expenditures 21,000 Debt Service Recycled Water (3) 335,220 Total Debt Service 335,220 Non-Operating Revenues Recycled Water Assessments (4) 435,400 Other Non-Operating Revenues (5) 18,000 Total Non-Operating Revenues 453,400 NET AFTER NON-OPERATING REVENUES Total 97,180 Ending Available Balance Recycled Water (6) 337,799 Notes: 2019-12-24 (1) NapaSan bills LCWD customers directly. (2) LCWD 2018-19 Budget; administrative costs including insurance, audits and financial services. (3) LCWD 2018-19 Budget: based on maximum debt payment (payments increase slightly every year) for purposes of coverage calculations. Actual payments towards debt ry depending on use of reserves, grants, etc. (4) LCWD 2018-19 Budget. (5) LCWD 2018-19 Budget; Includes interest and penalties. (6) LCWD 2018-19 Budget; ending cash balance excludes $4,126 delinquent assessments. Table A-12b Summary Financial Measures and Indicators Los Carneros Water District - Recycled Water Operations Item Amount 1a Balanced Budget (rev/exp inc. debt) (1) 127% Revenues (inc. interest, and assessments) 453,400 Expenditures (inc. debt) 356,220 Net 97,180 1b Ending Fund Balance as % of Operating Revenues 95% Ending Fund Balance (3) 337,799 2a Debt Service as % of Revenues 73.9% Debt Service (4) 335,220 Revenues (inc. interest, and assessments) 453,400 Total Debt (5) 3,991,347 Notes: 2019-12-24 (1) LCWD 2018-19 Budget; administrative costs including insurance, audits and financial services. (2) Debt pmt based on maximum debt payment (payments increase slightly every year) for purposes of coverage calculations. Actual payments towards debt vary depending on use of reserves, grants, etc. (3) Los Carneros Water District 2018-19 Budget. (4) LCWD 2018-19 Budget: based on maximum debt payment (payments increase slightly every year) for purposes of coverage calculations. Actual payments towards debt ry depending on use of reserves, grants, etc. (5) Correspondence from LCWD 1/09/2020. Table A-13a Summary Financial Profile Napa Berryessa Resort Improvement District - Water and Wastewater Operations Item Amount Operating Revenues Sewer/Water Usage Fees (1) 550,729 Other Operating Revenues (inc. Availability Chgs) (2) 121,200 Total Operating Revenues 671,929 Operating Expenditures Total Expenditures (3) 658,027 NET OPERATING INCOME Total Net Operating Income 13,902 Debt Service Total Water and Wastewater Debt Service (4) NET OPERATING INCOME AFTER DEBT Total 13,902 Non-Operating Revenues Property Tax (5) 58,302 Other Non-Operating Rev (exc.assessments) (6) 68,308 Total Non-Operating Revenues 126,610 Capital and Non-Recurring Revenues (7) 15,311 Capital and Non-Recurring Expenditures (to CIP) (7) 112,033 Net Capital and Non-Recurring Expenditures (Transfers) (96,722) NET AFTER OTHER CAPITAL AND NON-RECURRING Total 43,790 Ending Available Balance Total (Operations) (9) (1,044,969) Notes: 2020-01-28 (1) Operations, NBRID (52400) Statement of Revenues and Expenses Budget vs. Actual FY19, Actual Year to Date. (2) ibid, NBRID (52400) Statement of Actual FY19. (3) ibid, NBRID (52400) Statement of Actual FY19, Operations (inc. equipment). (4) Exc. debt service. NBRID (52410) Statement of Revenues and Expenses Budget vs. Actual FY19, Actual Year to Date. (5) NBRID (52400) Statement of Revenues and Expenses Budget vs. Actual FY19, Actual Year to Date. (6) ibid, NBRID (52400) Statement of Actual FY19. (7) ibid, NBRID (52400) Statement of Actual FY19 (Hook-up Fees & transfers in). (9) NBRID (52400) Statement of Revenues and Expenses Budget vs. Actual FY19, Actual Year to Date. Note: Debt Service funding balance is $1.5 million; financial reports show a positive balance overall. Table Table A-13b Summary Financial Measures and Indicators Napa Berryessa Resort Improvement District - Water and Wastewater Operations Item Amount 1a Balanced Budget (rev/exp inc. debt) (1) 124% Total Revenues Operations Fund (inc. avail. Chgs) 813,850 Expenditures (exc. debt; excludes transfers to CIP) 658,027 Net 155,823 1b Operating Ratio (op'ing rev/exp inc. debt & deprec) 0.98 Total Revenues (exc. hook-up fees) 813,850 Total Expenses (exc. transfers to CIP) 658,027 Debt Service (funded by assessments) 0 Depreciation (2) 170,966 TOTAL Expenses 828,993 1c Ending Fund Balance as % of Operating Fund Expenditures (3) 115% Ending Fund Balance (cash and investments) 753,555 2a Unrestricted Net Position/Operating Revenues (4) 58% Net Position 73,371 Unrestricted Net Position 472,090 Operating Revenues 813,850 2b Current Ratio (Short-term Liquidity) (5) 7.8 Current Assets 2,952,479 Current Liabilities 378,579 2c Months Cash on Hand (crnt cash assets/expenses w/debt) 53 Current Assets (Cash and Investments) (5) 2,952,479 Operating Expenditures (inc. debt) 658,027 3a Change in Net Depreciable Capital Assets (FY17-FY18) -5.4% Total Capital Assets being Depreciated (FY18) 12,826,249 Net Depreciable Capital Assets/Total (FY18) 71.9% 4a Debt Service as % of Total Revenues 59.9% Debt Service 487,891 Total Revenues (including property tax & assessments) 813,850 5 Bond Ratings not reported 6 Total Reserves (% of op. expend. inc. debt) 115% Operating Expenditures (exc. debt) 658,027 7 Rates and Charges (% of median HH income) 4.3% Monthly Service Charges (SFD) (8) Water $84.94 Sewer $124.88 Median Household Income (2017) (9) $58,500 Table A-13b (cont'd) 8 Pension Liabilities 0 9 OPEB Liabilities 0 Notes: 2020-01-28 (1) Inc. availability charges; not including hookup fees. (2) NBRID (52400) Statement of Revenues and Expenses Budget vs. Actual FY19, Actual Year to Date. (3) County of Napa CAFR for Fiscal Year ended June 30, 2018, Statement of Net Position Proprietary Funds, "Cash and Investments", pg. 37. (4) County of Napa CAFR for Fiscal Year ended June 30, 2018, Statement of Net Position Proprietary Funds, pg. 37. (5) County of Napa CAFR for Fiscal Year ended June 30, 2018, Statement of Net Position Proprietary Funds, ipg. 37, includes cash held for debt service. (6) County of Napa CAFR for Fiscal Year ended June 30, 2017, Statement of Net Position Proprietary Funds, pg. 35. (7) County of Napa CAFR for Fiscal Year ended June 30, 2018, Statement of Net Position Proprietary Funds, pg. 37. (8) See Appendix for detailed estimates of rates. (9) NBRID interview, 12/4/19. Table A-14a Summary Financial Profile (1) Napa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Item Amount Countywide Watershed Mgmt (2) Revenues 2,758,100 Expenditures 2,758,100 Contribution to or (Use of) Fund Balance 0 NPDES Stormwater Mgmt (3) Revenues 524,100 Expenditures 524,100 Contribution to or (Use of) Fund Balance 0 Rutherford Maintenance (4) Revenues 99,700 Expenditures 98,200 Contribution to or (Use of) Fund Balance 1,500 Oakville to Oak Knoll Maintenance (5) Revenues 90,500 Expenditures 90,500 Contribution to or (Use of) Fund Balance 0 Flood Control Project (6) Revenues 4,000,000 Expenditures 21,035,700 Contribution to or (Use of) Fund Balance (17,035,700) Flood Authority Administration (7) Revenues 150,200 Expenditures 150,200 Contribution to or (Use of) Fund Balance 0 Napa FLD Project Measure A (8) Revenues 0 Expenditures 2,114,400 Contribution to or (Use of) Fund Balance (2,114,400) Napa FLD Proj Maint Measure A (9) Revenues 0 Expenditures 885,600 Contribution to or (Use of) Fund Balance (885,600) Table A-14a cont'd: Water Supply Contracts (10) Revenues 13,452,300 Expenditures 12,952,300 Contribution to or (Use of) Fund Balance 500,000 Oakville CFD (11) Revenues 97,500 Expenditures 97,500 Contribution to or (Use of) Fund Balance 0 TOTAL Revenues 21,172,400 Expenditures 40,706,600 Contribution to or (Use of) Fund Balance (19,534,200) Ending Fund Balance (FY18) (12) 90,090,776 Total Debt Outstanding (12) 13,925,866 Notes: 2019-11-11 (1) NCFCWCD Budget Summary, Proposed Revenue and Appropriations Budget 2018/2019. (2) Flood and Watershed Management Division. (3) Flood and Watershed Management Division coordinates activities of local NPDES permitted agencies. (4) Flood and Watershed Management Division (5) Flood and Watershed Management Division (6) Flood and Watershed Management Division (7) Flood and Watershed Management Division (8) Non-operating special revenue fund holding remaining funds after disbursement to taxing entities, for future maintenance purposes. (9) Non-operating special revenue fund holding remaining funds after disbursement to taxing entities, for future maintenance purposes. (10) The District is the local contracting authority with the State and Federal governments for water from the State Water Project and Lake (11) Oakville - Oak Knoll Community Facilities District (12) NCFCWCD Financial Statements, Balance Sheet June 30, 2018, Ending Fund Balance (restricted and unrestricted), pg. 9. (13) NCFCWCD Financial Statements, Statement of Net Position, June 30, 2018, pg. 7. Table A-15a Summary Financial Profile Napa River Reclamation District - Wastewater Operations Item Amount Operating Revenues Wastewater (1) 163,600 Total Operating Revenues 163,600 Operating Expenditures Wastewater Total Wastewater Operating Expenditures 171,950 NET OPERATING INCOME Wastewater Total (8,350) Debt Service Wastewater Total Wastewater Debt Service 0 NET OPERATING INCOME AFTER DEBT Wastewater Total (8,350) Non-Operating Revenues Wastewater Property Tax 23,950 Other Non-Operating Revenues 4,400 Total Non-Operating Revenues 28,350 NET AFTER NON-OPERATING REVENUES Total 20,000 OTHER CAPITAL AND NON-RECURRING Total Other Capital and Non-Recurring 0 NET AFTER OTHER CAPITAL AND NON-RECURRING Wastewater Total 20,000 Ending Available Balance Wastewater Total (5) 722,393 Notes: 2019-11-05 (1) Napa River Reclamation District Final Budget for FY2018/19. (2) Napa River Reclamation District Final Budget for FY2018/19; excludes depreciation. (3) Napa River Reclamation District Final Budget for FY2018/19. (4) Includes interest, dividends. (5) NRRD Basic Financial Statements FY18 and FY19, Statement of Net Position, FY19 Current Assets plus budget FY19 Net (exc. depreciation). Table A-15b Summary Financial Measures and Indicators Napa River Reclamation District - Wastewater Operations Item Amount 1a Balanced Budget (rev/exp inc. debt) (1) 112% Revenues (inc. property tax, interest, misc.) 191,950 Expenditures (exc. depreciation) 171,950 Net 20,000 1b Operating Ratio (op'ing rev/exp inc. debt & deprec) 0.80 Revenues (inc. property tax) 191,950 Expenditures (exc. depreciation) 171,950 Debt Service 0 Depreciation (2) 68,364 TOTAL Expenses 240,314 1c Ending Fund Balance as % of Expenditures 420% Beginning Fund Balance (FY18 ending) (3) 702,393 Ending Fund Balance (FY19 estimated) (4) 722,393 Change in Fund Balance (5) 20,000 2a Unrestricted Net Position/Operating Revenues (6) 360% Net Position 1,026,758 Unrestricted Net Position 690,627 Revenues (inc. property tax) 191,950 2b Current Ratio (Short-term Liquidity) (7) 132.8 Current Assets 702,393 Current Liabilities 5,290 2c Months Cash on Hand (current cash assets/expenses inc. debt) 48 Current Assets 702,393 Operating Expenditures (exc. depreciation) 171,950 per day 471 3a Change in Net Depreciable Capital Assets (FY18-FY19) (8) -12.1% Net Capital Assets, FY18 345,074 Net Capital Assets, FY19 303,311 Total Capital Assets being Depreciated (FY19) 2,310,956 Depreciation 68,364 4a Debt Service as % of Operating Revenues na 4b Debt Service Coverage Ratio na 5 Bond Ratings na 6 Total Reserves (% of op. expend. inc. debt) (13) 420% Reserves 722,393 Expenditures (exc. depreciation) 171,950 7 Rates and Charges (% of median HH income) 2.2% Monthly Service Charges Sewer (10) $148.33 Median Household Income (2017) (11) $79,637 8 Pension Liabilities na 9 OPEB Liabilities na Notes to Table A-15b: 2019-11-05 (1) Napa River Reclamation District Final Budget for FY2018/19. (2) Note: FY19 budget allocates $20,000 towards depreciation. Napa River Reclamation District Basic Financial Statements, June 30, 2019 and 2018, pg. 5. (3) NRRD Basic Financial Statements FY18 and FY19, Statement of Net Position, FY19 Current Assets. (4) NRRD Basic Financial Statements FY18 and FY19, Statement of Net Position, FY19 Current Assets plus budget FY19 Net (exc. depreciation). (5) See prior table - estimated FY19 surplus (excluding depreciation). (6) NRRD Basic Financial Statements FY18 and FY19, Statement of Net Position, FY19 Current Assets. (7) NRRD Basic Financial Statements FY18 and FY19, Statement of Net Position, FY19 Current Assets. (8) Napa River Reclamation District Basic Financial Statements, June 30, 2019 and 2018, Note 3. (9) NRRD Basic Financial Statements FY18 and FY19, Statement of Net Position, FY19 Current Assets plus budget FY19 Net (exc. depreciation). (10) See Appendix detailed estimates of rates. (11) American Community Survey 2017, S2503, 5-Year estimates, Napa County Median. Table A-16a Summary Financial Profile Napa Sanitation District Item Amount Operating Revenues (1) Wastewater 28,156,000 Recycled Water 1,042,000 Other Operating Revenues 1,472,800 Total Operating Revenues 30,670,800 Operating Expenditures Salaries and Benefits (2) 9,961,350 Services and Supplies (2) 6,003,100 Other Operating Expenditures (3) 29,150 Total Operating Expenditures 15,993,600 NET OPERATING INCOME Total 14,677,200 Debt Service Total 4,593,800 NET OPERATING INCOME AFTER DEBT Total 10,083,400 OTHER Total Other Capital and Non-Recurring Revenues (4) 14,094,600 Capital and Non-Recurring Expenditures (5) 26,385,700 NET AFTER OTHER CAPITAL AND NON-RECURRING Total (2,207,700) Ending Available Balance Total (6) 18,908,900 Notes: 2019-04-01 (1) FY19 Adopted Budget, pg. 