West County General Government Services

Table of Contents Section Page 0.0 LAFCo RESOLUTION OF APPPROVAL 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY and DETERMINATIONS..........................................1-1 Background....................................................................................................................1-1 Cities ...........................................................................................................................1-6 County ...........................................................................................................................1-9 Regional Providers.......................................................................................................1-12 2.0 SETTING...........................................................................................................2-1 Description of Existing Services, Providers and Funding Sources................................2-1 3.0 POPULATION GROWTH..................................................................................3-1 Present and Projected Service Population over 20-Year Timeframe.............................3-1 Land Use and Significant Growth Areas........................................................................3-4 4.0 REVIEW OF SERVICES AND DETERMINATIONS .........................................4-1 4.1 Grass Valley and Nevada City.........................................................................4.1-1 4.2 County of Nevada............................................................................................4.2-1 4.3 Regional Service Provision .............................................................................4.3-1 5.0 COMMENTS RECEIVED AND RESPONSES ..................................................5-1 Appendices A. Service Provider Profiles ..............................................................................................A-1 B. Glossary of Terms.........................................................................................................B-1 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW TOC-1 NEVADA LAFCO WEST COUNTY GENERAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES Table of Contents List of Tables 3.0 POPULATION GROWTH Table 3-1 Growth in Western Nevada County: 2002-2027....................................3-4 4.0 REVIEW OF SERVICES AND DETERMINATIONS Table 4.1-1 Local Drainage Improvements.............................................................4.1-9 Table 4.1-2 2003 Waste Management, Inc. Rates by Jurisdictions......................4.1-22 Table 4.2-1 Population Projections: Unincorporated Study Area...........................4.2-1 Table 4.3-1 Regional Drainage Improvements.......................................................4.3-3 NEVADA LAFCO TOC-2 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW WEST COUNTY GENERAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES Table of Contents List of Figures 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Figure 1-1 Study Area..............................................................................................1-4 2.0 SETTING Figure 2-1 Western Nevada County and Cities......................................................2-11 Figure 2-2 Grass Valley, Nevada City Spheres of Influence..................................2-12 Figure 2-3 Grass Valley Redevelopment Area.......................................................2-13 Figure 2-4 Caltrans Roadways within Western Nevada County............................2-14 4.0 REVIEW OF SERVICES AND DETERMINATIONS Figure 4.1-1 Grass Valley Circulation Map..............................................................4.1-5 Figure 4.1-2 Grass Valley Future Four-Lane Roadways Map..................................4.1-6 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW TOC-3 NEVADA LAFCO WEST COUNTY GENERAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NOTE: Municipal Service Reviews are based on information collected from multiple service providers over the course of several months. While the information and determinations contained in this report were deemed accurate at the time of preparation, subsequent developments (such as actions taken by reporting agencies) will not be reflected in this document. Background Under the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 (the CKH Act), Municipal Service Reviews (MSRs) are now required prior to any sphere of influence update by a Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo). The CKH Act also sets a deadline of January 1, 2006, by which time each LAFCo must complete MSRs for the review of the spheres of influence of all of the agencies under its jurisdiction, whether or not changes to those spheres of influence are pending. The CKH Act requires that an MSR include evaluation of several factors related to municipal service delivery. According to guidelines developed by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) for the implementation of the CKH Act, the MSR is to include written determinations rating service providers on each of the factors. This MSR reviews General Government Services in Western Nevada County. The specific municipal services under review are: • Planning and Community Development • Public Safety and Animal Control • Transportation and Circulation Planning • Public Transit • Solid Waste • Storm Drainage Planning These services are provided by: • Nevada County • Nevada City • City of Grass Valley • Nevada County Transportation Commission • California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Summary of Issues by Service The MSR provides not only a review of the service providers, but also a means of comparison by which service providers can be judged against each other. Below is a summary of each of MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW 1-1 NEVADA LAFCO WEST COUNTY GENERAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES Section 1.0 Executive Summary the services provided, and a comparison of the service providers’ abilities to efficiently and effectively provide the service. Planning and Community Development The cities of Grass Valley and Nevada City, as well as Nevada County, provide planning and community development services. These include services related to land development, housing, building inspection, code enforcement, implementation of General Plans, and other aspects of community growth. Major issues related to the provision of these services include timely review of development applications, efficient and equitable review of building permit applications, implementation of housing programs, updating and implementation of the General Plan, and promotion of sound land use and growth policies. Nevada City was found to have lower levels of service related to community development service operations than Grass Valley or Nevada County. Nevada City has not received State certification of its Housing Element, and has an outdated General Plan which does not effectively provide guidance for community growth and development. Grass Valley and Nevada County have each recently updated their Housing Elements. Each jurisdiction was found to have recently implemented changes to codes and procedures to encourage affordable housing. Building department and permit reviews were generally considered equal across jurisdictions, as Nevada County provides the service to both cities. Public Safety and Animal Control The cities of Grass Valley and Nevada City, as well as Nevada County, provide public safety and animal control services. These include services related to community policing, jailing, emergency assistance, maintenance and operation of animal shelters, and similar activities. Major issues related to the provision of these services include average response times, depth of services offered, staffing to population ratios, annual service calls, and efficiency in operation of animal control facilities. Policing services are assessed in a variety of ways, with ratio of officers per thousand population as a common comparison tool. The following table compares officer to population ratios in the three jurisdictions. Grass Valley Nevada City Nevada County Officers per 1,000 population 2.0 2.9 0.9 Nevada City and Grass Valley each have a higher percentage of sworn officers per thousand population than Nevada County. While officer to population ratios are generally lower in unincorporated county areas than in cities, the Nevada County ratio is below thresholds generally accepted as optimal. Animal control service levels are generally considered equal across the jurisdictions. Grass Valley provides this service for Nevada City. Transportation and Circulation Planning The cities of Grass Valley and Nevada City, as well as Nevada County, provide transportation and circulation planning services. The Nevada County Transportation Commission and California Department of Transportation also provide planning services related to circulation and transportation. These include services related to planning of roads and roadway improvements, NEVADA LAFCO 1-2 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW WEST COUNTY GENERAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES Section 1.0 Executive Summary development of long-range transportation plans and models, and similar activities. Major issues related to the provision of these services include ability to maintain or achieve acceptable levels of service (LOS) on roads, offset transportation impacts in new development, and maintain and coordinate roadway connections across jurisdictional boundaries. Each of the jurisdictions plans local circulation and transportation improvements, and coordinates regional planning through the NCTC. Caltrans plans and maintains State and Interstate highways in the County. Service levels are generally good within the local roads in the cities and county, but various regional roadways maintained by Caltrans are predicted to fall to undesirable levels of service within 16 years. The cities and county are generally equal in their ability to maintain LOS on local roads, while Caltrans and the NCTC provide services unique and incomparable to other agencies or jurisdictions. Public Transit Only Nevada County provides public transit services. Transit services are comprised of planning and operation of public transit. Major issues related to the provision of these services include planning and maintenance of routes and finances, maintenance of private contracts, and long-range planning of the service. The County is the lone provider of the service, thus no comparisons can be made to the adequacy of service provision in relation to other providers. Solid Waste The cities of Grass Valley and Nevada City, as well as Nevada County, provide solid waste services. These include services related to solid waste collection, disposal, and maintenance of consultant contracts for service provision. Major issues related to the provision of these services include maintenance of agreements with the private refuse collection and disposal provider for the jurisdictions (WMI), management and implementation of waste diversion requirements, and general management. The County has recently renegotiated its franchise contract with WMI to improve service and reduce costs, while the cities appear to be working on older agreements with a lower level of services provided. Rates to consumers vary widely across jurisdictions, although the price of services varies based on both land use and location. For instance, Nevada County has higher rates than the cities for commercial properties, but lower rates for residential properties. Storm Drainage Planning The cities of Grass Valley and Nevada City, as well as Nevada County, provide storm drainage services. These include services related to solid waste collection, disposal, and maintenance of consultant contracts for service provision. Major issues related to the provision of these services include incremental and regional planning of stormwater management, jurisdictional cooperation, and maintenance of stormwater drainage systems. Stormwater management is generally done on a site-by-site level in each jurisdiction, except in Grass Valley. Grass Valley has a more fully developed stormwater drainage system than Nevada City or Nevada County, and is less prone to impacts from stormwater than the other jurisdictions. Nevada City has a noted lack of adequate stormwater management facilities. MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW 1-3 NEVADA LAFCO WEST COUNTY GENERAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES Section 1.0 Executive Summary Summary of Issues by Provider Following are brief descriptions of the critical factors and all determinations made for the service providers. NEVADA LAFCO 1-4 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW WEST COUNTY GENERAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES Section 1.0 Executive Summary NEVADA LAFCO 1-5 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW WEST COUNTY GENERAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES Section 1.0 Executive Summary Cities of Grass Valley and Nevada City Grass Valley Critical Factors: Ability to meet police officer staffing ratios, provide adequate storm drainage, improve solid waste collection contracts, ensure service fees reflect actual costs. Nevada City Critical Factors: Need for comprehensive land use planning, provide adequate storm drainage, meet needed transportation improvements, improve staffing ratios, increase office space, reduce public safety service costs, charge fees commensurate with services, ensure appropriate franchise agreements. Determinations: Infrastructure and Growth 1. Nevada City does not have a current General Plan or approved SOI Plan to guide growth and development within the City. Adoption and implementation of such planning documents is essential to ensuring organized growth of the City. 2. Nevada City needs to develop a stormwater management plan and establish a program to ensure adequate facilities to meet present and anticipated needs. 3. Storm drainage planning should be done on a drainage basin-wide level, with the result being a master plan providing information on all stormwater drainage infrastructure in the planning area. 4. Nevada City police appear to have sufficient usable space for staff operations. 5. Other infrastructure is acceptable for current and anticipated future operations of general government services. Cost Avoidance and Facilities Sharing 1. Grass Valley and Nevada City undergo thorough budgeting processes as a means to avoid unnecessary costs. Each has enacted purchasing policies of various degrees of complexity to ensure that significant purchases are made efficiently and without unnecessary cost. 2. To better address planning and community development concerns within County administered areas that fall within a city’s adopted or proposed sphere of influence, a more collaborative approach appears necessary to ensure that development is consistent with all relevant community plans – as well as to ensure that city and county plans are not in conflict. 3. Public safety providers, particularly Nevada City, may wish to explore ways to avoid costs through service charges for matters beyond routine law enforcement. The use of a volunteer corps is a cost avoidance strategy that Grass Valley animal control services may wish to explore. MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW 1-6 NEVADA LAFCO WEST COUNTY GENERAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES Section 1.0 Executive Summary 4. Several of the service providers share facilities, finances, and personnel resources. Detailed cost-benefit analysis would be necessary as a precursor to further sharing, consolidation, or centralization of services, including joint storm drainage planning among the cities and Nevada County. Finance and Rate Restructuring 1. Each of the jurisdictions adopts annual budgets as a means of setting spending priorities and tracking agency assets and liabilities. Each of the jurisdictions has in place purchasing policies intended to avoid unnecessary costs. 2. Planning, public safety and public transit are relatively labor-intensive services, whereas the other services under review (transportation and circulation, solid waste, and storm drain planning) are more infrastructure intensive. Capital improvement plans are used by each of the jurisdictions to plan for major outlays, with specialized transportation and public transit planning through the RTP and TDP process. 3. The uses of AB 1600 fees by the cities are important in fairly distributing the cost of infrastructure extensions necessitated by new development. The amounts of these fees should be monitored periodically to ensure that they are consonant with actual costs of extending infrastructure. The jurisdictions may need to consider an in-lieu fee to fund affordable housing projects. 4. Community development services appear to be the most able to use service fees to recapture the cost of delivering services. All service providers utilize some flexible service fees that can be increased when projects consume more time and resources. However, many planning fees for Grass Valley and Nevada City are relatively “flat” and do not cover the cost of service provision. 5. User fees, where feasible, should be closely tied to the actual cost of providing service. “Flat” fees set too low or too high can have several negative implications, such as insufficient revenue and/or legal action. Similarly, Nevada City should reexamine planning fees, including fees for the appeal of Planning Commission decisions, inasmuch as current fees appear far too low to cover appeal processing costs. 6. Nevada City could increase revenues through extension of AB 1600 fees to commercial and industrial (as well as residential) development and thus reduce the overall impact of transportation costs on the City’s general fund. 7. Adoption of a graduated fee in response to false alarms, similar to that in effect in Grass Valley, has the potential to offset such costs for the Nevada City Police Department. 