33. (2) FY19 Adopted Budget, pg. 35. (3) FY19 Adopted Budget, pg. 35, taxes and assessments. (4) FY19 Adopted Budget, pg. 33 (5) FY19 Adopted Budget, pg. 36. (6) FY19 Adopted Budget, pg. 36. Table A-16b Summary Financial Measures and Indicators Napa Sanitation District Item Amount 1a Balanced Budget (rev/exp inc. debt) 149% Total Operating Revenues (1) 30,670,800 Total Operating Expenditures (inc. debt) (2) 20,587,400 Net 10,083,400 1b Operating Ratio (op'ing rev/exp inc. debt & deprec) 1.05 Operating Revenues (3) 30,670,800 Operating Expenses 15,993,600 Debt Service 4,593,800 Depreciation 8,592,927 TOTAL Expenses 29,180,327 1c Ending Fund Balance as % of Operating Revenues 62% Beginning Fund Balance (4) 21,116,644 Ending Fund Balance (4) 18,908,900 Change in Fund Balance (2,207,744) 2a Unrestricted Net Position/Operating Revenues 38% Net Position 186,252,045 Unrestricted Net Position (5) 11,650,292 Operating Revenues 30,670,800 2b Current Ratio (Short-term Liquidity) 2.9 Current Assets (6) 24,161,371 Current Liabilities (7) 8,367,871 2c Months Cash on Hand (current cash assets/expenses inc. debt) 14 Current Assets 24,161,371 Operating Expenditures (inc. debt) 20,587,400 per day 56,404 3a Change in Net Depreciable Capital Assets (FY17-FY18) 7.5% Net Capital Assets, FY17 (8) 186,858,930 Net Capital Assets, FY18 (8) 200,838,429 Total Capital Assets being Depreciated (FY18) 333,234,351 Depreciation (9) 8,592,927 4a Debt Service as % of Operating Revenues 15.0% Debt Service (10) 4,593,800 Operating Revenues (11) 30,670,800 Total Debt (12) 43,620,000 Table A-16b (cont'd) 5 Bond Ratings AA- to AA 6 Total Reserves (% of op. expend. inc. debt) (13) 92% Operating Reserves 6,000,000 Operating Cash Flow Reserves 12,500,000 Fund Equity Available 408,900 Operating Expenditures (inc. debt) 20,587,400 7 Rates and Charges (% of median HH income) 0.8% Monthly Service Charges (SFD) (14) $56.37 Median Household Income (2017) (15) $82,361 8 Pension Liabilities (pmts as % of Operating Revenues) 6.2% Total Pension Liability 42,651,221 Unfunded Pension Liability (2018) (16) 14,047,419 % Pension Liability Funded (2017) 69.3% Total Payments (normal + unfunded liabilities)(17) 1,912,239 9 OPEB Liabilities Total OPEB Liability (18) 10,689,247 Unfunded OPEB Liability (18) 6,550,671 % OPEB Liability Funded (19) 38.72% Total OPEB Payments (20) 891,719 2020-01-07 (1) Not including capacity charges. (2) FY19 operating expenditures including debt service (not inc. depreciation) (3) FY19 Adopted Budget, pg. 35 (excludes capacity charges). (4) NapaSan FY19 Adopted Budget, pg. 36. (5) NapaSan FY18 CAFR, Statement of Net Position, pg. 8-9 (6) CAFR FY17 Statement of Net Position, pg. 8 (excluding inventory, prepaid items, and net OPEB (7) CAFR FY17 Statement of Net Position, pg. 9 (8) FY18 CAFR Note 3, Net of Depreciation, pg. 19. (9) FY18 CAFR Note 3, pg. 19 (includes offsetting retirements). (10) FY19 Adopted Budget, pg. 35. (11) FY19 Adopted Budget, pg. 33. (12) Total debt as of 6/30/2019 per J.Tucker. (13) FY19 Adopted Budget, pg. 36. (14) FY19 Adopted Budget, pg. 31. (15) Financial Characteristics, City of Napa, 2017 ACS 1-Year Estimates, https://www.census.gov/acs/www/data/data-tables-and-tools/american- factfinder/ (16) FY18 CAFR, Note 5C -- Pension Plans, pg. 22. (17) OLD/WRONG:...FY18 CAFR, pg. 22 (includes employer share of employee contribution). (18) FY18 CAFR, Note 6, B. Net OPEB Liability, pg. 28; see also GASB 75 Report, Oct. 20, 2017, pg. 3. Table A-17a Summary Financial Profile Spanish Flat Water District - Water and Wastewater Operations Item Amount Operating Revenues Water (1) 128,011 Wastewater (1) 133,829 Other Operating Revenues (2) 41,101 Total Operating Revenues 302,941 Operating Expenditures Total Expenditures (3) 268,818 NET OPERATING INCOME Total 34,123 Debt Service (4) Total Water and Wastewater Debt Service 16,041 NET OPERATING INCOME AFTER DEBT Total 18,082 OTHER Capital and Non-Recurring Revenues (5) 24,996 NET AFTER OTHER CAPITAL AND NON-RECURRING Total 43,078 Notes: 2019-09-15 (1) Spanish Flat Water District Financial Statements, Year ended June 30, 2018, Management Discussion Highlights, pg. 2. (2) Spanish Flat Water District Financial Statements, Year ended June 30, 2018, pg. 2, Misc. (3) Spanish Flat Water District Financial Statements, Year ended June 30, 2018, pg. 6. Excludes depreciation. (4) Spanish Flat Water District Financial Statements, Year ended June 30, 2018, pg. 7. (5) Spanish Flat Water District Financial Statements, Year ended June 30, 2018, pg. 2. Includes hook-up fees. Table A-17b Summary Financial Measures and Indicators Spanish Flat Water District - Water and Wastewater Operations Item Amount 1a Balanced Budget (rev/exp inc. debt) (1) 106% Operating Revenues 302,941 Operating Expenditures (inc. debt) 284,859 Net 18,082 1b Operating Ratio (op'ing rev/exp inc. debt & deprec) 0.74 Operating Revenues 302,941 Operating Expenses 268,818 Debt Service 16,041 Depreciation (2) 125,789 TOTAL Expenses 410,648 1c Ending Fund Balance as % of Operating Revenues 64% Beginning Fund Balance not reported Ending Fund Balance (3) 194,443 2a Unrestricted Net Position/Expenditures (inc. debt) (4) 41% Net Position 2,200,653 Unrestricted Net Position 115,978 Operating Expenditures (inc. debt) 284,859 2b Current Ratio (Short-term Liquidity) (5) 5.7 Current Assets 194,443 Current Liabilities 34,164 2c Months Cash on Hand (current cash assets/expenses inc. debt) 8 Current Cash Assets (5) 194,443 Operating Expenditures (inc. debt) 284,859 per day 780 3a Change in Net Depreciable Capital Assets (FY17-FY18) -5.5% Net Capital Assets, FY17 (6) 2,271,758 Net Capital Assets, FY18 (7) 2,145,969 Total Capital Assets being Depreciated (FY18) 4,599,491 4a Debt Service as % of Operating Revenues 5.3% Debt Service (8) 16,041 Operating Revenues 302,941 Total Debt (8) 144,266 4b Debt Service Coverage Ratio 2.1 Operating Revenues 302,941 Operating Expenditures (exc. debt) 268,818 Net 34,123 Debt Service 16,041 Table A-17b (cont'd) 5 Bond Ratings not reported 6 Total Reserves (% of op. expend. inc. debt) 149% Operating Reserves (9) 115,978 Operating Expenditures (inc. debt) 284,859 7 Rates and Charges (% of median HH income) 2.0% Monthly Service Charges (SFD) (10) Water $63.56 Sewer $66.85 Median Household Income (2017) (11) $79,637 8 Pension Liabilities as % of Revenues 0.0% Total Pension Liability (12) na 9 OPEB Liabilities Total OPEB Payments (11) na Notes: 2019-08-27 (1) Spanish Flat Water District Financial Statements, Year ended June 30, 2018, Management Discussion Highlights, pg. 2. (2) Spanish Flat Water District Financial Statements, Year ended June 30, 2018, Statement of Changes in Net Position, pg. 6. (3) Spanish Flat Water District Financial Statements, Year ended June 30, 2018, Statement of Net Position, pg. 5. (4) Spanish Flat Water District Financial Statements, Year ended June 30, 2018, pg. 5. (5) Spanish Flat Water District Financial Statements, Year ended June 30, 2018, pg. 5. (6) Based on FY18 minus depreciation; Financial Reports do not show change in assets (other than depreciation). (7) Spanish Flat Water District Financial Statements, Year ended June 30, 2018, pg. 6. (8) Spanish Flat Water District Financial Statements, Year ended June 30, 2018, Statement of Cash Flows, pg. 7; debt issuances Note 6, pg. 9. (9) Spanish Flat Water District Financial Statements, Year ended June 30, 2018, Net Unrestricted Position., pg. 5. (10) See Appendix for detailed estimates of rates. (11) Napa County Median, American Community Survey 2017, S2503, 5-Year estimates (12) No pension or OPEB liabilities. NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR A P P ENDI X B APPENDIX B 485 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE REVIEW AND UPDATE OF THE LAKE BERRYESSA REGION* IN CONJUNCTION WITH NAPA COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW (2020) *LAKE BERRYESSA REGION DISTRICTS: LAKE BERRYESSA RESORT IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT (LBRID) NAPA BERRYESSA RESORT IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT (NBRID) SPANISH FLAT WATER DISTRICT (SFWD) AUGUST 2, 2021 PREPARED BY NAPA LAFCO STAFF SOI Review Appendix for NCWW MSR 1 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE CONSIDERATIONS This appendix includes sphere of influence (SOI) analysis and recommendations for each of the following special districts that are subject to the Napa Countywide Water and Wastewater Municipal Service Review (MSR): Lake Berryessa Resort Improvement District (LBRID); Napa Berryessa Resort Improvement District (NBRID); and Spanish Flat Water District (SFWD). The MSR sections of this report include thorough research and analysis of the current and future operations of each subject agency. This appendix reviewing each subject agency’s SOI is based on the work completed in the MSR sections. Relevant sections are referenced should the reader wish to review the detailed analysis. CKH requires LAFCO to adopt an SOI for each city and special district located within the County. An SOI is defined in Government Code Section 56076 as “a plan for the probable physical boundary and service area of a local agency or municipality as determined by the Commission.” LAFCO must make determinations with respect to the following factors when amending, establishing, reviewing, or updating an SOI: Present and planned land uses in the area, including agricultural and open space lands. This factor consists of a review of current and planned land uses based on planning documents to include agricultural and open-space lands. Present and probable need for public facilities and services. This factor includes a review of the services available in the area and the need for additional services. Present capacity of public facilities and adequacy of public services provided by the agency. This factor includes an analysis of the capacity of public facilities and the adequacy of public services that the agency provides or is authorized to provide. Social or economic communities of interest. This factor discusses the existence of any social or economic communities of interest in the area if the Commission determines that they are relevant to the agency. These are areas that may be affected by services provided by the agency or may be receiving services in the future. Present and probable need for services to disadvantaged unincorporated communities. This factor requires the Commission to consider services to disadvantaged unincorporated communities, which are defined as inhabited areas within the SOI whose median household income is less than or equal to 80 percent of the statewide median income. The following sections provide an evaluation of these factors along with recommendations for each subject agency. SOI Review Appendix for NCWW MSR 2 Lake Berryessa Resort Improvement District (LBRID) LBRID’s SOI encompasses approximately 0.34 square miles, or 217 acres, entirely within its jurisdictional boundary.1 The SOI was reviewed and affirmed with no changes in 2012. The SOI excludes approximately 1,811 jurisdictional acres with 48 parcels, of which eight units are served by septic systems and well water. The following map provides a visual of the District (Figure One). No residential units outside the SOI are connected to the LBRID system nor have the existing unserved units approached the District about extending service; tentative plans to develop the Unit One subdivision, which is outside the SOI, were considered but “the cost was prohibitive, and the project abandoned.”2 The 1,811 acres within the District’s jurisdictional boundary, but outside its SOI, include parcels of record that could apply for development permits. However, as noted above, the costs of extending utility services as well as other public infrastructure and roads makes development unlikely within the next ten years or more. Sufficient undeveloped lots exist within the SOI to accommodate recent and potential development for at least ten years considering recent trends and future population projections.3 1 2 3 Correspondence from A. Martinez, County of Napa, 1/23/2020. Follow-up response rec’d 12/9/19 to LBRID interview 12/4/19. SOI Review Appendix for NCWW MSR CWWMSR, Chapter 11, LBRID “Agency Overview” 3 Figure One: LBRID Map SOI Review Appendix for NCWW MSR 4 Recommendation and Determinative Statements It is recommended the Commission retain the current SOI designation of LBRID. Accordingly, the following written statements support the recommendation and address the five specific factors the Commission must prepare anytime it makes an SOI determination under G.C. Section 56425. Present and planned land uses in the area, including agricultural and open space lands. LBRID’s SOI excludes substantial areas within its boundaries, which are designated for single-family development, however, those areas currently are not served by the District and there are minimal prospects of those lands developing and requiring services within a ten-year time horizon. Present and probable need for public facilities and services. There is a present need for LBRID’s water and sewer services throughout the recommended SOI to support the existing and continued development of the Berryessa Estates community. Present capacity of public facilities and adequacy of public services provided by the agency. Ensuring adequate water supply availability is a priority for all agencies. It was found that during normal year scenarios, all of the public water retailers in Napa County have sufficient water supply under normal conditions given existing demand. The MSR section of this report indicates LBRID’s water services are sufficiently capacitated to meet both existing and projected needs in the recommended SOI. An October 2020 Leak Survey found only one possible leak on Lariat Street. The July 2019 Leak Survey Report pin- pointed a leak on Colt Court. Water losses are within the AWWA leakage index guidelines. No citations / violations on reporting or Maximum Contaminant Level exceedances.4 The MSR indicates sewer services are adequately capacitated and a number of system improvements have been completed. However, ongoing improvements to replace aging infrastructure and to upgrade facilities are planned and/or underway. The ability of LBRID to address these and other improvements are constrained by the District’s ongoing fiscal distress tied – among other reasons – to operating aging infrastructure in a confined and economically depressed area. Fortunately, no homes were destroyed in the wildfires of 2020. LBRID has undertaken major upgrades to its water and wastewater system since the 2011 Lake Berryessa Region MSR identified significant infrastructure needs. Social or economic communities of interest. The affected territory within LBRID’s recommended SOI has established strong social and economic interdependencies with the District. These ties are affirmed and strengthened by this review. Present and probable need for services to disadvantaged unincorporated communities. According to Napa LAFCO’s definition of disadvantaged unincorporated communities (DUCs), LBRID is not a DUC.5 However, the Rural Community Assistance Corporation (RCAC) conducted a Median Household Income Survey on behalf of the District in the spring of 2018 and determined that the community qualified as a Disadvantaged Community (DAC), which differs from the definition of a DUC under local policy.6 The DAC status enabled application to the State for financial assistance. The results of the survey apply for a five-year period and a new survey is likely in 2023.7 4 5 6 Correspondence from Christopher Silke, District Staff, County of Napa 6/25/2021 7 Napa Local Agency Formation Commission, Policy on Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities, 2018. LBRID Agenda Letter 9/11/18. SOI Review Appendix for NCWW MSR Follow-up response rec’d 12/9/19 to LBRID interview 12/4/19. 5 Napa Berryessa Resort Improvement District (NBRID) NBRID’s SOI encompasses approximately 1.0 square mile, or 774 acres.8 The SOI was updated in 2013 to include the 10-lot “Oakridge Estates” subdivision.9 The SOI excludes approximately 1,252.5 jurisdictional acres. The 1,252.5 acres within the District’s jurisdictional boundary but outside its SOI include parcels of record that could apply for development permits, however, the costs of extending utility services as well as other public infrastructure and roads makes development unlikely within the next ten years or more. Sufficient undeveloped lots exist within the SOI to accommodate recent and potential development for at least ten years considering recent trends and future population projections. Currently certain District facilities, including its treated wastewater storage and disposal areas, are located on parcels outside District boundaries as shown on the following map (Figure Two). NBRID has indicated an interest in annexing those parcels in order to recognize District ownership and use.10 Of note is the impact of the August 2020 Lightning Complex Fires, which burned approximately 110 homes within NBRID’s boundaries and 109 homes within the SOI.11 Additionally, the fires destroyed or damaged a portion of NBRID’s facilities, including the treated effluent dispersal spray fields, connection laterals to burned or lost homes, and some minor outbuildings. Given the significant impact of the fire on residents and NBRID’s services, discussion of the potential for growth and development may not be relevant until the damaged area is substantially rebuilt. 8 9 1 0C10orrespondence from A. Martinez, County of Napa, 1/23/2020. 1 1Follow-up response rec’d 12/9/19 to NBRID interview 12/4/19. CWWMSR, Chapter 13, NBRID “Agency Overview” SOI Review Appendix for NCWW MSR Napa County Planning, Building and Environmental Services February, 2021 6 Figure Two: NBRID and Study Area Map SOI Review Appendix for NCWW MSR 7 Recommendation and Determinative Statements It is recommended the Commission expand the SOI designation of NBRID to include a study area comprising two parcels owned by NBRID and totaling approximately 101 acres in size. The parcels are located outside NBRID’s SOI and boundary and identified by the County Assessor as 019-220-028 and 019- 220-038. A map of the study area is included as Figure Two on the previous page of this appendix. Expansion of NBRID’s SOI would allow the District to propose annexation of the parcels to reduce the District’s annual property tax obligation. Accordingly, the following written statements support the recommendation and address the five specific factors the Commission must prepare anytime it makes an SOI determination under G.C. Section 56425. Present and planned land uses in the area, including agricultural and open space lands. NBRID’s SOI excludes substantial areas within its boundaries which are designated for single-family development, however, those areas currently are not served by the District and there are minimal prospects of those lands developing and requiring services within a ten-year time horizon. The study area recommended for inclusion within NBRID’s SOI serves as the location of NBRID’s wastewater treatment plant facilities. Present and probable need for public facilities and services. There is a present need for NBRID’s water and sewer services throughout the recommended SOI to support the existing and continued development of the Berryessa Highlands community. The study area recommended for inclusion within NBRID’s SOI is not expected to require water or sewer service given its present land use. Present capacity of public facilities and adequacy of public services provided by the agency. Ensuring adequate water supply availability is a priority for all agencies. It was found that during normal year scenarios, all of the public water retailers in Napa County have sufficient water supply under normal conditions given existing demand. Certain improvements could be made to the services offered. A post- fire August 2020 Leak Survey pin-pointed a few customer service line leaks and one water main break. Repairs are complete and operations fully restored. Water losses are within the AWWA leakage index guidelines.12 It is apparent that the smaller agencies with limited budgets and staffing constraints have struggled most with planning for and addressing infrastructure needs and complying with regulatory requirements. NBRID has benefited from a collaboration of technical knowledge and experience amongst District staff and SUSP Contract Operator resources which has greatly reduced the occurrence of violations, sewer spill events and non-compliance citations. NBRID has undertaken major upgrades to its water and wastewater system since the 2011 Lake Berryessa Region MSR identified significant infrastructure needs. Ongoing improvements to replace aging infrastructure and to upgrade facilities are planned and/or underway. Social or economic communities of interest. The affected territory within NBRID’s recommended SOI has established strong social and economic interdependencies with the District. These ties are affirmed and strengthened by this update. Inclusion of the study within NBRID’s SOI would strengthen these ties by facilitating a future annexation, which would eliminate the District’s annual property tax obligation for the affected parcels. 12 SOI Review Appendix for NCWW MSR Correspondence from Christopher Silke, District staff, County of Napa, 6-25-2021 8 Present and probable need for services to disadvantaged unincorporated communities. According to Napa LAFCO’s definition of DUCs, NBRID is not a DUC.13 Notably, based on an income study conducted in 2017, incomes were only slightly below the County average, and therefore the community did not qualify as disadvantaged; no further surveys are currently anticipated. 13 SOI Review Appendix for NCWW MSR Napa Local Agency Formation Commission, Policy on Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities, 2018. 9 Spanish Flat Water District (SFWD) The District’s current SOI consists of approximately 1,339 acres or 2.1 square miles. SFWD’s SOI was last updated in 2013 when it was expanded by 5.3 acres to include two non-contiguous lots immediately adjacent to the Berryessa Pines subdivision and separated from each other by a 60-foot panhandle section of SFWD boundary area. At the time of the SOI amendment, these two lots had been already receiving domestic water and wastewater services from SFWD through outside service agreements. The following map provides a visual of the District (Figure Three). Wildfires: Of note is the impact of the August 2020 Lightning Complex Fires, which razed the 59-home mobile home park within the Spanish Flat community leaving 56 mobile homes destroyed and 35 additional single family homes burned. The total loss of homes is 75 within the District and 80 within the SOI.14 Additionally, the fire destroyed a portion of SFWD’s water and wastewater facilities serving the community, including the wastewater pump station building and controls, lake pump controls and power pole, water tank tops on west hillside. Given this drastic and recent change in the composition of the area, discussion of the potential for growth and development may not be relevant until the area is substantially rebuilt.15 A majority of SFWD’s utility systems in Spanish Flat were destroyed in the Lightning Complex fires in August 2020. The utility systems in Berryessa Pines remain intact and operational. The District plans to rebuild of the destroyed system as soon as possible. The determinations regarding SFWD are based on existing circumstances before the fire. Recommendation and Determinative Statements It is recommended the Commission expand the SOI designation of SFWD to include a portion of a study area comprising one entire parcel and a portion of a parcel totaling approximately 7.9 acres in size. The study area is located at 7140 and 7150 Berryessa-Knoxville Road and identified by the County Assessor as 019-280-004 (entire parcel) and 019-280-006 (portion zoned Marine Commercial). A map of the study area is included as Figure Three. Accordingly, the following written statements support the recommendation and address the five specific factors the Commission must prepare anytime it makes an SOI determination under G.C. Section 56425. 14 15 Napa County Planning, Building and Environmental Services February, 2021 SOI Review Appendix for NCWW MSR CWWMSR, Chapter 17, SFWD “Growth and Population Projections” 10 Figure Three: SFWD and Study Area Map SOI Review Appendix for NCWW MSR 11 Present and planned land uses in the area, including agricultural and open space lands. The study area’s two subject lots are interchangeably used by the same landowner as part of a commercial boat and recreational vehicle storage facility (Lakeview Boat Storage). The larger of the two lots is located at 7140 Berryessa-Knoxville Road (019-280-006) and is approximately 30.5 acres in size. The portion recommended for inclusion within SFWD’s SOI is approximately 5.8 acres in size. This larger lot – and specifically the portion subject to this SOI update – includes four enclosed storage structures each approximately 1,000 square feet in size. The smaller of the two lots is located at 7150 Berryessa-Knoxville Road (019-280-004) and is approximately 2.1 acres in size. This smaller lot includes approximately 6,000 square feet of enclosed storage structures along with an administrative office and detached single-family residence. The recommended inclusion of the study area within SFWD’s SOI would recognize its present land uses conform to the County’s existing policies given the two parcels’ designations and zoning assignments of Rural Residential and Marine Commercial, respectively. Current land uses within the study area include a commercial boat and recreational vehicle storage facility (Lakeview Boat Storage). Only the designated Marine Commercial portion of the larger lot is recommended for inclusion in the SOI. The remaining portion of the lot is zoned Agricultural Watershed (AW). Any changes to the AW zoning designation would require approval of the Napa County voters consistent with Measures J and P. Present and probable need for public facilities and services. There is a present need for SFWD’s water and sewer services throughout the recommended SOI to support the existing and continued development of the Berryessa Pines and Spanish Flat communities, including the study area. The study area is currently dependent on private water and septic systems to support existing uses. Actual demands associated with the existing uses are projected to be modest and generally limited to the single-family residence located on the smaller of the two subject lots at 7150 Berryessa-Knoxville Road. The property owner has stated that during the wildfires they were dependent on the limited private water system. Following the recent wildfires, the property owner has requested annexation to the District in order to obtain a more reliable source of water, especially during emergencies. Present