8. Waste Management Inc., the private solid waste collection and disposal provider to both cities, charges rates which differ significantly between the jurisdictions. Each city should review its contract with WMI to ensure that rates charged to its residents are consistent with those assessed in neighboring areas. Government Structure, Management Efficiencies, and Local Accountability 1. Departments in Grass Valley have undergone reorganizations within the past five years to facilitate better provision of general government services. NEVADA LAFCO 1-7 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW WEST COUNTY GENERAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES Section 1.0 Executive Summary 2. Staffing levels of the service providers considered herein are sufficient to meet demand for government services, with the exception of Nevada City community development. If Nevada City decides to maintain its existing internal structure, they should consider making the City Planner a full-time position or allocating staff time of other City staff to assist in planning activities. As structural change options, Nevada City may need to consider contracting out some planning and community development services to Nevada County or Grass Valley, or a private firm. Nevada City may also require the addition of sworn officers to meet desired levels of service, depending on population growth and funding allocation from the Nevada City Council. 3. The existing departmental structure (Council-Manager-Staff form) of the service providers considered in this report is appropriate for the type of services provided and departmental structure does not significantly and adversely affect the financial stability of the service providers. 4. Each of the service providers covered by this MSR has had the cost effectiveness of its operations analyzed recently as part of annual budgeting or other audit. All recommendations for reorganization of services or departments have been implemented, justifying the existing structure as efficient and appropriate. 5. The cities should continue making use of County resources such as the HCS, GIS tools and other services that the cities could not alone provide in an efficient manner. 6. Public safety providers should consider utilizing more sophisticated communication and analytical tools (such as GIS) as a means of refining and improving their delivery of services. 7. Nevada City’s housing, community development, and storm drainage services appear to require greater oversight and staff dedication to increase management efficiencies to an acceptable level. 8. Both cities conduct adequately noticed public hearings prior to decision-making, with appropriate provisions for public input and involvement. Each provider appears to conduct meetings and activities consistent with the Brown Act, as well as other applicable State laws. 9. Grass Valley has made reasonable efforts to engage the public in its activities through the issuance of publications, placing of information on websites, and other means. Nevada City has a noted shortage of information available for the public with regards to matters relating to general government services. The development of brochures, construction of a city website, or other means is necessary to provide this information to the public. 10. The existing government structure of remaining service providers, beyond those mentioned above is sufficient to accommodate planned urban expansion of the municipalities and unincorporated county. MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW 1-8 NEVADA LAFCO WEST COUNTY GENERAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES Section 1.0 Executive Summary County of Nevada Critical Factors: Adequate office space for departments, funding for transportation improvements, Sheriff’s staffing, regional stormwater management planning, poor transit ridership ratios, fees insufficient to cover costs, inability of RTMF to meet needs, need for improved regional cooperation in transportation planning. Determinations: Infrastructure and Growth 1. The County Sheriff’s Department reports a need for additional and/or reconfigured space for its policing and animal control functions. The Department is expected to gain some space for administrative services within the Nevada County Government Center following the 2004 reorganization of Housing and Community Services, but has no current plan to remodel its animal control facility. 2. With the possible exception of Planning and Community Development, facilities are generally adequate to accommodate current and anticipated future operations of the remaining general government services studied, including Public Transit, Solid Waste and Storm Drainage Planning. 3. The County would benefit from the development and adoption of standardized work-space guidelines to improve the agency’s capital facilities planning and to ensure adequate work- space to all departments. 4. Western Nevada County has adequate facilities for the planning of transportation facilities, but the urban transportation network itself presently appears to remain inadequate to address both current and anticipated demand. The Regional Transportation Plan identifies planned improvements designed to ensure the rural transportation network will be adequate to meet projected demand. 5. At 0.90 officers per thousand population, the Nevada County Sheriff’s Department is currently operating below industry-accepted levels of service with regard to officer to population ratios. 6. Staffing levels at the housing and community development departments have recently been reduced and should be reexamined to ensure they are sufficient to allow for the provision of adequate levels of service to new growth areas. 7. The adequacy of planning for stormwater facilities is not sufficient to address potential effects associated with growth of the cities and adjacent areas. Nevada City has acknowledged flooding issues for which planning documents have not identified potential solutions or costs, while Grass Valley is impacted by drainage received from developments and areas outside its planning jurisdiction. Thus the County needs to engage in a collaborative effort with Nevada City and Grass Valley to develop a regional stormwater management plan and funding program. Further expansion of the cities will only intensify the need for such a plan. NEVADA LAFCO 1-9 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW WEST COUNTY GENERAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES Section 1.0 Executive Summary 8. Current plans, policies, and procedures for the other subject services, including Planning and Community Development, Public Safety and Animal Control, Transportation and Circulation Planning, Public Transit, and Solid Waste are sufficient to allow for accommodation of planned growth. 9. Capital improvement plans are used to plan for major outlays, with specialized transportation and public transit planning through the Transportation Commission’s RTP and TDP process. Cost Avoidance and Facilities Sharing 1. The County undergoes thorough budgeting processes as a means to avoid unnecessary costs. Departments have enacted purchasing policies of various degrees of complexity to ensure that significant purchases are made efficiently and without unnecessary cost. 2. To better address planning and community development concerns within County administered areas that fall within a city’s adopted or proposed sphere of influence, a more collaborative approach appears necessary to ensure that development is consistent with all relevant community plans – as well as to ensure that city and county plans are not in conflict. 3. Nevada County should consider assessing the potential benefits of consolidating animal control services with the cities. While existing structures are present to provide services efficiently, there may exist opportunities for cost savings by consolidating the service between the two jurisdictions. 4. Increasing fees on public transit may lead to a decrease in usage and a reduced farebox recovery ratio. Public transit service can avoid unnecessary costs through the periodic elimination of unproductive routes and the use of efficient fleet vehicles. 5. Unnecessary costs are avoided in transportation and circulation planning through the cooperative development of a Regional Transportation Plan and Transit Development Plans. 6. Several of the service providers share facilities, finances, and personnel resources among departments. Detailed cost-benefit analysis would be necessary as a precursor to further sharing, consolidation, or centralization of services, including joint storm drainage planning among the cities and Nevada County. 7. The County has improved service levels and reduced costs (by increasing county income) associated with the provision of solid waste services, through its 2003 update to the solid waste franchise agreement with WMI. Finance and Rate Restructuring 1. Through the annual budget, the County sets spending priorities and tracks agency assets and liabilities. The County has in place purchasing policies intended to avoid unnecessary costs (the effectiveness of such policies in meeting this objective was not assessed). MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW 1-10 NEVADA LAFCO WEST COUNTY GENERAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES Section 1.0 Executive Summary 2. Planning, public safety and public transit are relatively labor-intensive services, whereas the other services under review (transportation and circulation, solid waste, and storm drain planning) are more infrastructure intensive. 3. Nevada County should consider adoption of development impact fees as a partial means of better accommodating future growth. The County, as well as the other land use jurisdictions, must approach affordable housing on a regional level. 4. Community development services appear to be the most able to use service fees to recapture the cost of delivering services. County Planning services do not generate fees sufficient to cover staff costs. 5. User fees should, where feasible, be closely tied to the actual cost of providing service. “Flat” fees set too low or too high can have several negative implications, such as insufficient revenue and/or legal action. 6. The Regional Traffic Mitigation Fee (RTMF) is a reasonable and appropriate method of addressing regional transportation improvement needs. A nexus study has been completed to justify the fee assessment, and annual updates to the fee are made, through consultation among jurisdictions and the NCTC. However, it is not clear that the RTMF is adequate to provide funds for the timely construction of new circulation facilities, given the predicted future levels of service and improvements required. 7. Nevada County, as well as the cities, must often revise many of its financing decisions after budgetary issues with the State are finalized. Changes at the State level, including allocation of property tax dollars, changes to the Education Revenue Augmentation Fund (ERAF) and Vehicle License Fee (VLF), and others have the potential to significantly affect departmental and countywide financing of planned improvements and upgrades. Government Structure, Management Efficiencies, and Local Accountability 1. The County’s existing government structure is sufficient to accommodate anticipated growth and urban expansion within the unincorporated county. 2. County departments have undergone reorganizations within the past five years to facilitate better provision of general government services. 3. County staffing levels should possibly be reconsidered in light of recent staffing reductions in CDA to ensure they are sufficient to meet demand for government services. 4. Implementation of several of the recommendations provided in the May 2003 Grand Jury report is advisable to ensure appropriate provision of housing services within the county. 5. The existing County departmental structure considered in this report is appropriate for the type of services provided, and the structure of each department does not significantly and adversely affect the agency’s financial stability. NEVADA LAFCO 1-11 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW WEST COUNTY GENERAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES Section 1.0 Executive Summary 6. The cost effectiveness of County operations has been analyzed recently as part of annual budgeting or other audit. All recommendations for reorganization of services or departments have been implemented, justifying the existing structure as efficient and appropriate. 7. Nevada County uses goal setting procedures as a means of better delivering services. 8. Nevada County’s creation of a Permit Processing Center appears to foster a more efficient arrangement of personnel and more efficient delivery of services to the public. The CDA should in general continue to monitor all aspects of its reengineering program to ensure continued achievement of objectives. 9. The websites of the Nevada County CDA are a model for other jurisdictions in terms of providing detailed information that would otherwise need to be gleaned through direct conversations with planning staff. 10. The County should continue making available County resources such as Housing Services, GIS tools, and other services to the cities, in order to spread the cost and utility of such systems. 11. The County Sheriff should consider utilizing more sophisticated communication and analytical tools (such as GIS) as a means of refining and improving their delivery of services. 12. A variety of transportation planning processes is intended to more efficiently provide transportation facilities and services to all residents of Nevada County. Given the regional nature of most transportation issues, continued and/or increased coordination of the cities, the County, and Caltrans by NCTC is appropriate. 13. The County conducts adequately noticed public hearings prior to decision-making, with appropriate provisions for public input and involvement. County appears to conduct meetings and activities consistent with the Brown Act, as well as other applicable State laws. 14. The County has made reasonable efforts to engage the public in its activities, through the issuance of publications, placing of information on websites, and other means. MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW 1-12 NEVADA LAFCO WEST COUNTY GENERAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES Section 1.0 Executive Summary Regional Providers: Nevada County Transportation Commission and California Department of Transportation NCTC Critical Factors: Adequacy of funding for urban transportation network, regional cooperation in planning and implementation, role of NCTC in regional planning, consistency in growth projections among county agencies and cities. Caltrans Critical Factors: Declining levels of service on highways and interstates, lack of verifiable funding for improvements, maintenance and improvements to roadways, timely development of Transportation Concept Reports. Determinations: Infrastructure and Growth 1. To better address planning and community development concerns within County administered areas that fall within a city’s adopted or proposed sphere of influence, a more collaborative approach is necessary to ensure that new development is consistent with all relevant community plans – as well as to ensure that city and county plans are not in conflict. 2. Western Nevada County has adequate infrastructure for the planning of transportation facilities, but the transportation network itself appears to remain inadequate to address both present and anticipated demand. While the regional transportation roadway network generally provides acceptable levels of service, some portions of roadways within downtown Grass Valley operate at levels of service below those deemed acceptable. Improvements for these roadway segments have been identified and timeframes for implementation have been established. 3. Implementation of transportation system improvements as set forth in the 2001 RTP will not, by 2020, mitigate to acceptable levels (LOS D or above) all major roadway segments and intersections. Highway 49 and Interstate 80 are expected to operate as LOS E or LOS F during this time frame. The widening of Highway 49 and several intersection improvements along it are expected to make the most significant positive traffic impacts. All transportation agencies in the County should help ensure that the improvements called for in the RTP are implemented on a timely basis. 4. NCTC, Caltrans, the County, and the cities should closely coordinate and collaborate on a standard set of regional growth projections. 5. The cities, the County, and the Nevada Irrigation District should collaborate to develop a comprehensive approach toward planning and funding regional stormwater improvements to ensure adequate drainage and flood protection throughout the area. NEVADA LAFCO 1-13 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW WEST COUNTY GENERAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES Section 1.0 Executive Summary Cost Avoidance and Shared Facilities 1. Unnecessary costs are avoided in transportation and circulation planning through the cooperative development of a Regional Transportation Plan and Transit Development Plans. 2. There is no identified cost avoidance or facilities sharing actions in place or in use by Caltrans within Nevada County. Finance and Rate Restructuring 1. NCTC and Caltrans both adopt annual budgets as a means of setting spending priorities and tracking agency assets and liabilities. Each jurisdiction has in place purchasing policies intended to avoid unnecessary costs. NCTC budget documents are well organized and readable, with expenditures balanced against projected revenues. 2. The Regional Transportation Mitigation Fee (RTMF) is a reasonable and appropriate method of addressing regional transportation improvement needs. A nexus study has been completed to justify the fee assessment, and annual updates to the fee are made, through consultation among jurisdictions and the NCTC. 3. There are not appropriate financing mechanisms in place to ensure the long-term adequacy of Caltrans roadways within Nevada County, given the predicted future levels of service and improvements required on State Route 49. Government Structure, Management Efficiencies, and Local Accountability 1. Improved communication regarding transportation improvements is necessary among Grass Valley, Nevada City, Nevada County, and Caltrans to ensure that each agency is acquainted with the transportation planning, construction, and implementation activities of the other agencies. NCTC currently engages in this process through monthly Technical Advisory Committee meetings and mailings. However, this approach has not generated its intended results, and should be augmented with additional efforts to engage each member agency through joint workshops and collaborative planning activities to promote consistency throughout the various agencies’ planning efforts. 2. A variety of transportation planning processes is intended to more efficiently provide transportation facilities and services to all residents of Nevada County. Given the regional nature of most transportation issues, continued and/or increased coordination of the cities, the County, and Caltrans by NCTC is appropriate. 