capacity of public facilities and adequacy of public services provided by the agency. Ensuring adequate water supply availability is a priority for all agencies. It was found that during normal year scenarios, all of the public water retailers in Napa County have sufficient water supply under normal conditions given existing demand. SFWD has ample water supply entitlement and system capacity to accommodate current as well as projected demands. The 2011 Lake Berryessa Region MSR identified that there is a water distribution system capacity issue associated with deficient storage within the initial pressure zone. This issue has not been addressed to date. The level of wastewater services offered by SFWD were found to be minimally adequate based on integrity of the wastewater collection system and regulatory compliance. Significant improvement can be made to the District’s reporting practices. Based on current operations, the Spanish Flat Water District’s sewer systems appear to have adequate collection, treatment, and discharge capacities to meet existing service demands within its jurisdiction under normal conditions. However, the District does not have any records identifying the design capacities for either sewer system. This prevents the District from accurately estimating its capacity to service new growth for either of its two service communities. Given this earlier analysis, and based on projected and referenced demands, it would be reasonable to assume extending water and sewer services to the study area could be adequately accommodated by SFWD given existing capacities without impacts to current customers. The landowner would be required to assume the costs associated with extending the necessary infrastructure to the subject lots. SOI Review Appendix for NCWW MSR 12 Social or economic communities of interest. The affected territory within SFWD’s recommended SOI, including the portion of the study area, has established strong social and economic interdependencies with the District. These ties are affirmed and strengthened by this update. The inclusion of the portion of the study area signals the Commission’s standing interest in orienting SFWD’s SOI to include and support planned urban uses within the community; given its designation by the County for urban type uses. It also appears reasonable to conclude the existing uses within the study area (boat and recreational vehicle storage) serve a social and economic need benefiting both Berryessa Pines and the region as a whole in terms of accommodating low-intensity recreation. Present and probable need for services to disadvantaged unincorporated communities. According to Napa LAFCO’s definition of DUCs, SFWD is not a DUC.16 16 SOI Review Appendix for NCWW MSR Napa Local Agency Formation Commission, Policy on Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities, 2018. 13 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE REVIEWS CIRCLE OAKS COUNTY WATER DISTRICT CONGRESS VALLEY WATER DISTRICT LOS CARNEROS WATER DISTRICT NAPA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT NAPA RIVER RECLAMATION DISTRICT NO. 2109 IN CONJUNCTION WITH NAPA COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW (2020) OCTOBER 4, 2021 PREPARED BY NAPA LAFCO STAFF SOI Review Appendix for NCWW MSR 1 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE CONSIDERATIONS This appendix includes sphere of influence (SOI) analysis and recommendations for each of the following special districts that are subject to the Napa Countywide Water and Wastewater Municipal Service Review (MSR): Circle Oaks County Water District (COCWD); Congress Valley Water District (CVWD); Los Carneros Water District (LCWD); Napa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (NCFCWCD); and Napa River Reclamation District No. 2109 (NRRD). The MSR sections of this report include thorough research and analysis of the current and future operations of each subject agency. This appendix reviewing each subject agency’s SOI is based on the work completed in the MSR sections. Relevant sections are referenced should the reader wish to review the detailed analysis. CKH requires LAFCO to adopt an SOI for each city and special district located within the County. An SOI is defined in Government Code Section 56076 as “a plan for the probable physical boundary and service area of a local agency or municipality as determined by the Commission.” LAFCO must make determinations with respect to the following factors when amending, establishing, reviewing, or updating an SOI: Present and planned land uses in the area, including agricultural and open space lands. This factor consists of a review of current and planned land uses based on planning documents to include agricultural and open-space lands. Present and probable need for public facilities and services. This factor includes a review of the services available in the area and the need for additional services. Present capacity of public facilities and adequacy of public services provided by the agency. This factor includes an analysis of the capacity of public facilities and the adequacy of public services that the agency provides or is authorized to provide. Social or economic communities of interest. This factor discusses the existence of any social or economic communities of interest in the area if the Commission determines that they are relevant to the agency. These are areas that may be affected by services provided by the agency or may be receiving services in the future. Present and probable need for services to disadvantaged unincorporated communities. This factor requires the Commission to consider services to disadvantaged unincorporated communities, which are defined as inhabited areas within the SOI whose median household income is less than or equal to 80 percent of the statewide median income. The following sections provide an evaluation of these factors along with recommendations for each subject agency. SOI Review Appendix for NCWW MSR 2 Circle Oaks County Water District (COCWD) COCWD’s SOI encompasses approximately 0.34 square miles, or 216 acres, entirely within its jurisdictional boundary. The SOI was reviewed and updated to include approximately 1.6 acres of jurisdictional lands in 2016. The SOI excludes approximately 36 jurisdictional acres representing the location of COCWD’s groundwater wells, spring source, sewer ponds, and wastewater treatment plant, none of which will require public services from COCWD within the timeframe of this review. The following map provides a visual of the District (Figure One). SOI Review Appendix for NCWW MSR 3 Figure One: COCWD Map SOI Review Appendix for NCWW MSR 4 Recommendation and Determinative Statements It is recommended the Commission retain the current SOI designation of COCWD. Accordingly, the following written statements support the recommendation and address the five specific factors the Commission must prepare anytime it makes an SOI determination under G.C. Section 56425. Present and planned land uses in the area, including agricultural and open space lands. The present and future land uses in COCWD’s SOI are planned for by the County of Napa as the affected land use authority. The County General Plan and associated Zoning regulations provide for the current and future residential uses that characterize the majority of the SOI. These policies help to ensure that future land uses adjacent to the area will remain agricultural and open space within the foreseeable future. Present and probable need for public facilities and services. COCWD provides water and sewer services within the existing SOI. These services are vital in supporting existing and future residential uses and protecting public health and safety in the area. Future growth within the SOI is expected to be insignificant within the timeframe of this review. Present capacity of public facilities and adequacy of public services provided by the agency. COCWD has demonstrated its ability to provide an adequate level of water and sewer service within the existing SOI. These services were comprehensively evaluated by the Commission as part of the MSR. Social or economic communities of interest. The existing SOI includes the entire Circle Oaks residential community. This community shares social and economic interdependences that are distinct from neighboring areas and enhanced by its relatively isolated location. Present and probable need for services to disadvantaged unincorporated communities. According to adopted local policy, there are currently no disadvantaged unincorporated communities in COCWD’s SOI. SOI Review Appendix for NCWW MSR 5 Congress Valley Water District (CVWD) CVWD’s SOI encompasses approximately 2.45 square miles, or 1,568 acres, consisting of the entirety of CVWD’s jurisdictional boundary and four parcels outside of the District’s jurisdiction that are eligible for annexation. CVWD’s SOI was most recently updated in 2017, when 10.6 acres were removed. The four non-jurisdictional parcels within CVWD’s SOI either have received water service from the District through outside service agreements or their landowners have expressed interest in receiving water service in the foreseeable future. Therefore, staff recommends retaining the four parcels in CVWD’s SOI. The following map provides a visual of the District (Figure Two). SOI Review Appendix for NCWW MSR 6 Figure Two: CVWD Map SOI Review Appendix for NCWW MSR 7 Recommendation and Determinative Statements It is recommended the Commission retain the current SOI designation of CVWD. Accordingly, the following written statements support the recommendation and address the five specific factors the Commission must prepare anytime it makes an SOI determination under G.C. Section 56425. Present and planned land uses in the area, including agricultural and open space lands. The present and future land uses in CVWD’s SOI are planned for by the County of Napa as the affected land use authority. The County General Plan and associated Zoning regulations provide for the current and future agricultural and rural residential uses within the SOI. These policies help to ensure that future land uses adjacent to the area will remain agricultural and open space within the foreseeable future. Present and probable need for public facilities and services. CVWD provides water service within the existing SOI through an agreement with the City of Napa. These services are vital in supporting existing and future agricultural and rural residential uses in the area. Future growth within the SOI is expected to be insignificant within the timeframe of this review. Present capacity of public facilities and adequacy of public services provided by the agency. CVWD has demonstrated its ability to provide an adequate level of water service within the existing SOI. These services were comprehensively evaluated by the Commission as part of the MSR. Social or economic communities of interest. Lands within CVWD’s SOI are part of a distinct community separated from the City of Napa by hills to the north and east. The area shares similar social, economic, geographic, and land use characteristics with the Carneros region located south of the Sonoma Highway. Lands within CVWD’s SOI include similar agricultural and rural residential land uses that strengthen communities of interests with CVWD’s SOI. Present and probable need for services to disadvantaged unincorporated communities. According to adopted local policy, there are currently no disadvantaged unincorporated communities in CVWD’s SOI. SOI Review Appendix for NCWW MSR 8 Los Carneros Water District (LCWD) LCWD’s SOI encompasses approximately 8.77 square miles, or 5,614 acres, including the majority of its jurisdictional boundary. The SOI was reviewed and affirmed with no changes in 2016. Excluded from the SOI but within LCWD’s jurisdiction are ten parcels located north of State Highway 12, one of which is partially within the SOI, totaling approximately 300 acres. In 1984, those parcels were recommended for detachment from the District, noting that the approximately 305 acres would be substantially more costly to serve than the areas south of the Highway. These areas have not been detached to date and are not recommended for inclusion within the SOI. There are two parcels within the SOI that are not included in LCWD’s jurisdiction. One of these parcels is 160.5 acres in size and located in the southwest corner of LCWD’s SOI. The second parcel is 6.7 acres in size and located adjacent to State Highway 12 along the northern border of LCWD’s SOI. These two parcels are not included in the assessed area to receive services from LCWD. However, there is no immediate benefit to removing them from the SOI and instead it would be appropriate for the Commission to recognize the disparity between the jurisdictional boundary and SOI as part of this review, and comprehensively review SOI options for LCWD during the next review cycle in approximately five years. This would allow LCWD to pay off its loan associated with its assessment district prior to any LAFCO action related to the SOI. The following map provides a visual of the District (Figure Three). SOI Review Appendix for NCWW MSR 9 Figure Three: LCWD Map SOI Review Appendix for NCWW MSR 10 Recommendation and Determinative Statements It is recommended the Commission retain the current SOI designation of LCWD. Accordingly, the following written statements support the recommendation and address the five specific factors the Commission must prepare anytime it makes an SOI determination under G.C. Section 56425. Present and planned land uses in the area, including agricultural and open space lands. The present and future land uses in LCWD’s SOI are planned for by the County of Napa as the affected land use authority. The County General Plan and associated Zoning regulations provide for the current and future uses that characterize the majority of the SOI, which includes agricultural use, primarily vineyards, along with rural single-family residences and small wineries. These policies help to ensure that future land uses adjacent to the area will remain agricultural and open space within the foreseeable future. Present and probable need for public facilities and services. LCWD provides recycled water service within the existing SOI through an agreement with the Napa Sanitation District. These services are vital in supporting existing and future agricultural and rural residential uses in the area. Future growth within the SOI is expected to be insignificant within the timeframe of this review. Present capacity of public facilities and adequacy of public services provided by the agency. LCWD has demonstrated its ability to provide an adequate level of recycled water service within the existing SOI. These services were comprehensively evaluated by the Commission as part of the MSR. Social or economic communities of interest. Lands within LCWD’s SOI are located in a rural, agricultural area of southwest Napa County and does not contain any social or economic communities of interest. The nearest community is the City of Napa located northeast of LCWD. Present and probable need for services to disadvantaged unincorporated communities. According to adopted local policy, there are currently no disadvantaged unincorporated communities in LCWD’s SOI. SOI Review Appendix for NCWW MSR 11 Napa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (NCFCWCD) NCFCWCD’s SOI encompasses approximately 791.4 square miles, or 506,517 acres, and is coterminous with its jurisdictional boundary. The SOI was reviewed and affirmed with no changes in 2016. The following map provides a visual of the District (Figure Four). SOI Review Appendix for NCWW MSR 12 Figure Four: NCFCWCD Map SOI Review Appendix for NCWW MSR 13 Recommendation and Determinative Statements It is recommended the Commission retain the current SOI designation of NCFCWCD. Accordingly, the following written statements support the recommendation and address the five specific factors the Commission must prepare anytime it makes an SOI determination under G.C. Section 56425. Present and planned land uses in the area, including agricultural and open space lands. The present and future land uses in NCFCWCD’s SOI are planned for in the general plans prepared by the six land use authorities whose jurisdictions overlap the jurisdictional boundary of the District. The exercise of NCFCWCD’s services, which benefit both urban and non-urban areas, will not affect the level or type of development identified in the general plans of the land use authorities. Present and probable need for public facilities and services. NCFCWCD’s provision of flood control and water conservation services helps to ensure adequate water supply and the protection from inundation of flood waters which are essential to the social, fiscal, and economic well-being within the existing SOI. Present capacity of public facilities and adequacy of public services provided by the agency. NCFCWCD has developed policies, service plans, and revenue streams to provide adequate and effective conservation services for the area within the existing SOI. These services were comprehensively evaluated by the Commission as part of the MSR. Social or economic communities of interest. The social and economic well-being of the area within the existing SOI is measurably enhanced by the services provided by NCFCWCD. Present and probable need for services to disadvantaged unincorporated communities. According to adopted local policy, there are currently no disadvantaged unincorporated communities in NCFCWCD’s SOI. SOI Review Appendix for NCWW MSR 14 Napa River Reclamation District No. 2109 (NRRD) NRRD’s SOI encompasses approximately 0.08 square miles, or 54 acres, entirely within its jurisdictional boundary. The SOI was reviewed and updated to include approximately 0.4 acres of jurisdictional lands in 2016. The SOI excludes approximately 20 jurisdictional acres representing the location of NRRD’s wastewater ponds, which will not require public services from NRRD within the timeframe of this review. The following map provides a visual of the District (Figure Five). SOI Review Appendix for NCWW MSR 15 Figure Five: NRRD Map SOI Review Appendix for NCWW MSR 16 Recommendation and Determinative Statements It is recommended the Commission retain the current SOI designation of NRRD. Accordingly, the following written statements support the recommendation and address the five specific factors the Commission must prepare anytime it makes an SOI determination under G.C. Section 56425. Present and planned land uses in the area, including agricultural and open space lands. The present and future land uses in NRRD’s SOI are planned for by the County of Napa as the affected land use authority. The County General Plan and associated Zoning regulations provide for the current and future residential uses that characterize the majority of the SOI. These policies help to ensure that future land uses adjacent to the area will remain agricultural and open space within the foreseeable future. Present and probable need for public facilities and services. NRRD provides sewer and limited reclamation services within the existing SOI. These services are vital in supporting existing and future residential uses and protecting public health and safety in the area. The NRRD does not have a formal reclamation plan and primarily provides sewer services given the District does not have power over the resident-owned levees and, consequently, does not have “uniform levee control.” Property owners are responsible for maintaining their own levees. Future growth within the SOI is expected to be insignificant within the timeframe of this review. Present capacity of public facilities and adequacy of public services provided by the agency. NRRD has demonstrated its ability to provide an adequate level of sewer service to the area. NRRD’s sewer services were comprehensively evaluated by the Commission as part of the MSR. Social or economic communities of interest. The existing SOI includes the entire Edgerly Island and Ingersoll Subdivisions. These two subdivisions share common social and economic characteristics that underlie the governance and service provision of NRRD. Present and probable need for services to disadvantaged unincorporated communities. According to adopted local policy, there are currently no disadvantaged unincorporated communities in NRRD’s SOI. SOI Review Appendix for NCWW MSR 17 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR A P P ENDI X C APPENDIX C 486 Table C-1 Monthly Water and Sewer Rates Item Circle Oaks Water District Spanish Flats Water District Lake Berryessa Resort ID Napa Berryessa Resort ID Water Usage District Use rates/1,000 gal. District Use rates/1,000 gal. District Use rates/1,000 gal. District Use rates/1,000 gal. Units per month 31 days) 6.0 Units (1,000 gal.) 6.0 Units (1,000 gal.) 6.0 Units (1,000 gal.) 6.0 Units (1,000 gal.) Household Size 4 8 CCF/month 8 CCF/month 8 CCF/month WATER Water Service Charge (monthly equivalent) $72.00 fixed charge $55.30 fixed charge $115.00 min. charge $65.00 min. charge Other Charge 1 "Availability" 1st 4,000 gal. 1st 1,000 gal. Other Charge 2 Eff. June 10, 2009 Water Use Charge 6.0 99.0 6.0 6.0 Tier 1 Units/month (Tier 1 max) 10 Max Units 6 Max Units 4 Max Units 1 Max Units Units subject to Tier 1 Charge 6 Units 6 Units 4.0 Units 1.0 Units Charge/Unit $7.80 per CCF $1.38 "per 1,000" per unit per unit Total Tier 1 Charges $46.68 $8.26 Eff. June 10, 2009 $0.00 $0.00 Remaining CCF 0.00 CCF 0.00 CCF 2.0 Units 5.0 Units Tier 2 CCF/month (Tier 2 add'l max) Max Add'l CCF Max Add'l CCF Max Add'l CCF Max Add'l CCF CCF subject to Tier 2 Charge 0 CCF 0 CCF 2.0 CCF 5.0 CCF Charge/CCF per CCF per CCF $3.85 per Unit>4 $4.00 per Unit>1 Total Tier 2 Charges $0.00 $0.00 $7.64 $19.94 Remaining CCF 0 0 0 0 Total Water Use Charge $46.68 $8.26 $7.64 $19.94 TOTAL WATER CHARGES $118.68 $63.56 $122.64 $84.94 SEWER Sewer Service Charge $72.15 $66.85 Eff. June 10, 2009 $172.00 min. charge $85.00 min. charge Other Charges 1st 4,000 gal. 1st 1,000 gal. Sewer Variable Charge Max HH CCF 2.0 Units>4 5.0 Units>1 Charge per CCF $5.50 per Unit>4 $8.00 per Unit>4 Total Variable Charge $0.00 $0.00 $10.91 $39.88 TOTAL SEWER CHARGES $72.15 $66.85 $182.91 $124.88 TOTAL WATER AND/OR SEWER $190.83 $130.41 $305.55 $209.81 Rates as of December 2018. Appx. C, pg. 1 of 3 Table C-1 Monthly Water and Sewer Rates Item Napa River Reclamation Dist. City of American Canyon City of Napa Congress Valley Water District Water Usage Units per month 31 days) Units (1,000 gal.) 8 CCF (or "units") 8 CCF (or "units") 8 CCF (or "units") Household Size CCF/month na na na WATER Water Service Charge (monthly equivalent) min. charge $6.82 1" (95% of res.) $16.51 3/4" (10/1/2018) $16.51 3/4" (10/1/2018) Other Charge 1 1st 1,000 gal. per CCF per CCF Other Charge 2 Water Use Charge 0.0 8.00 8.00 8.00 Tier 1 Units/month (Tier 1 max) 1 Max Units 10 Max CCF 7 Max CCF 7 Max CCF Units subject to Tier 1 Charge 0.0 Units 8 CCF 7 CCF 7 CCF Charge/Unit per unit $6.07 per CCF $4.23 per CCF $6.08 per CCF Total Tier 1 Charges $0.00 $48.56 $29.61 $42.56 Remaining CCF 0.0 Units 0.00 CCF 1.00 CCF 1.00 CCF Tier 2 CCF/month (Tier 2 add'l max) Max Add'l CCF Max Add'l CCF 1 Max Add'l CCF 1 Max Add'l CCF CCF subject to Tier 2 Charge 0.0 CCF 0 CCF 1 CCF 1 CCF Charge/CCF $4.00 per Unit>1 $6.82 per CCF $6.12 per CCF $8.71 per CCF Total Tier 2 Charges $0.00 $0.00 $6.12 $8.71 Remaining CCF 0 0 0 0 Total Water Use Charge $0.00 $48.56 $35.73 $51.27 TOTAL WATER CHARGES $0.00 $55.38 $52.24 $67.78 SEWER Sewer Service Charge $23.83 base charge $54.75 Flat rate (avg. use) Other Charges $124.50 per SFU Sewer Variable Charge Max HH CCF 0.0 Charge per CCF Total Variable Charge $0.00 na TOTAL SEWER CHARGES $148.33 $54.75 TOTAL WATER AND/OR SEWER $148.33 $110.13 $52.24 $67.78 Rates as of December 2018. 1/14/2019 Appx. C, pg. 2 of 3 Table C-1 Monthly Water and Sewer Rates Item Town of Yountville City of Calistoga City of St. Helena Water Usage District Use rates/1,000 gal. Jan. 1, 2019 Nov. 8, 2018 Units per month 31 days) 11.0 Units (1,000 gal.) 8 HCF (or "units") 8 HCF (or "units") Household Size "typical" 4 WATER Water Service Charge (monthly equivalent) $45.02 3/4" $37.66 5/8" or 3/4" $56.20 5/8", 3/4" Other Charge 1 $7.17 Sys. Replacement Other Charge 2 $9.00 Fireline Charge Water Use Charge 11.00 8.00 8.00 Tier 1 Units/month (Tier 1 max) 4 Max Units no Max HCF no Max HCF Units subject to Tier 1 Charge 4 Units 8 HCF 8 HCF Charge/Unit $3.39 per Unit $8.08 per HCF $5.84 per HCF Total Tier 1 Charges $13.56 $64.64 $46.72 Remaining CCF 7.00 CCF 0.00 HCF 0.00 HCF Tier 2 CCF/month (Tier 2 add'l max) 20 Max Add'l Units no Max HCF Max Add'l CCF CCF subject to Tier 2 Charge 7 CCF 0 HCF 0 CCF Charge/CCF $3.89 per CCF per HCF per CCF Total Tier 2 Charges $27.23 $0.00 $0.00 Remaining CCF 0 0 0 Total Water Use Charge $40.79 $64.64 $46.72 TOTAL WATER CHARGES $101.98 inc. Fireline Chg $102.30 $102.92 SEWER Sewer Service Charge $44.18 3/4" $78.53 Service Charge $56.50 Other Charges $12.04 Sys. Replacement $53.53 Capacity Alloc. Sewer Variable Charge Max HH CCF 7.00 Charge per CCF $4.96 per HCF Total Variable Charge Res. NA $0.00 $34.72 TOTAL SEWER CHARGES $56.22 $132.06 $91.22 TOTAL WATER AND/OR SEWER $158.20 $234.36 $194.14 Rates as of December 2018. Appx. C, pg. 3 of 3 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR REFERENCES California Government Code, Sections 6270.6 and 53087.8. (n.d.). (2015). AB 1600 Annual Compliance and Five-Year Development Impact Fee Report as of June 30, 2015. (2018). AB 1600 Annual Compliance Development Impact Fee Report as of June 30, 2018 . Agreement between Town of Yountville and California Department of Veteran Affairs, For Construction and Operation of a Joint Wastewater Treatment Facility. (1977, February 22). Yountville. Albert A. Webb Associates. (October 2006). Master Water Plan. City of St. Helena. American Canyon. (2019). Response to Request for Information, 2019-10-11. American Community Survey . (2017). American Water Works Association. (2013). AWWA. Associates, L. W. (Updated February 2006). Recycled Water Program Manual and Notice of Intent. Town of Yountville. Bartle Wells Associates. (11/22/2017). Town of Yountville Water Rate Study Update 2017/18. Town of Yountville, Yountville. Bartle Wells Associates. (2/20/2018). City of Calistoga Wastewater Rate Study Final Report. City of Calistoga. Calistoga: City of Calistoga. Bartle Wells Associates. (2/20/2018). City of Calistoga Water Rate Study Final Report. City of Calistoga. Calistoga: City of Calistoga. Bartle Wells Associates. (2007). Water and Wastewater Rate and Fee Study FINAL, November 2007. Bartle Wells Associates. (2017, 2018). City of American Canyon Water Rate Study 2017-18, May 10, 2018. City of American Canyon. Bartle Wells Associates. (2017, 2018). Water Rate Study 2017-18, May 10, 2018. City of American Canyon. Bartle Wells Associates. (Dec. 5, 2017). Water and Wastewater Rate Study Presentation to the Yountville Town Council. Powerpoint Presentation, Town of Yountville. Bartle Wells Associates. (May 2005). Town of Yountville Development Impact Fee Study. Yountville. Bennett Engineering Services. (March 2015). Wastewater Facilities Evaluation Update . City of St. Helena. Black and Veatch. (Sept. 20, 2017). Water Cost of Service Rate Study. City of Napa Water Division, Napa. Black and Veatch. (Sept. 20, 2017). Water Cost of Service Rate Study, Prepared for the City of Napa Water Division. Board, S. W. (2018). Inspection Report for Town of Yountville Public Water System ID# 2810007. Brent Cooper, A. C. (March 19, 2019). City Council Agenda, Staff Report. City of American Canyon . Brown Armstrong Accountancy Corporation. (FY17-18). Napa Sanitation District Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2018. Brown Armstrong. (Nov. 27, 2018). Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) FY18. Napa Sanitation District. Cal. Dept. of Finance. (2019). REFERENCES 487 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR Calaveras County Water District. (July 12, 2010). CCWD Assessment District No. 2008-1, Final Engineers Report. California Department of Health Services. (April 2002). Drinking Water Source Assessment: Stonebridge Well 01 and Stonebridge Well 02. California Department of Health Services. (November 2002). Drinking Water Source Assessment: Bell Canyon Reservoir Intake. California Department of Veterans Affairs. (December 5, 2019). Response to request for information. California Department of Water Resources. (2019, 11 12). State Water Project. Retrieved from https://water.ca.gov/Programs/State-Water-Project California Department of Water Resources. (2019, 06 20). State Water Project Allocations Increase to 75 Percent. Retrieved from https://water.ca.gov/News/News- Releases/2019/June/State-Water-Project-Allocations-Increase-to-75-Percent California Department of Water Resources. (n.d.). SWP Financing and Cost Recovery. Retrieved from https://water.ca.gov/Programs/State-Water-Project/Management/Cost-and-Revenue California Department of Water Resources. (n.d.). The Final State Water Project Delivery Capability Report 2017, March 2018. California Government Code, Sections 6270.6 and 53087.8. (n.d.). California Government Code, Sections 6270.6 and 53087.8. (n.d.). California Integrated Water Quality System. (August 14, 2019). CIWQS Reporting System. (n.d.). California Municipal Financial Health Diagnostic Informational Report on the City of St. Helena, Report to the City Council Meeting of Dec. 12, 2017. California Regional Water Quality Control Board San Francisco Bay Region. (2000). Waste Discharge Requirements for the City of American Canyon, Napa County. NPDES Permit No. CA0038768. California Regional Water Quality Control Board San Francisco Bay Region, NPDES Permit No. CA0038121. (2004). California Water Boards, Order No. R2-2015-0029, NPDES No. CA0038121. (n.d.). California Water Code §1300. (n.d.). California Water Code §1300. (n.d.). California Water Code 50905. (1981). Calistoga, C. o. (n.d.). City of Calistoga CAFR for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2018. CAFR, City of Calistoga, Calistoga. Calistoga, C. o. (FY19). City of Calistoga Budget Fiscal Year 2018-19 Operating & Capital Improvement Budgets. Budget, City of Calistoga. (n.d.). CalPERS Actuarial Valuation as of June 30, 2017 for the City of St. Helena, Misc. Plan, Projected Employer Contributions. Circle Oaks. (2017-2018). Circle Oaks County Water District Financial Statements FY17 and FY18 . Circle Oaks County Water District. (2018). Annual Report to the Drinking Water Division. Circle Oaks County Water District. (2018). Consumer Confidence Report. (2020, 08 06). Circle Oaks County Water District Interview with Paul Quarneri. (FY18-19). Circle Oaks Water District Proposed Budget 2018-19. Circle Oaks Water District. City Council Staff Report. (2018). Growth Management System Report. City of American Canyon. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.cityofamericancanyon.org/about/community-initiatives/water-rates/zero- water-footprint REFERENCES 488 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR City of American Canyon. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.cityofamericancanyon.org/city- departments/public-works/engineering/development-engineering/water-supply-will-serve City of American Canyon. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.cityofamericancanyon.org/city- departments/public-works/water-service/water-distribution City of American Canyon. (1994). General Plan, Utilities Element. City of American Canyon. (2000). California Regional Water Quality Control Board San Francisco Region, Waste Discharge Requirements for the City of American Canyon, Napa County, NPDES Permit No. CA0038768. City of American Canyon. (2015). Urban Water Management Plan. City of American Canyon. (2017). CALPERS Actuarial Valuations – June 30, 2017. City of American Canyon. (2017). CALPERS Actuarial Valuations – June 30, 2017. City of American Canyon. (2017). Large Water System Annual Report to the Drinking Water Program. City of American Canyon. (2017). Water Quality Report. City of American Canyon. City of American Canyon. (2018, November). Active Community Development Projects. Retrieved from https://www.cityofamericancanyon.org/home/showdocument?id=17165 City of American Canyon. (2018). Annual Drinking Water Report. City of American Canyon. (2018). City of American Canyon FY18 CAFR, Statement of Net Position. City of American Canyon. (2018). City of American Canyon FY18 CAFR, Statement of Net Position, Proprietary Funds. City of American Canyon. (2018). City of American Canyon Resolution 2018-01. City of American Canyon. (2018). City of American Canyon, FY18 CAFR, Management’s Discussion and Analysis, City Program Costs. City of American Canyon. (2018). FY18 CAFR. City of American Canyon. (2018). FY18 CAFR, Management’s Discussion and Analysis, City Program Costs. City of American Canyon. (2018). FY18 CAFR, Statement of Revenues, Expenses and Changes in Fund Net Position. City of American Canyon. (2018). Large Water System Annual Report to the Drinking Water Program. City of American Canyon. (2018). Res. No. 2018‐01 effective March 17, 2018. City of American Canyon. (2018, 03 17). Res. No. 2018‐01 effective March 17, 2018. City of American Canyon. (2018). Wastewater Capacity Fee. City of American Canyon. (2018, 2019). Water Rate Schedules (eff. Jan. 2018, 2019) . City of American Canyon. (2018=2019). City of American Canyon Annual Budget Fiscal Year 2018 – 2019, Wastewater Operations Fund #540. City of American Canyon. (2018-2019). Annual Budget. City of American Canyon. (2018-2019). Annual Budget Fiscal Year 2018 – 2019, City Manager Transmittal. City of American Canyon. (2018-2019). Annual Budget Fiscal Year 2018 – 2019, Wastewater Capacity Fee Fund #550. City of American Canyon. (2018-2019). Annual Budget Fiscal Year 2018 – 2019, Water Capacity Fee Fund #520. City of American Canyon. (2019). Response to Request for Information, 2019-10-11. City of American Canyon. (2020, January). Active Community Development Projects. Retrieved from https://www.cityofamericancanyon.org/home/showdocument?id=18107 City of American Canyon. (n.d.). American Canyon Water Operations Financial Profile. REFERENCES 489 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR City of American Canyon. (n.d.). Appendix A, City of American Canyon Wastewater Operations Fiscal Profile. City of American Canyon. (Fiscal Year 2018 – 2019). Annual Budge, Water Operations Fund #510. City of American Canyon. (Fiscal Year 2018 – 2019). Annual Budget, Water Operations Summary and Wastewater Operations Summary. City of American Canyon. (March 19, 2019). City Council Agenda Staff Report. City of American Canyon. (n.d.). Resolution 2018-01. City of American Canyon. (n.d.). Water Reclamation. Retrieved from https://www.cityofamericancanyon.org/city-departments/public-works/water-reclamation City of American Canyon, Mayor and City Council. (n.d.). . Retrieved from https://www.cityofamericancanyon.org/city-departments/mayor-city-council City of Calistoga. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.ci.calistoga.ca.us/city-hall/city-council City of Calistoga. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.ci.calistoga.ca.us/city-hall/city- council/agendas-minutes City of Calistoga. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.ci.calistoga.ca.us/city-hall/city- council/agendas-minutes/-toggle-next30days City of Calistoga. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.ci.calistoga.ca.us/city-hall/city- council/agendas-minutes/-toggle-next30days City of Calistoga . (2/20/2018). Water Rate Study Final Report, Bartle Wells Associates. City of Calistoga . (2019). Response to Financial Data Request, rec’d 10/07/19. City of Calistoga. (2/20/2018). Wastewater Rate Study Final Report, Bartle Wells Associates. City of Calistoga. (2003). General Plan, Infrastructure Element. City of Calistoga. (2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, and 2018). Annual Reports to the Drinking Water Program. City of Calistoga. (2015). General Plan, Land Use Element. City of Calistoga. (2018). 2018 Water and Wastewater Certificates of Participation Statement. City of Calistoga. (2018). 2018 Water and Wastewater Certificates of Participation Statement. City of Calistoga. (2018). FY18 CAFR, Note D Pension Plans. City of Calistoga. (2018). FY18 CAFR, Statement of Net Position Proprietary Funds. City of Calistoga. (2018). Large Water System Annual Report to the Drinking Water Program. City of Calistoga. (2018). Periodic Report on Growth Management System and Water/ Wastewater Availability. City of Calistoga. (2018). Periodic Report on Growth Management System and Water/ Wastewater Availability. City of Calistoga. (2018). Water Rate Study. City of Calistoga. (2018). Water Rate Study. City of Calistoga. (2018-2019). Budget Fiscal Year 2018-19 Operating & Capital. City of Calistoga. (2018-2019). Budget Fiscal Year 2018-19 Operating & Capital Improvement Budgets. City of Calistoga. (2018-2019). Budget Fiscal Year 2018-19 Operating & Capital Improvement Budgets, Transmittal Letter. City of Calistoga. (2018-2019). Budget Fiscal Year 2018-19 Operating & Capital Improvement Budgets, Wastewater CIP Fund. City of Calistoga. (2019, 01 08). Calistoga California. Retrieved from http://www.ci.calistoga.ca.us/city-hall/departments-services/utility-billing-services/low- income-rate-adjustment-lira City of Calistoga. (2019). Response to Financial Data Request, rec’d 10/07/19. REFERENCES 490 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR City of Calistoga. (2019). Response to Grand Jury Report on Napa County Water Quality: It’s a Matter of Taste. City of Calistoga. (2019-2020). Budget, FY 19-20. City of Calistoga. (n.d.). Appendix A, Water Operations Fiscal Profile. (2018-2019). City of Calistoga Budget Fiscal Year 2018-19 Wastewater Operations Fund. (2018-2019). City of Calistoga Budget Fiscal Year 2018-19 Wastewater Operations Fund. City of Calistoga. (n.d.). City Council Staff Report. City of Calistoga. (n.d.). Development Fee Schedule. City of Calistoga. (n.d.). Development Fee Schedule. City of Calistoga. (n.d.). Dunaweal Wastewater Treatment Plant. Retrieved from http://www.ci.calistoga.ca.us/city-hall/departments-services/public-works- department/water-wastewater-treatment/dunaweal-wastewater-treatment-plant City of Calistoga. (n.d.). Dunaweal Wastewater Treatment Plant. Retrieved from http://www.ci.calistoga.ca.us/city-hall/departments-services/public-works- department/water-wastewater-treatment/dunaweal-wastewater-treatment-plant City of Calistoga. (FY 2018-2019). Budget Operating & Capital Improvement Budgets, Transmittal Letter. City of Calistoga. (FY2018). Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR). City of Calistoga. (June 1, 2018). 2017 Consumer Confidence Report. City of Calistoga. (n.d.). Resolution No. 2014-094. City of Calistoga. (n.d.). Resolution No. 2014-094. City of Calistoga. (Updated June 2018). Sewer System Management Plan. City of Calistoga, M. K. (2019, 10 07). City of Napa. (2015). Urban Water Management Plan for City of Napa. City of Napa. (2016). Permit Report. City of Napa. (2016, 2017, 2018). Annual Report to the Drinking Water Program. City of Napa. (2017). Rate Schedules, Adopted Nov. 7, 2017. City of Napa. (2017, 2018, 2019). Adopted Budget Fiscal Years 2017/2018 and 2018/2019, Program Summary Water Utility Summary . City of Napa. (2018). FY18 CAFR, Note 10 – Employee Retirement System (Misc. Plan). City of Napa. (2018). FY18 CAFR, Note 6 . City of Napa. (2018). FY18 CAFR, Note 7D Water Fund Obligations. City of Napa. (2018). FY18 CAFR, Proprietary Funds Statement of Net Position. City of Napa. (2018). FY18 CAFR, Proprietary Funds Statement of Net Position. City of Napa. (2018). FY18 CAFR, Statement of Net Position, Proprietary Funds, Water Utility. City of Napa. (2018). Large Water System Annual Report to the Drinking Water Program . City of Napa. (2018, 2019). Water Service Fees, FY2018-19. City of Napa. (2018/2019). Mid-Cycle Budget FY 2018/19, Adopted June 5, 2018, Water Fund. City of Napa. (2019, 06 28). GL 5003: Budget to Actual with Encumbrances by Fund, Key, Object. City of Napa. (2019, 06 25). Response to Financial Questions. City of Napa. (2020, 1998). General Plan 2020, 1998. City of Napa. (n.d.). Appendix A-6, City of Napa Fiscal Profile. City of Napa. (n.d.). Charter of the City of Napa, Section 180. City of Napa. (January 23, 2019). Request for Information. City of Napa. (n.d.). RateShare Program . (06/25/2019). City of Napa Response to Financial Questions. City of Napa. (n.d.). Water Operations Financial Profile. REFERENCES 491 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR City of St. Helena. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://sthelena.civicweb.net/Portal/MeetingTypeList.aspx City of St. Helena. (11/27/2018). Administrative Policy Finance, Item J. Fund Balance Levels, 6. Water and Wastewater. City of St. Helena. (2003). Urban Water Management Plan. City of St. Helena. (2006). Water Master Plan. City of St. Helena. (2010). Water Supply Plan. City of St. Helena. (2014). Sewer System Management Plan. City of St. Helena. (2016). Wastewater Treatment and Reclamation Plants Improvements, Draft Feasibility Study. City of St. Helena. (2018). Annual Report to the Division of Drinking Water. City of St. Helena. (2018). Capital Improvement Program Fiscal Years 2018/19 - 2022/23. City of St. Helena. (2018). FY18 CAFR, Statement of Net Position, Proprietary Funds. City of St. Helena. (2018). Monthly Water Reports. City of St. Helena. (n.d.). Appendix A, Water Operations Fiscal Profile. City of St. Helena. (August 2019). Response Letter for the 2018-2019 Napa County Grand Jury Report “St. Helena: A Small Town with Big City Problems,” . City of St. Helena. (n.d.). City Council Home Page. Retrieved from https://www.cityofsthelena.org/bc-citycouncil City of St. Helena. (n.d.). Council Policy Low Income Water and Wastewater Subsidy, Reso. 2017-18, P-FI-0009. City of St. Helena. (n.d.). Fee/Rate Schedule . City of St. Helena. (FY 2018/2019). Operations & Capital Budget. City of St. Helena. (June 30, 2018). Comprehensive Annual Financial Report. City of St. Helena. (n.d.). MSR Request for Information. City of St. Helena. (n.d.). Municipal Code. City of St. Helena. (n.d.). Municipal Code, Chapter 13.16 Section 080 . City of St. Helena. (October 31, 2016). Water and Wastewater Study, Final, Hansford Economic Consulting. City of St. Helena. (n.d.). Projects. Retrieved from https://www.cityofsthelena.org/projects City of St. Helena response to 9/11/19 financial data request. (n.d.). City of St. Helena. (n.d.). Water. Retrieved from https://www.cityofsthelena.org/publicworks/page/water (February 2014). City of St. Helena, Bell Canyon Reservoir Watershed Sanitary Survey. CIWQS. (2019). Reporting System, 8/14/2019. Comparison Chart (3-20-18) Proposed Five‐Year Water Rate Schedule ‐ Single‐Family Residential. (n.d.). Congress Valley Water District. (2017, 2018). Basic Financial Statements for the Fiscal Years Ended June 30, 2018 and 2017, Statement of Net Position. Congress Valley Water District. (2018, 2019). Fund 7400 Preliminary Budget Request for Fiscal Year 2018-2019. Correspondence with NRRD. (2019, 10 08). Council Adopted Policies. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.ci.st-helena.ca.us/bc- citycouncil/page/council-adopted-policies County of Napa. (2007). General Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report, Public Services and Utilities. County of Napa. (2017). CAFR for Fiscal Year ended June 30, 2017. County of Napa. (2018). CAFR for Fiscal Year ended June 30, 2018. REFERENCES 492 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR County of Napa. (2018). MPTS2010 Property System – Auditor Tax Increment Distribution Report 2018, TRA 072-029. County of Napa. (2018). MPTS2010 Property System – Auditor Tax Increment Distribution Report 2018, TRA 072-042. County of Napa. (2018). MPTS2010 Property System – Auditor Tax Increment Distribution Report 2018, TRA 077-003. County of Napa. (2019). Berryessa Pines Water System Inspection Report. County of Napa. (2019). Spanish Flat Water System Inspection Report. County of Napa. (n.d.). AB8 TRA – Fund Increment Factors FY18, Tax Code 37000. County of Napa. (n.d.). Flood Control & Water Conservation District. Retrieved from https://www.countyofnapa.org/1403/Flood-Control-Water-Conservation-Distric County of Napa. (n.d.). MPTS2010 Property System – Auditor Tax Increment Distribution Report 2018, TRA 072-031. CVWD Resolution No. 68. (n.d.). De Novo Planning Group. (2018, November). Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Envision Yountville General Plan Update. Town of Yountville. DeMaster, D. (2019). Correspondence from the Associate Engineer, July 24, 2019. Department of Water Resources. (2003). California DWR. District, N. S. (FY16-17). Capacity Charges Report for Fiscal Year 2016-17. Economics of Sustainable Water Reuse in the Napa Valley. (n.d.). Town of Yountville, City of Santa Rosa. (2018). Edgerly Island and Ingersoll Tract Flood Management Plan and Adaptation Study, ESA, August 30, 2018 and addendum. Environmental Finance Blog. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://efc.web.unc.edu/2014/02/17/napshot- debt-service-as-percent-of-total-operating-revenues/ First Carbon Solutions. (2017). Draft Environmental Impact Report, Broadway District Specific Plan, City of American Canyon, Napa County, California. Follow-up response rec’d 12/9/19 to LBRID interview 12/4/19. (n.d.). Follow-up response rec’d 12/9/19 to LBRID interview. (2019, 12 04). Follow-up response rec’d 12/9/19 to NBRID interview 12/4/19. (n.d.). (Updated March 27, 2018). General Fund Long Range Financial Forecast, City of St. Helena, 2018-2028. GHD. (2016). City of American Canyon, Sewer Master Plan. City of American Canyon. GHD. (2016). Potable Water Master Plan. City of American Canyon. GHD. (2016). Recycled Water Master Plan, City of American Canyon. GHD. (2017). Napa Sanitation District Asset Management Plan, July 2017. Government Codes §56425(e)5, Present and Probable need; disadvantaged unincorporated communities . (n.d.). Government Codes section 56375 (a) (8) (A)- Annexations Greater than 10 acres; Contiguous to a DUC. (n.d.). Government Finance Officers Association. (2000). Benchmarking and Measuring Debt Capacity, June 2000. Graham Wadsworth PE, T. o., Donald E. Moore, U. O., Theodore Whiton PE, G. S., & Mary Grace Pawson PE, G. S. (n.d.). Economics of Sustainable Water Reuse in the Napa Valley. Helena, C. o. (FY19). City of St. Helena Operations and Capital Budget FY 2019/19. City of St. Helena. Helena, S. (2019). General Plan Update 2040. REFERENCES 493 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR Helperin, B. a. (2001). Helperin, Beckman and Inwood. (2001). Helperin, Beckman and Inwood. History of District Finances and Projects - Formation through June 2019, LBRID mtg. 10/8/19. (2019). (2019, 04 04). Interview with NapaSan staff. Interview with NRRD. (2019, 12 12). (2019, 08 06). Interview with Spanish Flat Water District, Paul Quarneri. Interview with the City of Calistoga, M. K. (2019, 10 07). JD Supra. (n.d.). AB 2257: New Brown Act Requirements for Meeting Agendas on Local Agency Websites Effective for Meetings Held on and after January 1, 2019. Retrieved from https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/ab-2257-new-brown-act-requirements-for-35346/ Kennedy/Jenks Consultants. (2015). Urban Water Management Plan for City of American Canyon. Kimball Dam Water Reservoir. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.ci.calistoga.ca.us/city- hall/departments-services/public-works-department/water-wastewater-treatment/kimball- dam-water-reservoir LAFCO. (2019). Population estimates by County Planning Dept. as reported by LAFCO (6/13/19). LAFCO. (2019). Population forecasts by LAFCO and Cal. Dept. of Finance as reported by LAFCO (6/13/19). LAFCO of Napa County. (2016). Final Report, Dec. 2016. LAFCO of Napa County. (April 2011). Final Report. LAFCO. (n.d.). Resolution 2015-07. LAFCO Resolution 2017-06. (n.d.). LAFCO. (n.d.). Resolution 2018-16. LAFCO Resolution No. 07-27. (n.d.). LAFCO. (n.d.). Resolution No. 2013-08. LAFCO. (n.d.). Resolution No. 2013-09. LAFCO. (n.d.). Resolution No. 2015-08. LAFCO Resolution No. 2016-08. (n.d.). (2017). Large Water System Annual Report to the Drinking Water Program for the Year Ending December 31, 2017. City of American Canyon. Larry Walker Associates. (April 2004 (updated February 2006)). Recycled Water Program Manual. Town of Yountville. LBRID . (2019). Statement of Revenues and Expenses Budget vs. Actual FY19. LBRID. (2011). Lake Berryessa Region: Municipal Service Review. LBRID. (2017, 04 04). Board Agenda Letter. LBRID. (2017). Small Water System 2017 Report to the Drinking Water Program for year ending Dec. 31, 2017. LBRID. (2018, 09 11). Agenda Letter. LBRID. (2018). Inspection Report for Berryessa Estates Water System ID# 2800526, SWRCB, Oct. 16, 2018. LBRID. (2018). Lake Berryessa 2018 Watershed Sanitary Survey Final Report, Prepared for NCFCWCD and Solano County Water Agency. LBRID. (2018). Lake Berryessa 2018 Watershed Sanitary Survey Final Report, Prepared for NCFCWCD and Solano County Water Agency. LBRID. (2018). LBRID TSO Feasibility Study Letter Report to Cal. RWQCB, May 4, 2018. REFERENCES 494 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR LBRID. (2018). Small Water System 2018 Report to the Drinking Water Program for year ending Dec. 31, 2018. LBRID. (2019, 10 08). History of District Finances and Projects - Formation through June 2019, LBRID mtg. 10/8/19. LBRID. (2019). LBRID (5220) Debt Service Revenues and Expenses (adj. budget) FY19. LBRID and NBRID. (2018, March 27). RFQ/RFP to Operate, Maintain and Manage Water/Wastewater Facilities, . LBRID and NBRID. (2018). RFQ/RFP to Operate, Maintain and Manage Water/Wastewater Facilities, LBRID and NBRID, March 27, 2018. LBRID. (Dec. 2007 ). Lake Berryessa Resort Improvement District Sphere of Influence Review, Final Report. LBRID. (n.d.). LBRID (5220) Operations Revenues and Expenses (adj. budget) FY19. LBRID. (n.d.). MSR Request for Information. LCWD. (2014). Ordinance No. 1. LCWD. (2017). Financials FY2017. LCWD. (2018). Assessment Options for Payment of Remaining State Revolving Loan Debt, Jan. 2018. LCWD. (2018). Los Careros Water District 2018-19 Budget, approved 6/12/2018. LCWD. (2019, 05 08). Correspondence. LCWD. (2020, 01 09). Correspondence. LCWD. (n.d.). Basic Financial Statements for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2017. 2017. LCWD. (n.d.). Carneros Water District Website. Retrieved from http://carneroswater.org/SitePages1/Home.aspx LCWD. (June 30, 2019). Basic Financial Statements for the Fiscal Year Ended . Los Carneros. (n.d.). Los Carneros Water District Proposed FY20 Budget, 2018-19 Budget approved 6/12/2018, and 2017-18 Proposed Budget. (2019). Management of the California State Water Project, Bulletin 132-17, January 2019, Table 14-12. Martinez, A. (2020, 01 23). Correspondence, County of Napa, 1/23/2020. Mayor and City Council. (n.d.). Retrieved from City of American Canyon: https://www.cityofamericancanyon.org/city-departments/mayor-city-council Miller, P. (2019, 07 15). Correspondence, Napa County. (n.d.). Municipal Service Review: Lake Berryessa Region. Napa County. (2007). Public Services and Utilities. Napa County. (2019). Correspondence with Phillip Miller, July 15, 2019. Napa County. (2019). Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan. Napa County Civil Grand Jury. (2018-2019, June 14, 2019). Grand Jury Report. Napa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Act . (n.d.). Napa County Grand Jury. (June 14, 2019). Napa County Water Quality: It's a Matter of Taste. Napa County Grand Jury. Napa County Grand Jury Report. (June 14, 2019). Napa County Water Quality: It’s a Matter of Taste. Retrieved from Napa County Grand Jury Report, Napa County Water Quality: It’s a Matter of Taste, June 14, 2019 Napa County. (July 5, 2018). Planning, Building, and Environmental Services, Routine Inspection of COCWD System. Napa County LAFCO. (2016). Napa River Reclamation District No. 2109 MSR & SOI Update, Final Report, Dec. 2016. REFERENCES 495 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR Napa County. (n.d.). Lake Berryessa Resort Improvement District. Retrieved from http://napa.granicus.com/ViewPublisher.php?view_id=6 Napa County Local Agency Formation Commission. (2018, October 1). Policy on Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities. Napa County Local Agency Formation Commission. (2018). South County Region Municipal Service Review and Sphere of Influence Update. Napa Grand Jury. (2019). Grand Jury Report. Napa LAFCO. (2011). Lake Berryessa Region Municipal Service Review,. Napa LAFCO. (2014). Central County MSR. Napa LAFCO. (2016). Resolution No. 2016-5, Dec. 5, 2016. Napa LAFCO. (2018). South County Region Municipal Service Review and Sphere of Influence Updates. Napa LAFCO. (June 2016). NCFCWCD MSR and SOI Checklist. Napa LAFCO. (n.d.). Napa Local Agency Formation Commission, Policy on Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities, 2018. Napa LAFCO. (November 3, 2008). Policy on Outside Service Agreements. Napa LAFCO. (n.d.). Resolution 08-08. Napa LAFCO. (n.d.). Resolution 2014-02. Napa LAFCO. (n.d.). Resolution 2015-11. Napa LAFCO. (n.d.). Resolution 2017-1. Napa Outside Water Service Index.xslx. (n.d.). Napa Outside Water Service Index.xslx. (n.d.). NapaSan. (1/13/2020). Correspondence with J.Tucker. NapaSan. (2007). Collection System Master Plan. NapaSan. (2011). Wastewater Treatment Master Plan. NapaSan. (2016). Sewer Service Charge Rate Study, January 2016. NapaSan. (2017, 06 30). CalPERS Actuarial Valuation as of June 30, 2017. Retrieved from