3. NCTC conducts adequately noticed public hearings prior to decision-making, with appropriate provisions for public input and involvement. NCTC appears to conduct meetings and activities consistent with the Brown Act, as well as other applicable State laws. 4. Caltrans and the NCTC should seek ways to improve coordination and planning of transportation improvements within Nevada County. This should include mechanisms for MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW 1-14 NEVADA LAFCO WEST COUNTY GENERAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES Section 1.0 Executive Summary ensuring participation by NCTC in preparation of S.H.O.P.P. and other Caltrans planning documents affecting transportation facilities within the County. NEVADA LAFCO 1-15 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW WEST COUNTY GENERAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES 2.0 SETTING Description of Existing Services, Providers and Funding Sources This section of the Municipal Service Review (MSR) provides a description of the five agencies involved in providing general government services within the western portion of Nevada County (see Figure 1-1). These five agencies include Nevada County, Nevada City, Grass Valley (including the Grass Valley Redevelopment Agency), the Nevada County Transportation Commission, and the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). Refer to Appendix A for profiles of each of the service providers considered in this MSR. This MSR assesses only general government services within western Nevada County. LAFCo is preparing additional service reviews to assess other services within both the eastern and western portions of the County. Service Providers General government services studied in this review include land use planning, public safety, animal control, transportation and transit planning, and storm drainage planning. With some exceptions, the County and both cities provide all the listed services. Planning and budgeting practices of the transportation and circulation service providers are considered in this MSR. A separate MSR, the Western Roads and Circulation MSR, is currently being prepared to address the operations and maintenance of roadways and transportation improvements within the western County. Solid waste disposal services are provided by the County and the cities by contracting with a private company, Waste Management, Inc., which serves the entire western County (each agency has its own contract with WMI). The City of Grass Valley established a Redevelopment Agency in 1988 which coordinates revitalization of specific areas within the city. LAFCo has adopted a sphere of influence for the City which is shown, along with the City limits in Figure 2-2, while the boundaries of the Grass Valley Redevelopment Area are shown in Figure 2-4. Nevada City does not have a redevelopment agency. The City has prepared a sphere of influence plan update for consideration of LAFCo, which cannot be adopted until the completion of the applicable municipal service reviews. The City’s limits and its proposed Sphere of Influence are shown in Figure 2-3. The following two agencies also coordinate specialized planning services: MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW 2-1 NEVADA LAFCO WEST COUNTY GENERAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES Section 2.0 Setting Nevada County Transportation Commission - The Nevada County Transportation Commission (NCTC) coordinates transportation and transit planning for all of unincorporated Nevada County, assisting Grass Valley, Nevada City, and Nevada County in creating a Regional Transportation Plan and planning regionally significant transportation improvements necessary to maintain an efficient transportation network. California Department of Transportation - The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) provides transportation and transportation planning services to Interstate and State Highways within western Nevada County. Roadways planned and maintained by Caltrans within this area are Interstate 80, State Route (SR) 49, State Route (SR) 174, and State Route (SR) 20. Caltrans provides no other services within the western portion of the county. These roadways are illustrated in Figure 2-5. Services Analyzed Each of the services considered in this review is described below. Additional information about each provider can be found in Appendix A of this review. Planning and Community Development Housing and community development services, including zoning and land use regulation, building inspection, code enforcement, and other development related services are provided by the cities of Nevada City and Grass Valley, as well as by Nevada County. It should be noted that each planning jurisdiction updates the Housing Element of its general plan every five years, to accommodate the Regional Housing Allocation Plan prepared by the Sierra Planning Organization (the designated regional Council of Governments for the foothill region including Nevada County). Housing element updates have been completed and certified for Nevada County and Grass Valley, while Nevada City’s update is currently in process. Nevada County - The Nevada County Community Development Agency provides a full range of planning related services, overseeing the Planning, Building, Code Compliance, and Environmental Health Departments. The Agency has 71 full-time equivalent (FTE) employees across its departments and sections. The Planning Department includes 11 staff members whose key functions are to review and recommend actions on land development and land use in accordance with State and local regulations. The Planning Department is divided into three sections: current planning, advance planning, and resource planning. This MSR considers primarily the activities and operations of the advanced planning section, which has prime responsibility for maintaining, implementing, and updating the Nevada County General Plan. Housing services were previously provided by the Housing and Community Services Agency, but have recently been reorganized to better coordinate with the County’s structure and to improve access for its clients. Energy and housing assistance are now provided by the HSA NEVADA LAFCO 2-2 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW WEST COUNTY GENERAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES Section 2.0 Setting (Human Services Agency), while Economic Development and Community Development Block Grant administration is now handled by CDA. The Community Development Agency will be responsible for the provision of staff support to several political boards, including the Affordable Housing Task Force, the Family Services Council, and the Community Development Block Grant Loan Committee. Human Services will be responsible for supporting the activities of the Nevada County Housing Authority. Nevada County Community Development Funding - The different sub-departments of the CDA have different revenue sources. As per the 2002/2003 Nevada County Final Budget, both the Planning Department and Building Department almost entirely offset expenses with fees for services. Neither Department appeared to receive a general fund allocation. Minor additional funding for the Planning Department comes from federal and State agencies. Additional minor revenue for the Building Department came from interest on reserve funds. Prior to the reorganization of housing services, the vast majority of funding came from state and federal grants. These grants are competitive in nature and are subject to variation depending upon state and federal budgets. In addition to grant funding, HCS’s adopted budget for 2002-2003 indicated that the department received a general fund allocation equal to about 8 percent of departmental expenses for that year).1 The CDA’s other branches, Code Compliance and Environmental Health; both appear to receive significant financial support from County general fund allocations. In addition to the general fund allocation, Code Compliance revenue in 2002-2003 was comprised of federal and state sources and court fines/forfeitures. It appears that the general fund allocation and other transfers constituted about 51 percent of total department revenue, with the remainder from federal and State sources plus court fines and forfeitures. In 2002-2003, the Environmental Health Department appeared to cover about 90 percent of its expenses (salaries, supplies, and fixed assets) with a combination of fees for services, federal and state sources, and fines/forfeitures. Fees for services alone constituted more than three-fourths of projected departmental revenue. Grass Valley - The Community Development Department of Grass Valley is responsible for a variety of activities including land use planning, housing, environmental review, annexation proposals, and amendments to the Sphere of Influence. The City employs three full-time planners to oversee activities of the Planning Division of the Community Development Department, who provide support to both the Planning Commission and City Council. The Division maintains and updates the Grass Valley General Plan, which guides land use and planning decisions within the city. Economic development activities are also conducted by the Grass Valley Redevelopment Agency. Grass Valley Planning/Community Development Funding – Community Development and planning activities in the City of Grass Valley are financed through a combination of service fees, general fund allocation, grants, and revenues from the City Redevelopment Agency. Although some of the City’s planning fees are “flat,” in 2003 Grass Valley 1 A May 2003 Nevada County Grand Jury report incorrectly concluded that HCS received no general fund allocation. MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW 2-3 NEVADA LAFCO WEST COUNTY GENERAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES Section 2.0 Setting adjusted the Planning Department’s fee schedule, based on a user fee study prepared by a consultant, to better reflect actual costs. Nevada City - Land use planning related community development services are provided within Nevada City by the City Planner. In addition to providing current and advance planning services, the City Planner also serves as secretary to the Nevada City Planning Commission, coordinates housing issues, and serves as a liaison to other City departments. The City Planner administers and facilitates updates to the City’s General Plan, sphere of influence plan, and all other related land use policy documents. Nevada City Planning/Community Development Funding – In its adopted budget for 2002-2003, the City of Nevada City does not assign revenues to all of its individual departments. Rather, most revenue sources are aggregated, with specific sources identified. Per this document, revenue from planning fees was projected at $25,000 (lower than the 2001-2002 actual figure of $30,248). This projected revenue is equal to about 45 percent of major planning related expenses for the same period, including the City’s contract for part time planning assistance and costs associated with running the Planning Commission. Other planning expenses appear to be offset by other city revenue sources. Notably, the City collects an AB 1600 fee related to City administration, but these funds can be used only for capital expenditures related to population growth – not for any ongoing expenses. Public Safety and Animal Control Within western Nevada County, public safety and animal control services are provided by the cities of Nevada City and Grass Valley, as well as by Nevada County. Nevada County - The Nevada County Sheriff’s Department also provides animal control services to the unincorporated areas of the county. The Department has about 200 FTE employees across its functions and divisions. Excluding corrections personnel, the policing functions of the Department employ 79 people, including 33 patrol deputies, seven sergeants, two lieutenants, and seven detectives operating in western Nevada County. A staff of about 90 operates County correctional facilities. Animal Control Services, a division of the Nevada County Sheriff’s Department, has a staff of eight paid employees and a corps of about 35 volunteers. Nevada County Public Safety and Animal Control Funding – Both of these services appear to receive substantial general fund allocations. Per the County’s adopted 2002- 2003 budget, the Sheriff’s Department was projected to receive 67 percent of its revenue from the County general fund, plus an additional 29 percent from federal and State sources. Only 2.5 percent of Sheriff’s Department revenue is projected from fees and charges for services. County Animal Control services received 75 percent of its revenue from the County general fund, with the remaining 25 percent from fees for services. Grass Valley - The Grass Valley Police Department has 31 sworn and civilian. There are also five reserve officers and a 20-member senior volunteer program. The department has four NEVADA LAFCO 2-4 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW WEST COUNTY GENERAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES Section 2.0 Setting divisions: Patrol, Investigations, Services and Animal Control. In addition to providing animal control services to Grass Valley, the department also provides contract animal control services to all of Nevada City. Grass Valley Public Safety and Animal Control Funding – Each of these services is funded through General Plan allocations, fees, and grants. The Police Department charges impact fees to all new residential and commercial development, to help offset the cost of providing additional service to new growth areas. Animal control receives $27,000 annually from Nevada City for providing animal control services to that city, as well as assessing fees for services provided. Fees for animal control and police services both appear to be tied to the cost of service provision. Nevada City - The Nevada City Police Department (NCPD) is located at City Hall and has 10 employees, including the Chief of Police, two sergeants (who also function as detectives), six patrol officers, and one record clerk. The Department provides public safety and emergency protection services within city limits. Backup is provided by the Nevada County Sheriff’s Department and the California Highway Patrol. Nevada City Public Safety/Animal Control Funding – In its adopted budget for 2002- 2003, the City of Nevada City does not assign revenues to all of its individual departments. Rather, most revenue sources are aggregated, with specific sources identified. According to this document, about 17 percent of police department expenses appear to be offset by federal and State sources, including a substantial “Supplemental Law Enforcement” grant. The remainder of police department expenses appears to be covered by other City revenue sources. The City’s budget does not indicate any revenue sources clearly related to animal control services. The budget indicates that the City’s contract with Grass Valley for the provision of animal control services equaled $27,000 in 2002-2003. Public Transit The Transit Services Division of the Nevada County Transportation and Sanitation Department provides fixed route bus transit and specialized paratransit services within western Nevada County and nearby portions of Yuba and Placer counties. A private company also provides transit services within the county under contract to the DOTS. Nevada County - General transit services are provided by Gold Country Stage, while paratransit services are provided by “Gold Country Telecare,” both under the authority of the Transit Services Division of DOTS. Gold Country Stage is operated by the County, while Gold Country Telecare is a private, non-profit organization providing paratransit under contract to DOTS. The Transit Services Division has 24 FTE employees. Public Transit Funding – According to the County’s adopted budget for 2002-2003, major public transit revenue sources consisted of a portion of County sales taxes (53.8 percent of all revenue), federal and state sources (32.3 percent) and farebox revenue (13 percent). Public transit services do not receive any County general fund allocation. MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW 2-5 NEVADA LAFCO WEST COUNTY GENERAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES Section 2.0 Setting Similarly, paratransit service revenues consist of sales taxes and fees for services – paratransit service has no general fund allocation. NEVADA LAFCO 2-6 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW WEST COUNTY GENERAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES Section 2.0 Setting Transportation and Circulation Planning Transportation and circulation planning services are provided by the cities of Grass Valley and Nevada City, as well as the Nevada County Department of Transportation and Sanitation (DOTS), the Nevada County Transportation Commission, and Caltrans. This MSR considers only planning of these services offered within western Nevada County. Construction and maintenance activities are considered in a separate Service Review. Nevada County - The Engineering Division of the Nevada County Department of Transportation and Sanitation (DOTS) is responsible for transportation planning services, including traffic planning, project development, project construction, and inspection services within unincorporated Nevada County. The Administration and Engineering Divisions of DOTS have 25 FTE employees, in addition to 39 employees in the Road Maintenance Division. Together, these divisions oversee nearly 600 miles of county roads, including 74 bridges. This MSR analyzes the Department’s transportation and circulation planning services, as well as its coordination with other local and regional transportation service providers, including the Nevada County Transportation Commission and Caltrans. County Transportation and Circulation Planning Funding -- Per the County’s adopted 2002-2003 budget, funding sources for transportation engineering and planning services are aggregated with overall DOTS administration funding sources. About 86 percent of all DOTS funding is derived from federal and State sources, with the remainder coming from other sources, including sales tax revenue, fees for services, and interest. As will be discussed in greater depth in Section 4.4, additional funding for County transportation projects comes from Regional Traffic Mitigation Fees. Grass Valley - The Grass Valley Public Works Department performs a wide variety of transportation services within the city. This includes street maintenance and repair, traffic engineering, long range planning, and coordination with other transportation service providers in the County. In addition to the provision of services, the department is also responsible for coordination with other transportation service