https://www.calpers.ca.gov/page/employers/actuarial-services/employer- contributions/public-agency-actuarial-valuation-reports NapaSan. (2017, 06 30). CalPERS Actuarial Valuation as of June 30, 2017 for the Napa Sanitation District. NapaSan. (2017). GASB 75 OPEB Valuation Report as of June 30, 2017, October 20, 2017. NapaSan. (2017). Performance Measurement Report. NapaSan. (2017-2018). Capacity Charges Report for Fiscal Year 2017-18. NapaSan. (2017-2018). PAFR FY 17-18. NapaSan. (2018). Alston Park SOI Amendment on December 3, 2018. NapaSan. (2018). Annual Recycled Water Report. NapaSan. (2018). CAFR FY2018. NapaSan. (2018). Cost of Service Rate and Capacity Charge Study, FINAL, August 2018. NapaSan. (2018). Financial Policies, Reserve Policies 2.3, Updated May 16, 2018. NapaSan. (2018). Recycled Water Annual Report. NapaSan. (2018-2019). Operating and Capital Budget Fiscal Year 2018/19. NapaSan. (2019). Capital Improvement Plan, FY19 Budget. NapaSan. (2019). Memorandum November 2019 Recycled Water Update. NapaSan. (2019, 01 22). Response to Request for Information, Flow Data. NapaSan. (2019-2020). Budget FY 19-20. NapaSan. (2019-2020). Budget FY 19-20. NapaSan. (2019-2021). Strategic Plan 2019-2021, Goal 1, Objective 1A. REFERENCES 496 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR NapaSan. (2020). Comments 3/6/2020 on Admin. Draft Report. NapaSan. (2020, 01 13). Correspondence with C.Bolden. NapaSan. (n.d.). Appendix A, Fiscal Profile. NapaSan. (n.d.). Capacity Charges. Retrieved from https://www.napasan.com/151/Capacity- Charges NapaSan. (n.d.). Code “5.01.010 Rates”. (2019, 04 04). NapaSan Interview. (2019, 04 04). NapaSan Interview. NapaSan. (March 7, 2012). Ordinance No. 92, amending Article IX of the District’s Sewer Use Ordinance. NapaSan. (n.d.). Resolution No. 11-004. NBRID. (2019). NBRID (52400) Operations Revenues and Expenses (adj. budget) FY19. NBRID. (2019). NBRID (52410) Debt Service Revenues and Expenses (adj. budget) FY19. NBRID. (2019). Operating Budget 5-Year Projection, presented at Board meeting Nov. 8, 2019. NBRID. (n.d.). Consumer Confidence Report. NBRID. (n.d.). MSR Request for Information. NBRID. (n.d.). Resolution No. 2018-05. (2014). NBS, Los Carneros Water District Assessment District No. 2014-1, Engineer’s Report. NCFCWCD. (2018). Financial Statements, Balance Sheet Divisional Breakdown, June 30, 2018. NCFCWCD. (n.d.). Water Supply Contract, Table A Annual Entitlements (aka Exhibit A). NPDES Permit No. CA0037966, Order 00-1312. (n.d.). NRRD. (2007). Napa River Reclamation District No. 2109 SOI Review, Final Report, April 2007. NRRD. (2007). Napa River Reclamation District No. 2109 SOI Review, Final Report, April 2007. NRRD. (2018, 2019). Final Budget for FY2018/19. NRRD. (2018, 2019). Napa River Reclamation District Basic Financial Statements, June 30, 2019 and 2018. NRRD. (2019). Meeting Agenda, Oct. 3, 2019. NRRD. (2019). NRRD #2109 minutes for the meeting of the Board of Trustees March 7, 2019. NRRD. (2019). Ordinance No. 133 (Amending Ord. # 102), May 2, 2019. NRRD. (2019). Wastewater Treatment and Disposal System Evaluation Technical Memorandum 2018, Bracewell Engineering, Inc., January 28, 2019. (2005). NRRD MSR. NRRD. (n.d.). NRRD Home Page. Retrieved from http://nrrd2109.org/ (FY18-19). Operating and Capital Budget Fiscal Year 2018/19. Napa Sanitation District (NapaSan). Ordinance 734 adopted March 6. (2018). Palencia Consulting Engineers. (February 2014). Bell Canyon Reservoir Watershed Sanitary Survey. City of St. Helena. Quarneri, P. (2020, 08 06). Raynor, D. (2020, 01 16). Correspondence, City of Calistoga. Resolution No. 2017-07 Adopting a District Debt Management Policy, 7/11/17. (2017). Robert D. Niehaus, Inc. (2019). Rate Study Review of NBRID, NBRID mtg. 10/8/19. Robert D. Niehaus, Inc. (2019). Rate Study Review of NBRID, NBRID mtg. 10/8/19. Robert W. Johnson CPA. (FY18). Circle Oaks County Water District Financial Statements for the years ended June 30, 2018 and 2017. CAFR, Circle Oaks County Water District. RWQCB Order No. R2-2016-0035 (NPDES No. CA0037575). (n.d.). REFERENCES 497 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR (May21, 2019). S&P Global Ratings, Napa City, California, Outstanding Water Revenue Bonds, Series 2016, letter to the City . Sec. 6 of enabling act. (n.d.). Services, C. D. (April 2002). Drinking Water Source Assessment: Stonebridge Well 01. Services, C. D. (April 2002). Drinking Water Source Assessment: Stonebridge Well 02. Services, C. D. (November 2002). Drinking Water Source Assessment: Bell Canyon Reservoir Intake. SFWD. (2018). FY18 Budget . SFWD. (2018). FY18 Financial Report. SFWD. (2018). Spanish Flat Water District Financial Statements, Year ended June 30, 2018. SFWD. (n.d.). MSR Request for Information. Shibatani, R. (December 2011). 2011 Countywide Water Service Review. (2017). Small Water System 2017 Report to the Drinking Water Program for year ending Dec. 31, 2017. (2018). Small Water System 2018 Report to the Drinking Water Program for year ending Dec. 31, 2018. (2013). SOI Report. (December 3, 2018). South County Region Municipal Service Review and Sphere of Influence Updates: City of American Canyon, American Canyon Fire Protection District, County Service Area No. 3. Local Agency Formation Commission of Napa County. (2007). Spanish Flat Water District SOI Update. St. Helena. (August 2019). Response Letter for the 2018-2019 Napa County Grand Jury Report "St. Helena: A Small Town with Big City Problems". State Water Resources Control Board. (2015). Sanitary Sewer Overflow Reduction Program Annual Compliance Report. (2018). State Water Resources Control Board, Inspection Report for Town of Yountville Public Water System ID# 2810007. Suez. (2008). American Canyon Wastewater Treatment Plant. Suez. (2008). American Canyon Wastewater Treatment Plant Case Study. SWRCB. (2019). California Integrated Water Quality System report, 3/27/19. (n.d.). SWRCB CIWQS SSO Public Report. Tagliaboschi, J. (2019, 07 31). Town of Yountville, Public World Director, email. (2014). The California Municipal Financial Health Diagnostic: Financial Health Indicators, League of California Cities. (2014). The California Municipal Financial Health Diagnostic: Financial Health Indicators, League of California Cities. (2014). The California Municipal Financial Health Diagnostic: Financial Health Indicators, League of California Cities. (2014). The California Municipal Financial Health Diagnostic: Financial Health Indicators, League of California Cities, 2014. (n.d.). Town of Calistoga Fiscal Profile, Appendix A-5. (n.d.). Town of Calistoga Fiscal Profile, Appendix A-5. Town of Yountville. (n.d.). Retrieved from Town of Yountville: http://www.townofyountville.com/ Town of Yountville. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://townofyountville.legistar.com/Calendar.aspx Town of Yountville. (2006). Recycled Water Program Manual and Notice of Intent, Updated 2006. REFERENCES 498 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR Town of Yountville. (2017). CalPERS Actuarial Valuation as of June 30, 2017 for the Town of Yountville. Town of Yountville. (2018). Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Yountville General Plan Update. Town of Yountville. (2018). FY18 CAFR, Statement of Net Position, Proprietary Funds. Town of Yountville. (2018, 06 27). Town of Yountville media release, Utility Rate Assistance Available to Qualified Customers Beginning July 1, 2018. Town of Yountville. (2018). Yountville General Plan Draft. Town of Yountville. (2018-2023). 5-Year CIP Summary FY18-FY23. (FY19). Town of Yountville Adopted Operating Budget Fiscal Year 2018-19. Budget, Town of Yountville. Town of Yountville. (n.d.). Capital Improvement Plan. Town of Yountville. (December 15, 2017 ). Water and Wastewater Rate Study Presentation to the Yountville Town Council. Town of Yountville. (n.d.). Fiscal Profile, Appendix A, Table A-8. Town of Yountville. (n.d.). MSR request for information. Town of Yountville. (n.d.). Planning and Building. Retrieved from http://www.townofyountville.com/departments-services/planning-building Town of Yountville. (September 2016). Climate Action Plan. Town of Yountville. (n.d.). Town Council. Retrieved from http://www.townofyountville.com/town-council Town of Yountville. (n.d.). Water Operations Financial Profile. (August 2006). U.S. Army Corps of Engineers San Francisco District, Upper York Creek Ecosystem Restoration Project Feasibility Report Engineering Appendix. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1984). USEPA’s Financial Capability Guidebook. University of North Carolina School of Government. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://efc.web.unc.edu/2014/02/17/napshot-debt-service-as-percent-of-total-operating- revenues/ (2015). Urban Water Management Plan. Vavrinek, Trine, Day & Co., LLP. (Dec. 19, 2018). Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) FY18. City of Napa, Napa. Water and Wastewater Rate Study Presentation to the Yountville Town Council. (2017, 12 15). (2017). Water Cost of Service Rate Study, Black and Veatch, Prepared for the City of Napa Water Division, Sept. 20, 2017. Water Rate Assistance Program Application . (n.d.). 14. Water Research Foundation. (2017). Knowledge Portals. Wikipedia. (2019, 02 28). Bond Credit Rating. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bond_credit_rating#Rating_tier_definitions Wikipedia. (n.d.). Bond Credit Rating. Retrieved February 2019, from Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bond_credit_rating#Rating_tier_definitions WTP. (2019). Inspection Report. Yountville, T. o. (2017). Small System Annual Report to the Drinking Water Program . Yountville, T. o. (2017). Water Quality Report. Yountville, T. o. (2019, 09 18). (PCA, Interviewer) Yountville, T. o. (Updated May 2016). Sewer System Management Plan. REFERENCES 499 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR CO N TR I B U TO RS Agency Name and Title The late John W. Stewart was crucial in John W. Stewart developing the concept of this report. John previously worked for the City of Napa, Napa County, and Napa Sanitation District in various engineering/general manager roles. John was beloved in this community and always kept a long-term vision. Starting his career as a civil engineer with Napa County, John moved to the Napa Public Works Department where he spent several years as an Assistant Engineer, Associate Engineer, and Water Manager for the City of Napa. He left the Public Works Department to lead the Napa Sanitation District as the Engineer Manager. John returned to Napa County as a Principal Engineer, and also spent time with Calaveras County as the General Manager of several water and wastewater plants, and RSA. John was also a volunteer and leader with Los Carneros Water District, spearheading the multi-million dollar project to bring reclaimed water across the river to the Carneros region of Napa. City of American Canyon Jason Holley, City Manager City of American Canyon Felix Hernandez III, Director of Public Works City of American Canyon Steve Hartwig, Former Director of Public Works City of Calistoga Michael Kirn, City Manager City of Calistoga Derek Rayner, Director of Public Works City of Calistoga Dylan Feik, Former City Manager CONTRIBUTORS 500 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR City of Napa Phil Brun, Utilities Director City of Napa Patrick Costello, Water Resources Analyst City of Napa Joy Eldridge, Deputy Utilities Director City of Napa Douglas De Master, Associate Civil Engineer City of St. Helena Mark Prestwich, City Manager City of St. Helena Erica Ahmann Smithies, Public Works Director City of St. Helena Clayton Church, Public Works Operations Manager Town of Yountville Steve Rogers, Town Manager Town of Yountville Joe Tagliaboschi, Public Works Director Town of Yountville Don Moore, Utility Operations Manager Town of Yountville Preya Nixon, Management Analyst Circle Oaks County Water District and Paul Quarneri, General Manager Spanish Flat Water District Circle Oaks County Water District Anna Haley, District Secretary Congress Valley Water District Kiersten Bjorkman, District Secretary Los Carneros Water District Laura Deyermond, Board President Los Carneros Water District Cass Walker, Board Member Los Carneros Water District Matt Wilkinson, Board Member Napa County David Morrison, Planning Director Napa County Molly Rattigan, Deputy County Executive Officer Napa County John McDowell, Principal Planner Napa County, Napa County Flood Control Phillip Miller, Deputy Director Flood and Water Conservation District Control and Water Resources CONTRIBUTORS 501 NAPA LAFCO COUNTYWIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER MSR Napa County, Lake Berryessa Resort Steven Lederer, Public Works Director Improvement District, Napa Berryessa Resort Improvement District, Napa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Napa County, Lake Berryessa Resort Andrew Butler, Senior Engineer Improvement District, Napa Berryessa Resort Improvement District, Napa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Napa River Reclamation District Penny Wilson, Assistant Manager/District Secretary Napa Sanitation District Tim Healy, General Manager Napa Sanitation District Jeff Tucker, Former Director of Administrative Services Napa Sanitation District Andrew Damron, District Engineer Spanish Flat Water District Steve Silva, Operator California Department of Veterans Affairs Donald Callison, Research Analyst II CONTRIBUTORS 502