providers such as the Nevada County Transportation Commission and Caltrans for regional planning efforts regarding transportation and circulation improvements. Grass Valley Transportation and Circulation Planning Funding -- Planning services provided by the City for transportation and circulation improvements come from a variety of federal, State, and local sources. Impact fees are charged to all new developments to fund circulation improvements; such fees can be used only to construct identified improvements and directly related work, not planning. In addition, the Regional Traffic Mitigation Fee (RTMF) is collected for regional improvements, and helps fund regional planning activities. Local general fund revenues, along with State and federal grant programs, account for the remainder of costs associated with the transportation and circulation planning activities of the city. Nevada City - The Nevada City Street Department, one of the three divisions of the City’s Public Works Department, oversees road engineering, construction, and maintenance within the MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW 2-7 NEVADA LAFCO WEST COUNTY GENERAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES Section 2.0 Setting city and coordinates with the Nevada County Transportation Commission on projects outside city limits. The Street Department is overseen by the City Engineer. Transportation planning services appear to be a joint responsibility of the Street Department and Planning/Administrative functions. Nevada City Transportation and Circulation Planning Funding – In its adopted budget for 2002-2003, the City of Nevada City does not assign revenues to all of its individual departments. Rather, most revenue sources are aggregated, with specific sources identified. Because responsibility for transportation planning is apparently spread across different City departments with other responsibilities, precise revenues and expenses for transportation planning cannot be determined conclusively. The City collects AB 1600 fees related to roads, as well as a traffic annexation fee. These funds, however, are separately accounted for in that they are restricted to use on infrastructure extensions due to new population growth. Nevada County Transportation Commission - The Nevada County Transportation Commission (NCTC) is responsible for coordinating long-range transportation and circulation planning services for all of western Nevada County. NCTC develops and adopts a Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) and Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), which provide direction and coordination of regional transportation improvements throughout the county. NCTC reviews transportation plans and programs of member agencies and endorses them based on consistency with the RTP and RTIP. In keeping with this responsibility, the NCTC assists the region in developing the revenues to construct improvement projects. NCTC manages Regional Surface Transportation Program funds and Regional Improvement Program funds, selecting and funding eligible transportation improvement projects based upon those that are most effective and beneficial to the region. NCTC administers Transportation Development Act funds to ensure all statutory requirements are met, including the identification of the region's transit needs. NCTC participates in interregional planning projects to ensure Nevada County projects support both regional and statewide transportation goals. NCTC conducts a comprehensive planning process in the development of its annual Overall Work Program so that funds expended on planning projects will implement the goals of the RTP. Nevada County Transportation Commission Funding – The NCTC finances transportation and circulation planning activities through its use of Regional Traffic Mitigation Fees (RTMF), Local Transportation Funds (LTF), State and federal grants, and contributions to its operation from member cities and Nevada County. The operating budget for this agency was just over $1,000,000 in the most recent fiscal year (2003/2004), although normal budgets in recent years have averaged $500,000 to $600,000 annually. Caltrans - Caltrans is responsible for planning, maintenance, and operation of State and Interstate highways within western Nevada County. Four such roadways exist within the area – Interstate 80, State Route 49, State Route 174, and State Route 20. Caltrans is required to adopt and maintain Transportation Concept Reports (TCR) for each roadway under its jurisdiction, providing analysis of service, planned and necessary improvements, and overall transportation concept for a ten-year time frame. The needs identified in the TCRs are integrated into the Ten-Year State Highway Operation and Protection Plan (SHOPP), which NEVADA LAFCO 2-8 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW WEST COUNTY GENERAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES Section 2.0 Setting establishes Caltrans’ strategy for rehabilitating and reconstructing the highways and bridges of the State. The SHOPP includes prioritization and scheduling of improvements, as well as strategies for funding. Final decisions regarding financing for improvements identified in the SHOPP are subject to the bi-annual state budget process. Caltrans Funding – Caltrans funding is part of the State of California’s annual budget process, assembled by the State Assembly and Legislature and approved by the Governor. Allocation of funds for planning of specific Nevada County transportation planning projects is part of the internal budgetary process of Caltrans. Solid Waste Solid waste collection, disposal, and other related services are provided by the County and by each of the cities. Each jurisdiction has individual agreements with a private company, Waste Management, Inc. (WM) to provide actual waste collection, processing, and disposal services. This MSR analyzes the efficiency in the delivery of solid waste related services and also considers options for coordination among solid waste disposal providers in various parts of western Nevada County. Nevada County - The Solid Waste Division of the Nevada County DOTS is responsible for the disposal and recycling of all solid waste and hazardous materials in the western portions of the county. This division is responsible for the operation of a transfer station and maintenance of a closed landfill. This division also assists in the oversight of the County’s contracts with Waste Management, Inc., for curbside waste and recycling pick up. This division’s functions are carried out by 17 FTE employees, including a Recycling Coordinator. The Recycling Coordinator addresses AB 939 requirements (a 1989 state law setting forth specific waste diversion requirements for all cities and counties). County Solid Waste Funding – Most County solid waste service funding, according to the County’s 2002-2003 adopted budget, comes from fees for services. The County collects a parcel charge from all properties in both unincorporated areas and the cities of Grass Valley and Nevada City. The parcel charges provide a dedicated funding source to pay the Certificates of Deposit for closure of the landfill. The parcel charges also are used to fund County-wide recycling programs, Household Hazardous Waste Disposal events that are periodically conducted throughout the year and also post-closure maintenance activities at the closed landfill. Gate fees and tonnage charges are used to operate the transfer station. The private contractor (Waste Management, Incorporated) bills individual customers directly for collection of waste and recycling. Minor additional funding came from State and federal sources, including a $50,000 grant from the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB) towards the construction of a re-use facility at the County’s McCourtney Road transfer station (a former landfill). Other major revenues to be used on the conversion of the McCourtney Road facility have come from County-issued bonds. Grass Valley - Solid waste disposal is handled within the city of Grass Valley by Waste Management, Inc. The Planning Division of the Community Development Department MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW 2-9 NEVADA LAFCO WEST COUNTY GENERAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES Section 2.0 Setting coordinates planning and implementation of the City’s recycling efforts and is responsible for AB 939 reporting. Grass Valley Solid Waste Service Funding – Funding for solid waste and recycling activities is derived from rates charged to Waste Management’s customers; some minimal staff support may come from the General Fund. In addition, Nevada County assesses a parcel charge on all properties within Grass Valley city limits for County- administered waste collection and disposal programs. Nevada City - Solid waste disposal for Nevada City residents, businesses, and institutions is provided on a contractual basis by Waste Management, Inc. In addition, the City has hired a consultant to assist with its AB 939 recycling reporting requirements. Nevada City Solid Waste Service Funding – In its adopted budget for 2002-2003, the City of Nevada City does not assign revenues to its individual departments. Rather, all revenue sources are aggregated, with some specific sources identified. Expenses for the City’s recycling consultant appear to be covered by general government administration revenues. Further, Nevada County assesses a parcel charge on all properties within Nevada City limits for County-administered waste collection and disposal programs. Storm Drainage Planning Storm drainage planning is coordinated and planned by the cities of Grass Valley and Nevada City, as well as by Nevada County. Nevada County - Storm drainage planning within unincorporated areas is a responsibility of the Engineering Division of the Nevada County DOTS. Largely rural, unincorporated areas of Nevada County have few areas served by any storm drain more complex than a box culvert leading directly into a local waterway. The County does not have a readily available accounting of storm drains it created or maintains, nor a storm drain master plan. According to Jim Orendorff of the DOTS, the last time the County storm drains were surveyed comprehensively was in 1989; this survey only looked at large culverts. The County does not have any reliable figures estimating the geographic area nor the population served by County-maintained storm drains. Further, the DOTS funds storm drain creation and maintenance through its budgets for road reconstruction and maintenance. County Storm Drainage Planning Funding – Funding sources and expenses related to storm drainage planning are not separately called out in the County budget. It is assumed that planning activities undertaken by DOTS are funded as part of the overall general budget for activities of the DOTS. Grass Valley - Planning, repair, and maintenance of storm drainage systems within Grass Valley is provided by the city’s Public Works Department. The city lies within the Wolf Creek drainage basin, to which most of the land in the city drains. Storm drainage facilities within the city include storm drains, modified channels, and natural channels. The Deer Creek drainage NEVADA LAFCO 2-10 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW WEST COUNTY GENERAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES Section 2.0 Setting basin is also part of the overall drainage system, beyond the city limits but within the Sphere of Influence. The city maintains various planning and regulatory documents which provide the approach, coordination, and long range planning of storm drainage with the city, including a Stormwater Master Plan and the Master Services Element of the SOI Plan. Grass Valley Storm Drainage Planning Funding – Funding for planning activities related to the provision of storm drainage in the City are provided by General Fund allocations to the Public Works Department, financed through general administration revenues of the City. Nevada City - Except for a small area in Nevada City’s downtown, there are no publicly maintained storm drains in Nevada City. Storm water is generally allowed to flow unimpeded and untreated into local perennial and seasonal streams, most of which feed into Deer Creek, which traverses the center of the incorporated city. The few existing storm drains are maintained by the Street Department of the City and do not include any treatment system prior to deposit in a local waterway. There is no information available regarding a more precise area or population served by the system. There are no plans to upgrade or expand the existing system. Nevada City Storm Drainage Funding - Funding for storm drain improvements appears to come from collection of an AB 1600 fee on new single-family residential development. These funds can be used only for extensions of infrastructure to new development and are accounted for outside the City’s budget. MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW 2-11 NEVADA LAFCO WEST COUNTY GENERAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES Section 2.0 Setting MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW 2-12 NEVADA LAFCO WEST COUNTY GENERAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES Section 2.0 Setting NEVADA LAFCO 2-13 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW WEST COUNTY GENERAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES Section 2.0 Setting NEVADA LAFCO 2-14 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW WEST COUNTY GENERAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES Section 2.0 Setting MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW 2-15 NEVADA LAFCO WEST COUNTY GENERAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES 3.0 POPULATION GROWTH Present and Projected Service Population over 20- Year Timeframe The MSR analyzes the ability of each of the service providers to maintain adequate levels of service as growth and expansion occur. This section of the Review compares the various population projections made for each area, and identifies potential locations of new growth. A full assessment of the ability of each service provider to accommodate the projected population growth is included in each of the specific agency chapters. Nevada County The population of Nevada County in 2000, inclusive of all cities and municipalities, was counted at 92,033 persons, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. Of this total, it is estimated that 64,246 of these persons lived within the unincorporated portion of the county. Various agencies and documents have developed population projections for the county, including the California Department of Finance, Nevada LAFCo, and the County itself (through its General Plan). Estimating population growth can be done using a variety of methods, incorporating such factors as historical growth rates, expected growth in developing communities, economic trends, and a variety of other features. Because different projections use varying methods of prioritization and ranking, different agencies can create widely divergent estimates of growth. For example, the County General Plan was last updated in 1995 and provides population growth estimates for the entire county, as well as the divisions of western and eastern Nevada County. The General Plan projected a 2000 County population of 114,000, well higher than the 2000 Census count of 92,033. In 2003, LAFCo and the Nevada County Planning Department partnered to develop a new set of population growth rate and development projections using a geospatial model. This model established four different growth scenarios for the county, with an expected and a high growth rate scenario (the expected rate is based on the California Department of Finance projection). For each of these two growth rate scenarios, the model further established development pattern scenarios, one based on the County’s general plan, the other being an ‘Infill’ scenario that assumes Grass Valley and County special development areas will absorb more of the county’s population growth. Both sets of County/LAFCo projections are somewhat lower than the 1995 General Plan projections, and would result in 2027 county-wide population projections ranging between a low of 147,822 to a high of 165,301. MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW 3-1 NEVADA LAFCO WEST COUNTY GENERAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES Section 3.0 Population Growth Grass Valley The population of Grass Valley in 2000 was 10,922 persons, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. The City’s General Plan was updated in 1999, and provided population growth estimates for the area within the existing city limits, as well as for the entire planning area (including the City’s Sphere of Influence). The County/LAFCo model developed scenarios that use two different growth rates for Grass Valley, an expected rate of 2.0 percent and a high- growth rate scenario of 4.0 percent annually. The LAFCo/County projections at the expected rate results in very similar future projections to the City’s General Plan assumptions. Each projects a 2020 population for the city (including areas within the Sphere of Influence) of between 23,300 and 24,300, a difference of less than one thousand persons. A full analysis of the ability of the City to maintain levels of service for the projected population is found in the City’s chapter of the Report. Nevada City The population of Nevada City in 2000 was 3,001 persons, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. The City has prepared a sphere of influence plan update for LAFCo to review (as of this date, LAFCo has not been able to take action upon the City’s proposal as the sphere update must be preceded by appropriate municipal service reviews). The City’s proposed Plan covers the time period 2003-2008 and provides population growth estimates for the existing city limits, as well as for the five-year Sphere of Influence. The proposed SOI Plan made two assumptions regarding community population growth. Within the existing city limits, the City assumes a 0.52 percent annual growth rate. In addition, the Plan also considers the full development and annexation of lands within the proposed five-year Sphere of Influence. Based on full development and annexation of the proposed five-year SOI, the population of Nevada City is anticipated by the Plan to reach a buildout population of 5,026. The County/LAFCo projections include multiple development scenarios, but each anticipates the same 1.0 percent average annual growth rate for Nevada City. Including the sphere territory, the projected population will increase to 4,631 by 2027. See Table 3-1 on the following page for population projections by five-year increment. Projections provided for Nevada City by the City and LAFCo provide very divergent future populations. The SOI Plan assumes a much higher rate of development within the Sphere of Influence, considering a full buildout with maximum densities allowed under existing zoning. The LAFCo model does not make such assumptions for the development of the SOI, only projecting a uniform 1.0 percent growth rate for the city. NEVADA LAFCO 3-2 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW WEST COUNTY GENERAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES Section 3.0 Population Growth A full analysis of the ability of the City to maintain levels of service for the projected population is found in the City’s chapter of the Report. MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW 3-3 NEVADA LAFCO WEST COUNTY GENERAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES Section 3.0 Population Growth Land Use and Significant Growth Areas The City of Grass Valley is projected to grow at a rate between two to four percent (as previously noted, the model provides two growth rate scenarios - an expected and a high growth rate). According to the model, the City’s population at 2027 would be between 27,310 to 46,134 residents. The City can absorb considerable amounts of population growth in the Special Development Areas located within the City’s sphere of influence. Nevada City is projected to grow much more slowly, at a rate of approximately 1 percent annually (thus the 2027 population projection would be approximately 4,631 residents, after annexation of SOI areas). Under the high growth scenario, the city of Grass Valley is accommodating a much higher projected portion of the overall population growth than in the expected scenario. Thus, the population of the unincorporated areas are actually less in the high growth model than in the expected model, as a greater percentage of growth is steered towards city and city sphere areas. Overall, the high growth scenario results in a population that is approximately 12 percent higher than the expected scenario. As projected by the LAFCo/County model, the most significant growth areas in the County will extend from Grass Valley south along the Highway 49 corridor and west along the Highway 20 corridor. Under all scenarios, the community areas of Alta Sierra, Lake of the Pines and Penn Valley will generally absorb most of the population growth for the unincorporated county. Table 3-1 Growth in Western Nevada County: 2007-2027 Population of Population in Population in Population in Year Unincorporated Western County Grass Valley Nevada City* Area Expt’d High Expt’d High Expected Expt’d High 2007 74,721 76,914 18,379 21,055 3,795 52,547 52,064 2012 81,577 85,725 20,292 25,617 3,989 57,296 56,119 2017 89,061 95,545 22,404 31,166 4,192 62,465 60,187 2022 97,233 106,489 24,736 37,919 4,406 68,091 64,164 2027 106,154 118,688 27,310 46,134 4,631 74,213 67,923 * Nevada City projections all assume a one percent annual growth rate. NEVADA LAFCO 3-4 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW WEST COUNTY GENERAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES 4.0 REVIEW OF SERVICES AND DETERMINATIONS MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW 4-1 NEVADA LAFCO WEST COUNTY GENERAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES 4.1 Grass Valley and Nevada City This section of the MSR examines the manner in which Grass Valley and Nevada City provide general government services. The purpose of this evaluation is to provide sufficient information for Nevada LAFCo to determine if the Sphere of Influence for each city is appropriate and logical. In order to ensure that each city can accommodate planned growth and expansion, the MSR includes an analysis of the ability of each city to continue operations with their structure and organization, finance planned improvements to infrastructure and local government, and accommodate projected growth in both population and geographic expansion. Much of the information relied upon for the writing of this section of the MSR is based on planning and budgetary documents provided by the cities. The following section is organized as follows. The nine required criteria of evaluation have been combined into four groupings; (1) Infrastructure and Growth; (2) Cost Avoidance and Facilities Sharing; (3) Finance and Rate Restructuring; and (4) Government Structure, Management Efficiencies, and Local Accountability. These four groupings are the major headings within the section. Within each grouping, each of the major government services offered by the cities is analyzed. Included are Housing and Community Development, Transportation and Circulation, Public Safety and Animal Control, Solid Waste, and Storm Drainage. Each service is analyzed by city. Infrastructure and Growth This section of the MSR evaluates the infrastructure and capital facilities of each of the service providers, organized by service. The purpose of this evaluation is to provide an analysis of the ability of the provider to continue operations with existing and planned infrastructure, as well as accommodate projected growth in both population and geographic expansion. Much of the information relied upon for the writing of this section of the MSR is provided in capital Improvements Program (CIP) plans of each city. These documents are available for public viewing at the Nevada City Hall or the Grass Valley City Hall. Housing and Community Development – Infrastructure and Growth The continued provision of housing and community development services to future growth areas of the cities of Grass Valley and Nevada City is dependent upon the availability and continued appropriateness of suitable infrastructure. These general government services, often referred to as “soft” services (as opposed to “hard” services such as water and sewer service), are bureaucratic in nature and tend to not require significant infrastructure other than offices to ensure their continued provision. MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW 4.1-1 NEVADA LAFCO WEST COUNTY GENERAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES Section 4.1 Grass Valley and Nevada City Both cities of Grass Valley and Nevada City provide planning, housing and community development services, developing and updating a variety of master planning documents, including Master Service Elements, General Plans (including Housing Elements), and Capital Improvements Programs (CIPs) to ensure the cities can meet the physical needs associated with growth. Additionally, LAFCo adopts a Sphere of Influence Plan for each city that establishes the area the city may annex, projects the service needs, and documents the levels of service the city anticipates providing. Grass Valley - Housing and community development activities of the City of Grass Valley occur within the Community Development Department. The Department operates from offices within the Grass Valley City Hall. The Community Development Director has indicated that there will be a need to expand the amount of workspace utilized by the Department as growth continues. Options are available for expansion of the Department within its existing building, although the City may consider alternative locations for future expansion. Decisions regarding the ultimate expansion of the Department will be made as part of the Capital Improvements Program, a citywide planning and financing strategy for coordinating necessary capital improvements. This expansion is not considered vital to the continued provision of adequate housing and community development services. The Grass Valley Community Development Department (CDD) is responsible for ensuring that housing and community development services can continue to be provided within new growth areas as the City expands into its Sphere of Influence. The City adopted a new General Plan in November, 1999 which included goals and policies aimed at ensuring that such services can continue to be provided in an efficient and effective manner. The General Plan considers potential growth through 2020. The City is (as of March 2004) in the process of updating the Housing Element of its General Plan, which will provide strategies for the provision of housing services within the city and growth areas through 2009. With a General Plan (including Housing Element) and SOI Plan each adopted or updated in the last four years, it is reasonable to conclude that the community has appropriately planned for projected growth and will be able to provide continued housing and community development services to existing and future areas of the city. Nevada City - Housing and community development activities of Nevada City occur as a general government service. The department operates from offices within the Nevada City Hall, and maintains no real infrastructure other than the office spaces in which they reside. This space is considered suitable for the continued provision of housing and community development services. The ability of the City to provide planning and community development services consistent with growth projections is analyzed by the consideration of consistency of operations with long-range planning documents and stated objectives. Nevada City has prepared an update to its Sphere of Influence plan in which it plans to accommodate projected population growth and need for expansion of physical boundaries (note, however, that LAFCo will not be able to consider the City’s proposal until the appropriate Municipal Service Reviews have been completed). Housing and community development services provided by the City to these areas will likely follow the guidance set forth in the Nevada City General Plan and Housing Element. NEVADA LAFCO 4.1-2 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW WEST COUNTY GENERAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES Section 4.1 Grass Valley and Nevada City The City’s last adopted housing element, completed in 1994, was found by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to be out of compliance with State housing element law. Nevada City was required to update its housing element by the end of 2003. Utilizing an outside consultant, the City submitted a draft element to HCD in 2003. The City expects to adopt the new housing element sometime in 2004. The City’s General Plan was prepared in 1986, with consideration of growth occurring through 2000. Given the time frame considered in the General Plan, it is not reasonable to assume that this plan adequately sets forth standards for the provision of services to the community in the future. The only other long- range planning document for the City is the proposed Sphere of Influence (SOI) Plan, which assesses the ability to provide all municipal services to areas within the SOI. This plan projects population growth and annexation for the City, and sets forth statements regarding the ability of the city to accommodate this planned growth. Transportation and Circulation - Infrastructure and Growth Transportation and circulation infrastructure are vitally important to the operational success of inhabited areas. Planning, construction, and operation of roadways and associated improvements must traverse municipal boundaries, as the roadways themselves cross such boundaries to connect cities, counties, and regions to one another. Each city provides transportation and circulation services within its municipal limits, including maintenance and planning of local roads, infrastructure (signals, signs, etc), and facilities. Grass Valley - Grass Valley maintains a roadway infrastructure system of local roads, collectors and arterials. A map of this roadway network is shown in Figure 4.1-1. A complete inventory of the roadways contained within the system can be found in the background report for the Grass Valley General Plan (adopted in 1999), as well as in the Master Services Element of the Sphere of Influence Plan. The largest roadway in the network, State Route 49, is a four- lane limited access highway passing through the community. It is fed by two primary arterials, State Routes 20 and 174, as well as seven additional secondary arterials, and a host of collector and local roads. The current and future four-lane roadways within Grass Valley are shown in Figure 4.1-2. The 1999 General Plan Update established a phased system for upgrading and maintaining the City’s roadways to ensure that all roadways operate within an acceptable level of service. This system is used as the basis for the updating of the Capital Improvements Program (CIP), which calculates costs associated with improvements and establishes priorities for accomplishing desired improvements within the scope of the city’s budget. The Sphere of Influence Plan contributes to this effort by providing cost estimates associated with the necessary transportation infrastructure improvements and establishing time horizons for each improvement. According to the SOI Plan, the city will require approximately $29,530,000 (1998 dollars) in transportation related improvements, including street widenings, construction of signals, and development of parking areas. Grass Valley also participates in the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), an organization and prioritization of regional transportation improvements necessary for all of Nevada County developed by the Nevada County Transportation Commission. Upgrades to transportation MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW 4.1-3 NEVADA LAFCO WEST COUNTY GENERAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES Section 4.1 Grass Valley and Nevada City infrastructure that serves regional needs is dependent upon this process, which also includes the County and other incorporated cities. Regional transportation infrastructure and growth are addressed in Section 4.3 of this MSR. Grass Valley updated its General Plan in 1999, adopting a Circulation Element which established a functional classification system and level of service standards for city roadways. The City has used level of service thresholds consistent with those employed by Nevada County, which uses LOS D as the lowest acceptable performance for roadways within the urbanized area. The General Plan identifies four roadway segments which do not achieve LOS D or better. These roadway segments are Sutton Way (west of Brunswick), two sections of Brunswick Road, and the Nevada City Highway. Nevada City Highway operates at LOS E within the city. The City has developed a strategy of promoting alternative transportation means (transit, bicycle and walking routes, and others), developing parallel routes for problem roadways, and making roadway and intersection improvements where possible to ensure that all roadways achieve LOS D or better. These efforts, along with regional planning efforts coordinated with the NCTC, should enable Grass Valley to accommodate increased transportation demands associated with planned growth. Nevada City – Nevada City maintains a system of local, collector and arterial roads. The planning and financing of improvements to the transportation network is done through coordination with the other cities in the county, the County itself, and the Nevada County Transportation Commission (NCTC). Transportation systems are designed to be complimentary of one another and promote efficient movement between jurisdictions. Nevada City participates in the development of the Regional Transportation Plan, which establishes priorities for future transportation improvements throughout the county, including in Nevada City. In addition, local prioritization, funding, and construction of improvements are done as part of the municipal budgeting process, which includes operational and capital expenses of all city departments. This system of prioritizing and financing improvements to transportation infrastructure has proven sufficient in the past to keep levels of service on Nevada City roadways at an acceptable level, and continued coordination in planning activities with Grass Valley and Nevada County will ensure that this continues as the city expands into its Sphere. Neither Nevada City’s General Plan (1986) nor its proposed Sphere of Influence Plan includes an adopted level of service standard for its roadway system. The City’s Master Service Element within its proposed Sphere of Influence Plan indicates that the roadway system works “reasonably well, with relatively few serious accidents and fatalities.” Significant transportation and circulation issues for Nevada City that will rise from growth and expansion are related mainly to areas outside the City’s jurisdiction. For instance, City Clerk Cathy Wilcox-Barnes stated that Nevada County has approved developments near the city whose only roadway access is through under-improved roads within the Nevada City limits. She also notes that several recent projects approved by or under study by Nevada County (including Cascade Shore, Deer Creek Park II, and projects on North Bloomfield Road) have or will have impacts on traffic and services within Nevada City, yet there has been “little to no consultation” with Nevada City staff on such projects. Ms. Wilcox Barnes also indicated that a new traffic light along State Route 49, at the intersection of East Broad Street and North Bloomfield Road, has induced through traffic to avoid the light and drive through the city’s NEVADA LAFCO 4.1-4 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW WEST COUNTY GENERAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES Section 4.1 Grass Valley and Nevada City narrow local streets. The planning of this traffic light, located out of the city limits, did not include consultation with the City, and the perceived lack of coordination and communication between Caltrans, Nevada County, and Nevada City is an area of concern as the demand for transportation services increases with city and county growth. MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW 4.1-5 NEVADA LAFCO WEST COUNTY GENERAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES 1.4 noitceS ytiC adaveN dna yellaV ssarG WEIVER ECIVRES LAPICINUM 6-1.4 OCFAL ADAVEN SECIVRES TNEMNREVOG LARENEG YTNUOC TSEW 1.4 noitceS ytiC adaveN dna yellaV ssarG OCFAL ADAVEN 7-1.4 WEIVER ECIVRES LAPICINUM SECIVRES TNEMNREVOG LARENEG YTNUOC TSEW Section 4.1 Grass Valley and Nevada City Public Safety and Animal Control - Infrastructure and Growth The cities each provide policing services to residents of their communities, utilizing similar patrolling procedures. Needs related to infrastructure and growth accommodation are similar for police departments in each community. Grass Valley provides animal control services to Nevada City by contract. Grass Valley – The Grass Valley Police Department provides public safety services within its city limits, and animal control services for properties within Grass Valley and Nevada City. The Grass Valley Police Department maintains physical infrastructure to facilitate its operations, including a 12,867 square foot police facility constructed in 1997. The Police Department, including animal control staff, has a staff of 31 full time equivalents, along with five reserve officers and a senior volunteer corps. For the purposes of this evaluation, the reserve officers and volunteer corps are not expected to have significant space needs at the police facility. With 3,600 additional square feet of underutilized (currently used for storage) space available for future expansion, this structure appears sufficient to accommodate projected needs of the Police Department for the foreseeable future. The animal control division of the police department operates from the city’s animal shelter, constructed in the 1950s and expanded in 1965. The shelter building has significant unused areas, allowing for expansion of the facility as needed to accommodate growth. As urban growth occurs in Grass Valley, additional staff, both sworn officers and non-sworn administrative staff, will have to be added to maintain levels of service. A 2002 study by the Police Executive Research Forum assessed potential impacts to the Police Department of annexation of the area known as the Glenbrook Basin. The study concluded that the Department does not have the police resources to effectively police this area, and that annexation of this area has the potential to reduce levels of service throughout the community. The report identifies a need to increase staffing at the Police Department prior to such an annexation, and it is reasonable to assume that similar staffing increases will be necessary to accommodate most of the areas projected for annexation within the Grass Valley SOI. Nevada City – The Nevada City Police Department provides public safety services within its city limits, and operates from the Nevada City Hall. City Hall is home to various administrative departments, making an accurate assessment of space needs more difficult. Police Department staff has indicated that the space allocated to the Department in the City Hall is sufficient to allow for the continued provision of services in an effective manner. With ten FTE officers, the Nevada County space standard indicates that the Department needs 2,740 NUSF to meet optimal space standards. While no accurate measurement of the square footage allocated to the police department is available, it is estimated that staff space available is less than this figure. Because police space standards are not easily determined, it is reasonable to assume that the Police Chief’s statement regarding the adequacy of office space within existing facilities is accurate, and that the Department can continue to operate efficiently and effectively with current space allocations. NEVADA LAFCO 4.1-8 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW WEST COUNTY GENERAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES Section 4.1 Grass Valley and Nevada City No animal control infrastructure is necessary, as the service is contracted out to Grass Valley Animal Control. Solid Waste - Infrastructure and Growth Solid waste collection, disposal, and other related services are provided by each of the cities. Each city contracts with a private company, Waste Management, Inc. (WM), to provide waste and recyclable collection and processing services. Each city is responsible for diversion programs related to the amount of solid waste produced in the community, per State requirements. Most recycling and diversion programs are independently coordinated by the cities and the County through planning documents and regulatory measures, requiring no infrastructure beyond office space and typical office equipment. Storm Drainage - Infrastructure and Growth Each city plans for storm drainage within their planning area through installation and maintenance of ditches, drainage pipes and canals, detention basins, and other infrastructure and facilities. Storm drainage systems are interdependent, with the corresponding systems within the drainage basin affecting the amount of runoff received and the overall level of service of the system. Grass Valley is within the Wolf Creek drainage basin, while Nevada City is within the Deer Creek drainage basin. Grass Valley - Grass Valley contracted with an engineering firm in 1986 to provide an analysis of storm drainage facilities and infrastructure in the city. The results of this analysis are found in the Storm Drainage Master Plan (SDMP). The analysis of the existing system confirmed that many areas have hydraulic and structural problems, and set forth a financing and phasing plan to bring the overall system into a fully functioning, safe, and efficient system. Infrastructure plans associated with the storm drainage system is kept on file at the City Engineer’s office. In addition to the SDMP, the SOI Plan adopted in 1999 calls out necessary stormwater drainage improvements necessary between 2000 and 2020. The ongoing maintenance and repair of the storm drainage system is part of the Capital Improvements Planning process that the City undertakes annually. Allegiance to these planning documents, along with implementation of the improvements called for in the plan, will ensure that storm drainage facilities in the Grass Valley area are sufficient to accommodate projected impacts associated with growth and expansion. The City of Grass Valley has detailed the local drainage improvements needed in the near and long-term. Implementation of these improvements is being done incrementally, as budget allows. The full listing of these planned improvements is provided in Table 4.1-1 on the following page. MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW 4.1-9 NEVADA LAFCO WEST COUNTY GENERAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES Section 4.1 Grass Valley and Nevada City Table 4.1-1 Local Drainage Improvements Total 5- Total 5-20 Grand Total Facility Years Years ($) ($) ($) Alta-Church Drain 305,000 305,000 Bank-Colfax Drain 122,000 122,000 Brighton Street Drain 54,000 54,000 Centerville Flume Phase IV 250,000 250,000 Clark Street Drain 125,000 125,000 Condon Park Drain 74,000 74,000 East Main Street 83,000 83,000 Empire Drain 122,000 122,000 Freeman Lane 75,000 75,000 Hazel Street Drain 146,000 146,000 Hennessey School Drain 151,000 151,000 Kate Hayes Drain 150,000 150,000 Little Wolf Creek Lateral 142,000 142,000 Main Street Drain 105,000 105,000 Mill Street 172,350 190,764 Neal Street Storm 95,000 95,000 Park-Marshall Drain 165,000 165,000 Rhode Island Drain 55,000 55,000 Slide Ravine Drain 200,000 200,000 South Auburn Street Drainage Phase I 193,000 193,000 Walsh Drain 162,000 162,000 Washington-Bennett Drain 105,000 105,000 West Main Street Drain 195,000 195,000 Source: City of Grass Valley Capital Improvement Program, 1998. Notes: 1. All project estimates are based upon a present worth analysis for August 1996. 2. Inflation adjustment per Engineering News Record Construction Cost index for San Francisco from August 1996 to March 1998. 3. Project listing developed from 1986 Storm Drain Master Plan, City of Grass Valley General Plan and Studies by the Grass Valley Engineering and Public Works Departments. 4. Grand totals which exceed the sum of the two columns include work already completed on project. Nevada City - Except for a small area in Nevada City’s downtown, the city does not appear to have a developed storm drain system. Storm water is generally allowed to flow unimpeded and untreated into local perennial and seasonal streams, most of which feed into Deer Creek, which traverses the center of the incorporated city. The few existing storm drains are maintained by the Nevada City Streets Department and do not include any treatment system prior to deposit in a local waterway. There is no information available regarding a more precise area or population NEVADA LAFCO 4.1-10 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW WEST COUNTY GENERAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES Section 4.1 Grass Valley and Nevada City served by the system. There are no plans to upgrade or expand the existing downtown system. This lack of planning is not considered optimal for the long-term efficiency and operation of storm drainage facilities in the city, and is considered a serious deficiency. The proposed 2003 Nevada City Sphere of Influence (SOI) Plan makes recommendations for the development of a regional stormwater drainage master plan for the Deer Creek watershed, which would include the portions of Grass Valley (most of which is in the Wolf Creek watershed) and some county areas. Developing an inventory of facilities and mechanisms for their continued usefulness will be essential to this planning process, in addition to developing standards that will prevent significant flooding impacts on current and future areas of the city. MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW 4.1-11 NEVADA LAFCO WEST COUNTY GENERAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES Section 4.1 Grass Valley and Nevada City City Determinations: Infrastructure and Growth Based on analysis of the existing and planned infrastructure for each of the cities in western Nevada County, the following determinations are presented. 1. Nevada City does not have a current General Plan or approved SOI Plan to guide growth and development within the City. Adoption and implementation of such planning documents is essential to ensuring organized growth of the City. 2. Nevada City needs to develop a stormwater management plan and establish a program to ensure adequate facilities to meet present and anticipated needs. 3. Storm drainage planning should be done on a drainage basin-wide level, with the result being a master plan providing information on all stormwater drainage infrastructure in the planning area. 4. Nevada City police appear to have sufficient usable space for staff operations. 5. Other infrastructure is acceptable for current and anticipated future operations of general government services. NEVADA LAFCO 4.1-12 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW WEST COUNTY GENERAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES Section 4.1 Grass Valley and Nevada City Cost Avoidance and Facilities Sharing This section highlights current cost avoidance and facilities sharing agreements and, where applicable, identifies additional such opportunities that may assist in meeting increases in service demand. Cost avoidance strategies are considered in light of necessary service requirements and expectations, such that only methods of reducing costs which do not adversely affect service levels are considered. Facilities sharing considerations are also made with regard to service levels, as well as legal and physical constraints which may limit the ability of Grass Valley or Nevada City to engage in facilities sharing. Housing and Community Development - Cost Avoidance and Facilities Sharing The purchasing and budgeting policies of both cities are similar and largely conform to standard practices of public agencies, stipulating requirements for competitive bidding procedures and setting forth cost thresholds for the approval of purchases. Both cities adopt an annual budget, undergo annual independent financial audits, and prepare capital improvements plans. Grass Valley and Nevada City agencies are each largely contained within citywide buildings. Such “headquarters” arrangements can provide economies of scale in terms of facilities cost that would not be achieved in more decentralized organizations, while simultaneously facilitating cross-departmental communications. Exceptions to this sharing of facilities germane to all agencies under review are noted in the service-specific discussions below. Grass Valley - Grass Valley has contracted with the Nevada County Building Department for the provision of building inspection and review services. The City entered into this contract in 2001, which pays the County 65 percent of building permit revenues in exchange for inspection and plan check services. Grass Valley previously contracted with Nevada County for the provision of geographical information systems (GIS) documents and materials on an as-needed basis, but terminated that agreement in August 2003. The City now performs this function in- house. These resource sharing agreements (building inspection and GIS services) enable Grass Valley to provide needed services to their residents without an associated need for additional city staff. It should be noted, however, that planning services are closely tied to a community’s identity. One of the typical justifications for an area’s desire to incorporate as a city is to have more localized land use planning than what can be reasonably provided by a particular county. While it would be theoretically possible for Grass Valley to delegate more of its planning and housing related services to the County CDA and/or HCS, there is a fine line the city must distinguish between cost avoidance and achieving public goals and constituent expectations. Grass Valley has not indicated any interest in any further delegation of planning/housing services at this time and no cost-benefit analysis of any such proposed arrangement has been performed. MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW 4.1-13 NEVADA LAFCO WEST COUNTY GENERAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES Section 4.1 Grass Valley and Nevada City Nevada City – Nevada City employs some cost saving and sharing mechanisms through cooperation with Nevada County. Nevada City utilizes the Nevada County Building Department for the provision of building inspection and review services. Nevada City has also contracted with Nevada County for the provision of geographical information systems (GIS) documents and materials on an as-needed basis. Nevada City contracts with Nevada County Department of Housing and Community Services for affordable housing administrative work, as well. These resource sharing agreements (building inspection, GIS services, affordable housing) enable the city to provide needed services to their residents without an associated need for additional city staff. The Housing and Community Development functions of the City are performed by a single staff planner, and the resource sharing agreements are necessary to ensure that services are provided to city residents. At present, Nevada City must continue to utilize such an arrangement to ensure service provision. Nevada City has not indicated any interest in any further delegation of planning/housing services at this time and no cost-benefit analysis of any such proposed arrangement has been performed. There is some unavoidable overlap in the provision of planning and housing services. Each city plans for both its jurisdictional area as well as its sphere of influence (SOI). However, the County plans for and administers said plans for SOI areas. A potential exists for inconsistency between the plans of two land use agencies, and Nevada City has reported problems in that county-approved projects are not consistent with the City’s SOI plans and such approvals have occurred with minimal to no consultation with Nevada City. Transportation and Circulation - Cost Avoidance and Facilities Sharing Each of the cities, as well as the County, develops capital improvement plans for transportation projects within their jurisdiction. Given the typical large cost of transportation improvements, a careful planning process is a crucial means of cost avoidance. The cities and the County, working with the NCTC, cooperatively develop plans and programs for transportation improvements of regional importance. The NCTC is composed of city and county representatives, who jointly produce a Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) for submission to the California Transportation Commission (CTC) and Caltrans. The RTP is meant to be an exhaustive statement of transportation policies and funding plans to address both short and long term priorities on a regional basis. Departmental operations within each City do not utilize any additional cost savings or facilities sharing opportunities, other than general sharing of facilities and resources with other City departments. Public Safety and Animal Control - Cost Avoidance and Facilities Sharing Public safety services in general constitute relatively large proportions of city budgets. There are few means available for facility sharing, although the City of Nevada City contracts with the City of Grass Valley for animal control services. Grass Valley – The Grass Valley Police Department provides public safety services within its city limits and animal control services for properties within Grass Valley and Nevada City. In NEVADA LAFCO 4.1-14 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW WEST COUNTY GENERAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES Section 4.1 Grass Valley and Nevada City Grass Valley, 50.8 percent of proposed expenditures for fiscal year 2002-2003 are for public safety (including funding for the City’s Fire Department—services of which are covered by another Municipal Service Review). The City’s police department is headquartered adjacent to Grass Valley City Hall. The police department shares resources through aid agreements with other safety providers. Grass Valley has mutual aid agreements with Nevada City and Nevada County, as well as with other law enforcement agencies, including the California Highway Patrol and State and federal agencies who become involved in local law enforcement matters. Such mutual aid agreements can provide needed back up or emergency coverage when conditions warrant. While this could be seen as a negative/inefficient overlapping of services, these agreements help ensure that an appropriate level of police services can be provided at any time, and are considered within the public safety industry as an efficient and optimal method of sharing resources. A cost avoidance strategy utilized by Grass Valley animal control includes attempts to increase the percentage of licensed pets (particularly dogs); so as to help offset the costs of providing service. Grass Valley also charges fees for the provision of animal control services. Grass Valley’s animal control fees are structured to recover actual costs of providing certain services, such as impounding, quarantine, and animal capture. Nevada City – In Nevada City, 47.6 percent of proposed expenditures for fiscal year 2002-2003 are for public safety. As with Grass Valley, Nevada City police department shares resources through aid agreements with other safety providers. Nevada City has mutual aid agreements with Grass Valley and Nevada County, as well as with other law enforcement agencies, including the California Highway Patrol and State and federal agencies who become involved in local law enforcement matters. Such mutual aid agreements can provide needed back up or emergency coverage when conditions warrant. While this could be seen as a negative/inefficient overlapping of services, these agreements help ensure that an appropriate level of police services can be provided at any time, and are considered within the public safety industry as an efficient and optimal method of sharing resources. As a cost-reducing measure, the City could consider contracting with the County for provision of this service. Currently the officer to population ratios are much higher in the City than in the County, thus the level of service is likely to be reduced under such an option. No studies have been conducted to determine the cost of contracting the service out to the County versus keeping the service locally controlled. As previously noted, Nevada City is able to share the animal control services and facilities maintained by the City of Grass Valley. Nevada City has paid Grass Valley about $27,000 per year for these services, which would appear to be a much lower cost than if Nevada City were to itself provide an adequate level of animal control service. Solid Waste - Cost Avoidance and Facilities Sharing Most recycling and diversion programs are independently coordinated by the cities and the County through planning documents and regulatory measures. There are no major opportunities for cost reduction or facilities sharing for either city in the provision of this service. An opportunity for the cities and County to form a JPA for AB939 reporting and recycling is MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW 4.1-15 NEVADA LAFCO WEST COUNTY GENERAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES Section 4.1 Grass Valley and Nevada City being explored, however. Note that rates assessed by Waste Management Inc. to residents and businesses within the cities of Grass Valley and Nevada City vary, and discrepancies between such rates are considered under the Financing and Rate Restructuring heading later in this section. Storm Drainage - Cost Avoidance and Facilities Sharing Grass Valley - Grass Valley plans and implements storm drainage system improvements incrementally, through use of General Fund expenditures and collection of AB 1600 fees on new development. The planning is done at the staff level through long-range storm master plan documents, as well as incremental design review for new developments. The City’s Master Service Element (MSE) specifies improvements to be made to the system over time to improve storm drainage within the City. The service is generally efficient in that the AB 1600 fees cover physical construction costs, and existing resources within the Public Works department are sufficient to address day-to-day planning needs. Nevada City – Nevada City plans and implements storm drainage system improvements incrementally, through use of General Fund expenditures and collection of AB 1600 fees on new development. The planning is done at the staff level through coordination with the City Engineer, as well as incremental design review for new developments. The City has prepared a Master Service Element (MSE) that acknowledges improvements should be made to the system over time to improve storm drainage within the City. No Storm Drainage Master Plan has been created or implemented to address regional or coordinated stormwater management needs. Regional planning of storm drainage improvements has the potential to reduce costs associated with the long-term provision of this service. The cities should consider collaborating with each other and with the County on a regional storm drainage plan to address long-term needs of the Deer Creek Drainage Basin, as well as other areas. NEVADA LAFCO 4.1-16 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW WEST COUNTY GENERAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES Section 4.1 Grass Valley and Nevada City City Determinations: Cost Avoidance and Facilities Sharing Based on analysis of the services provided by Grass Valley and Nevada City, the following determinations are presented to reduce overall costs and improve facilities sharing among service providers. 1. Grass Valley and Nevada City undergo thorough budgeting processes as a means to avoid unnecessary costs. Each has enacted purchasing policies of various degrees of complexity to ensure that significant purchases are made efficiently and without unnecessary cost. 2. To better address planning and community development concerns within County administered areas that fall within a city’s adopted or proposed sphere of influence, a more collaborative approach appears necessary to ensure that development is consistent with all relevant community plans – as well as to ensure that city and county plans are not in conflict. 3. Public safety providers, particularly Nevada City, may wish to explore ways to avoid costs through service charges for matters beyond routine law enforcement. The use of a volunteer corps is a cost avoidance strategy that Grass Valley animal control services may wish to explore. 4. Several of the service providers share facilities, finances, and personnel resources. Detailed cost-benefit analysis would be necessary as a precursor to further sharing, consolidation, or centralization of services, including joint storm drainage planning among the cities and Nevada County. MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW 4.1-17 NEVADA LAFCO WEST COUNTY GENERAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES Section 4.1 Grass Valley and Nevada City Financing and Rate Restructuring This section addresses the various financial constraints and opportunities faced in providing services. It analyzes now the cities establish and update the rates they charge for their services, and makes a determination regarding the overall financial health of Nevada City and Grass Valley, especially in regard to the cities’ ability to fund the subject services. General Financial Information Grass Valley - Grass Valley maintained operating surpluses for much of the past decade, including the years leading up to the recent recession. Overall city revenues exceeded expenditures in each fiscal year from 1999-2000 through 2001-2002, with 2002-2003 revenues expected to fall short of revenues. In FY 2001/2002 (the most recently audited cycle), revenues and in-transfers resulted in $8,548,960 in income for the City, while expenditures and out- transfers equaled $8,004,911 for the year, a positive result of $544,049. In FY 2000/2001, revenues and in-transfers ($7,460,468) were greater than expenditures and out-transfers ($6,955,911) by $504,557. In FY 1999/2000, revenues and in-transfers equaled $8,567,064, while expenditures and out-transfers equaled $8,524,612. The City has maintained a reserve balance of about $4 million to $5 million since FY 98-99. The adopted budget for FY 2003/2004 calls for revenues and in-transfers of $7,357,075 and expenditures and out-transfers of $8,299,738, a shortfall of approximately $942,663. Grass Valley collects development impact fees on residential, commercial, and industrial development to fund infrastructure extensions to the following services: local circulation, drainage, fire services, police services, administration, general facilities, and parks/recreation. Development impact fees are not without constraints, however. California law restricts the use of such fees to the provision of infrastructure necessitated by new development. The fees cannot be used to provide infrastructure that would exclusively serve pre-existing needs. To justify such a fee, a jurisdiction will typically complete a nexus study which specifically itemizes the proposed infrastructure improvements to be financed by the collected fees. Jurisdictions typically cannot deviate from the list of infrastructure improvements noted in its nexus study. Per AB 1600 requirements, local adoption of an ordinance is required to implement any AB 1600 fee or implement any rate increase. The City has adopted ordinances to address this requirement. As for the financial constraints and opportunities associated with annexations, Grass Valley has in place a Sphere of Influence (SOI) plan with accompanying master service element (MSE). This SOI plan, in concert with the General Plan, stipulates that some form of cost-benefit analysis must precede any annexation. Nevada City - Nevada City’s adopted budget for fiscal year 2002-2003 indicates that for the previous fiscal year, total operational expenses were $4,286,457, relative to total revenues of $4,027,403. Total expenses for the 2001-2002 fiscal year had been budgeted at $3,927,317, about $360,000 above projections. The previous year, total city expenses were about $150,000 lower than budgeted. The city began fiscal 2002-2003 with $258,000 in general fund cash, and anticipated a reserve at the end of the fiscal year of about $80,000. NEVADA LAFCO 4.1-18 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW WEST COUNTY GENERAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES Section 4.1 Grass Valley and Nevada City Nevada City collects development impact fees on new residential development to fund infrastructure extensions to the following services: water, sewer, local circulation, drainage, fire services, police services, administration, general facilities, and parks/recreation. As indicated in the Grass Valley discussion above, development impact fees require the City to complete a nexus study which specifically itemizes the proposed infrastructure improvements to be financed by the collected fees. The City adopted its AB 1600 nexus study in 1992, which set rate caps for the following municipal services: administration, fire protection, police, storm drainage, roads, water, sewer, and parks. The nexus study has not been updated since 1992 and fees are still assessed within the limitations imposed in the original study. As with Grass Valley, Nevada City is required to have in place an SOI plan with accompanying master service element (MSE). Nevada City had not obtained LAFCo approval its SOI plan as of October 2003. The City’s General Plan is currently serving as the guide for consistency in assessing potential annexations into the City. Housing and Community Development – Financing and Rate Restructuring Both cities assess development impact fees (also known as AB 1600 fees) to offset the cost of providing municipal services to new development. The implementation of these fees represents a significant financial source of revenue for the cities. In Nevada City, AB 1600 fees for a new single-family residence total about $10,335. In Grass Valley, fees for a new single family residence total about $2,150. Both cities have an appeals process for AB 1600 fees. The costs vary widely for the appeal of decisions of the respective planning commissions to the city councils. Appeals are almost inherently controversial and thus tend to consume disproportionate amounts of staff time in report writing, report distribution, and responding to questions from the general public. In Nevada City, appealing a Planning Commission decision to the City Council costs $50 (increased from $25 in December 2000). Grass Valley’s fee for appeals to its City Council is the greater of $100 or 20 percent of the original application fee. Legislative bodies must balance the often competing interests of making the appeal process open to many and not financially prohibitive with the goal of making planning services closer to cost-neutral. Grass Valley - The planning fee structure for Grass Valley is generally “flatter” than either Nevada County or Nevada City, although cost-recouping provisions exist for large projects such as environmental review, specific plans, and major residential developments. The Grass Valley Planning Department obtains most of its operating revenue from the city’s general fund; costs of its services are partially offset by user and service fees. The Grass Valley Redevelopment Agency (GVRA) is required by law to set aside 20 percent of all tax increment revenue to be spent on affordable housing projects. The GVRA and other redevelopment agencies may allocate more than 20 percent of tax increment revenue for these purposes. MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW 4.1-19 NEVADA LAFCO WEST COUNTY GENERAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES Section 4.1 Grass Valley and Nevada City The fiscal year 2002-2003 adopted budget for Grass Valley indicates that projected fee-based revenues for planning services do not nearly cover planning related expenses. In Grass Valley, community development department revenue for fiscal 2002-2003 is budgeted at $90,000, whereas department operating expenses are anticipated to exceed $400,000. Looking at a closer level of detail, many of Grass Valley’s planning fees do not appear to be able to cover actual costs, particularly for complex or controversial proposals. For example, the fee for a variance was $240 in Grass Valley while, by contrast, the County required an initial deposit of $1,119.50. Typically, variance staff reports must include detailed variance findings particular to a project site, often requiring close scrutiny from city legal counsel. Variances also tend to require additional staff time to field inquiries from the public and from policymakers. These and other factors increase the amount of time city staff must spend on such an application. The Grass Valley fee schedule was revised in 2002, although as noted above, current fees are not sufficient to cover costs associated with all housing and community development services. NOTE: The Grass Valley Planning fee schedule for FY 2003-04, however, provides a variance fee of $670. Nevada City - Similarly, several of Nevada City’s planning application fees include a stipulation that fees will rise to the level of actual cost if a set base amount is exceeded. Nevertheless, probably due to a relatively low level of development within the city, planning revenues for the last several years have been a relatively insignificant component (only about 1 percent) of all the city’s revenues. As for housing services, Nevada City has contracted with the County HCS to provide administrative services for the city’s affordable housing projects. It would appear at the outset that this represents a financial opportunity for the city, in that the larger HCS can provide the needed services with greater efficiency than the city. As with Grass Valley, there appears to be a revenue shortfall for user and service fees in Nevada City. The fiscal year 2002-2003 adopted budget for Nevada City indicates that projected fee-based revenues for planning service do not nearly cover planning related expenses. In Nevada City, planning services are combined with other “general government” services. In fiscal year 2002-2003, planning fees are anticipated at $25,000, while planning expenses will exceed $56,000, which includes only costs incurred by the City Planner and the administration of the Planning Commission. Looking at a closer level of detail, the fee for a variance in Nevada City is $210. As noted in the Grass Valley discussion, this is lower than Grass Valley and far lower than Nevada County. Variance staff reports, city legal counsel review, and staff time account for far greater costs than this amount. Nevada City last modified its fee schedule relative to planning in December 2000, but left in place several low-cost fees, such as variances, that do not appear to be able to cover the cost of provided services. Current fees are therefore considered to be insufficient to cover housing and community development costs incurred by the City. Transportation and Circulation - Financing and Rate Restructuring Most transportation and circulation improvements occurring within the two cities are financed through two methods. Improvements to regional roadways are financed through a variety of funding mechanisms set up on a regional basis, generally coordinated through the Nevada NEVADA LAFCO 4.1-20 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW WEST COUNTY GENERAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES Section 4.1 Grass Valley and Nevada City County Transportation Commission. Refer to section 4.3 of this MSR for consideration of regional transportation improvements. Local improvements are paid for through direct city financing. New roads, signals, and other transportation improvements are financed through fees and agreements associated with new residential, commercial, institutional, and industrial development. New development finances improvements either through direct payment of the cost of new improvements, or through cost sharing agreements. Each city also dedicates some portion of its general fund annually to roadway maintenance and upgrades in already developed areas. Both cities use AB 1600 fees to cover the costs of needed local circulation improvements necessitated by new development. Grass Valley assesses such fees on most forms of new development within the city. Nevada City assesses such fees only on new residential development. Nevada City has the potential to assess AB 1600 fees on other forms of new development beyond residential. As traffic demands on roads and roadway infrastructure are based not only on resident population but also location and scale of businesses, industry, and other land uses, it is common among other jurisdictions to assess such fees on commercial and industrial land uses as well, to offset their impacts to the transportation network. Nevada City could increase revenues through extension of these fees to such development and thus reduce the overall impact of transportation costs on the City’s general fund. Public Safety and Animal Control - Financing and Rate Restructuring The single greatest expense category for each city’s police and animal control service is salaries and benefits. Among the three public safety providers under review in this MSR (Grass Valley, Nevada City, and the County of Nevada), expenditures on salaries and benefits comprise between 79 percent and 85 percent of all public safety expenses. As previously noted, both cities have adopted AB 1600 development impact fees to help offset government service costs, including public safety and animal control. Grass Valley – In Grass Valley, public safety expenses comprised just over half of all budgeted expenditures for 2002/2003. Of this, about 63 percent was earmarked for police services and about 4 percent for animal control services. Grass Valley assesses a police service related development impact fee on new commercial and residential development. The City’s AB 1600 fees range from $194.66 to $237.90 per unit, depending on unit type. Grass Valley also receives about $27,000 per year for the provision of animal control services to Nevada City. Several of Grass Valley’s fees for animal control services are tied to the costs of service provision. Grass Valley assesses fees for public safety related permits and services. Many of the permits and services in the cities’ police departments are flat-fee or no-charge services, while others are based on actual or likely cost. The Grass Valley Police Department has several fees that are computed based upon the amount of staff time involved. In particular, Grass Valley charges a fee of $4.39 per minute of staff time associated with police response to a driving while under the influence (DUI) emergency call. This policy helps Grass Valley recoup costs associated with such responses, although proceeds collected have thus far been modest (less than $5,000 annually as of FY 01-02). Grass Valley has also adopted a fee to offset costs associated with false alarms, a growing issue in police departments. These false alarms, usually caused by MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW 4.1-21 NEVADA LAFCO WEST COUNTY GENERAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES Section 4.1 Grass Valley and Nevada City electronic malfunction or human error, add cost and reduced productivity to police officers and staff. Grass Valley charges $25 for the first, $50 for the second, and $100 for third and subsequent police responses to false alarms. Nevada City – In Nevada City, police department expenses have comprised about one third of all city non-enterprise revenue; about a quarter of all revenue when revenues for the City’s water and sewer operations are included. Department revenues were significantly enhanced in 2001-2002 by the receipt of a Supplemental Law Enforcement grant (SLESF) from the State of California. Proceeds from this grant have been used to finance two patrol officer positions, increasing the total patrolling staff to eight. The City’s Master Service Element indicates that nine is the ideal number of patrol staff for the city’s population (about 3,000). The Department hopes to be able to renew the SLESF grant so that a patrol staff of eight can be maintained. Without the grant funding, patrol staff may need to be reduced to six. Nevada City charges $442.02 per new residential unit for police related infrastructure. Nevada City’s AB 1600 fees are equal to 75 percent of the maximum possible fees allowed through its nexus study. The city has the authority to increase the AB 1600 fee to 100 percent of what its nexus study justified, as well as to implement of AB 1600 fees on new commercial development. Nevada City also assesses fees for public safety related permits and services. Many of the permits and services in the cities’ police departments are flat-fee or no-charge services. The Nevada City Police Department has no time-based fees for any of its services; all are relatively low and flat and do not appear able to cover the costs of the services rendered. Unlike Grass Valley, Nevada City does not charge fees for responses to false alarms. The cost of such responses is absorbed as part of the operating budget of the department. Any outward growth Nevada City is likely to increase the frequency of false alarms requiring responses, and increase costs associated with responses to such events. Adoption of a graduated fee in response to false alarms, similar to that in effect in Grass Valley, has the potential to offset such costs for the Nevada City Police Department. Solid Waste - Financing and Rate Restructuring Solid waste collection and disposal services are performed by a private company, Waste Management, Inc., to both of the cities, as well as surrounding areas in the County. The cities are each responsible for diversion programs related to the amount of solid waste produced in the community, per State requirements. Neither the County nor the cities have mandatory collection service. Residents may contract individually with Waste Management for the collection and transport of waste and recyclables. According to Solid Waste Division Manager Steve Porter, only about half of the western Nevada County residents (inclusive of cities and County) opt to be served by Waste Management, choosing instead to self-haul waste and recyclables to the County’s transfer station. Self-haul customers pay the County a tonnage fee for all waste destined for disposal. No information is available regarding the percentage of residents in each city who elect to self-haul rather than utilize services offered by WMI. NEVADA LAFCO 4.1-22 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW WEST COUNTY GENERAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES Section 4.1 Grass Valley and Nevada City Each city has a franchise agreement with the company to provide for refuse collection and disposal; including applicable fees for disposal at landfills (all landfills currently in use are located outside of Nevada County). WMI directly bills customers within each city for services rendered, based on a fee schedule updated annually by the company and provided to customers. Rates charged to residents and businesses within each of the cities are set by WMI annually, and provided to users. As a private business, WMI is not required to justify rate increases as necessary, nor are fees and rates required to be equal among different areas. A review of 2003 rates charged to Grass Valley and Nevada City residents was made for this MSR, the results of which are shown in Table 4.1-2. Separately, all city (as well as county) landowners are assessed a parcel charge on County property tax bills. This charge is intended to cover the costs of landfill conversions countywide, solid waste related bonded debt, and fees to dispose of waste in landfills outside the county. The parcel charge does not contribute to any waste collection services.1 Contracting with private companies for collection and hauling is an arrangement common throughout most of California and the United States. Table 4.1-2 2003 Waste Management, Inc. Rates in Jurisdictions Grass Valley Nevada City Nevada County Percentage Type Rate Rate Rate Variation Commercial 1 Can $ 14.47 $ 19.50 $ 13.74 41.9% 2 Can $ 28.94 $ 38.27 $ 19.98 91.5% 3 Can $ 43.39 $ 50.93 $ 26.22 94.2% 4 Can $ 56.87 $ 66.10 $ 29.48 124.2% 1.5 yd x 1 $ 145.09 $ 167.66 n/a 15.6% 2 yd x 1 $ 194.12 $ 198.11 $ 201.39 3.7% 3 yd x 1 $ 250.97 $ 282.79 $ 259.20 12.7% 4 yd x 1 $ 320.31 $ 321.51 $ 331.30 3.4% 6 yd x 1 $ 401.98 $ 402.23 $ 413.87 3.0% Residential 1 Can $ 13.51 $ 11.38 $ 13.74 20.7% 2 Can $ 19.69 $ 17.33 $ 19.98 15.3% 3 Can $ 25.67 $ 22.97 $ 26.22 14.1% Extra Can $ 3.87 $ 3.79 $ 3.26 18.7% Mini Can $ 10.12 $ 10.10 $ 10.29 1.9% Waste Wheeler $ 29.69 $ 24.31 $ 24.24 22.5% Source: City of Nevada City, City of Grass Valley, Nevada County 1 Steve Porter, Personal Communication, August 2003. MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW 4.1-23 NEVADA LAFCO WEST COUNTY GENERAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES Section 4.1 Grass Valley and Nevada City As shown in Table 4.1-2, the rates charged by WMI to residents and businesses in the two cities and the county vary significantly, up to 124 percent for commercial service and 22 percent for residential service. The location of these entities in the same geographic area, as well as the similarity in service requested and provided, suggests that costs associated with service provision should be similar between the jurisdictions. As noted in Section 4.2 of this MSR, Nevada County revised its franchise agreement with WMI in 2003. This revision included an increase in the amount paid by WMI to the County, increase the number and levels of service provided, and added new diversion requirements aimed at assisting the County in meeting its solid waste diversion requirements. The cities should review their contracts with WMI to ensure that current rates charged to residents and businesses within their jurisdiction are commensurate with services rendered, and to improve service provision. Storm Drain Planning - Financing and Rate Restructuring Both Grass Valley and Nevada City designate a portion of their AB 1600 fees to fund needed extensions to storm drains necessitated by new development. Localized improvements are funded in this manner, with regional improvements to the storm drainage system not currently planned or financed. The need for and financing of regional storm drainage improvements is discussed in Section 4.3 of this MSR. NEVADA LAFCO 4.1-24 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW WEST COUNTY GENERAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES Section 4.1 Grass Valley and Nevada City City Determinations: Financing and Rate Restructuring 1. Each of the jurisdictions adopts annual budgets as a means of setting spending priorities and tracking agency assets and liabilities. Each of the jurisdictions has in place purchasing policies intended to avoid unnecessary costs. 2. Planning, public safety and public transit are relatively labor-intensive services, whereas the other services under review (transportation and circulation, solid waste, and storm drain planning) are more infrastructure intensive. Capital improvement plans are used by each of the jurisdictions to plan for major outlays, with specialized transportation and public transit planning through the RTP and TDP process. 3. The uses of AB 1600 fees by the cities are important in fairly distributing the cost of infrastructure extensions necessitated by new development. The amounts of these fees should be monitored periodically to ensure that they are consonant with actual costs of extending infrastructure. The jurisdictions may need to consider an in-lieu fee to fund affordable housing projects. 4. Community development services appear to be the most able to use service fees to recapture the cost of delivering services. All service providers utilize some flexible service fees that can be increased when projects consume more time and resources. However, many planning fees for Grass Valley and Nevada City are relatively “flat” and do not cover the cost of service provision. 5. User fees, where feasible, should be closely tied to the actual cost of providing service. “Flat” fees set too low or too high can have several negative implications, such as insufficient revenue and/or legal action. Similarly, Nevada City should reexamine planning fees, including fees for the appeal of Planning Commission decisions, inasmuch as current fees appear far too low to cover appeal processing costs. 6. Nevada City could increase revenues through extension of AB 1600 fees to commercial and industrial (as well as residential) development and thus reduce the overall impact of transportation costs on the City’s general fund. 7. Adoption of a graduated fee in response to false alarms, similar to that in effect in Grass Valley, has the potential to offset such costs for the Nevada City Police Department. 8. Waste Management Inc., the private solid waste collection and disposal provider to both cities, charges rates which differ significantly between the jurisdictions. Each city should review its contract with WMI to ensure that rates charged to its residents are consistent with those assessed in neighboring areas. MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW 4.1-25 NEVADA LAFCO WEST COUNTY GENERAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES Section 4.1 Grass Valley and Nevada City Government Structure, Management Efficiencies, and Local Accountability This section of the MSR evaluates the governing structure, management efficiencies, and local accountability of each of the cities, organized by service. The purpose of this evaluation is to determine the suitability of the existing physical and organizational structure within each city, including city boundaries and spheres of influence, government form, and accountability to the residents of each city. Government structure is a citywide issue, not related specifically to any of the services considered. The analysis and consideration of this aspect of the review is provided in the first section under Housing and Community Development, for ease of reading. Grass Valley and Nevada City operate with similar governmental structure and organization. Each has an elected governing body (City Council), an appointed City Manager, and individual departments for services provided, grouped according to similarities. This basic structure of governmental operation is similar to many cities and counties in California, and is generally accepted as an efficient and economical organizational structure for providing city and county functions. Each community has expanded its physical boundaries incrementally over time through annexations, generally at the time of development applications. Each city has a regular schedule of meetings to address city business and operations in a public forum, open to comment and participation by the general public. The City of Grass Valley annually adopts a city-wide set of goals and objectives. Perhaps because of its annual nature, the objectives are relatively specific and short-term in nature. Each department or division in Grass Valley, including those under review here (Community Development, Police, and Public Works) has a relatively permanent mission statement, along with annual objective. The City publishes these goals, objectives, and mission statements with the annual citywide budget. The structure of the government services in Nevada City is largely a product of its size and limited budget. With insufficient funds available to provide multiple professional personnel for these services, individuals within the City government can be responsible for provision of multiple services and duties. The City operates under the direction of a City Manager, appointed by the City Council to oversee staff and operations of the municipality. Nevada City has also conducted regular “Goal Setting Workshops” open to the general public. At these meetings, an outside facilitator has mediated goal-setting discussions between officials and the public. Local accountability is a measure of the extent to which each jurisdiction is representative of community opinion, including opportunities for public input and involvement. The following major factors are considered in the review of accountability: • Adequacy of public notice procedures for public meetings • Compliance with the Brown Act • Convenience and accessibility of public meetings NEVADA LAFCO 4.1-26 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW WEST COUNTY GENERAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES Section 4.1 Grass Valley and Nevada City • Frequency of meetings • Public outreach efforts and public involvement Local accountability is a citywide issue, not related specifically to any of the services considered. The analysis and consideration of this aspect of the review is provided in the first section under Housing and Community Development, for ease of reading. Housing and Community Development – Government Structure, Management Efficiencies, and Local Accountability Grass Valley –The Community Development Department provides land use planning and housing services, as well as related services. The Community Development Department also coordinates the planning and implementation of recycling efforts in the city. The Community Development Department was organized in 1997 as a consolidation of the four previously independent departments, in order to more effectively coordinate planning activities. The existing structure of four divisions under one community development department is adequately organized to provide continued service both to the existing residents and properties within the adopted Sphere. Altering the structure of the Department, either by reverting back to the independent departments for each service or by grouping additional services into the Department, would represent an unnecessary and counter-productive change at this point. Grouping community planning (including housing), building, and code enforcement activities is common among municipalities both in California and nationally, and is recommended because of the overlap in information and needs associated with the provision of these services. With no major problems raised regarding the current organization of the Community Development Department, there is no basis for a recommendation to reorganize or alter the existing government structure of this department. Management Efficiency Up-to-date planning documents are one measure of the management efficiency of these planning functions. The Grass Valley General Plan was updated in 1998; the City is updating its housing element in 2004. The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) has certified the housing element of Grass Valley. The Grass Valley Community Development Department seeks to deliver its planning and housing services more efficiently through the intensive use of a website. Available on the City’s website are the entire Municipal Code, plus special sections on the Housing Element and General Plan. Among the planning division’s objectives for 2002-2003 are a re-evaluation of all division employees and the implementation of a project-tracking software program. The Community Development Department appears to meet its mission statement and goals through operations and existing organization. Government Structure The existing physical boundaries of the City of Grass Valley are appropriate, given land uses, existing services offered by the City versus those offered by the surrounding county, and MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW 4.1-27 NEVADA LAFCO WEST COUNTY GENERAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES Section 4.1 Grass Valley and Nevada City historical development patterns. The City appears to have the ability to accommodate projected population growth both within the current city and within its sphere of influence as areas are annexed. There are no increases in level of service or likely improvements to efficiency in service provision that would result from a change in the boundaries or SOI for Grass Valley. There are no pending applications for major changes to the SOI, and the City has not expressed dissatisfaction with current boundaries, although there has been some concern about timing of annexation of specific developed areas. Local Accountability Grass Valley City Council makes decisions regarding city operations and appoints a Planning Commission to determine long-range planning within the city limits. Councilmembers and commissioners serve four year terms, staggered to allow for elections and appointments every two years. The City of Grass Valley elects a five-member City Council to govern local matters. The City Council also serves as the Board of Directors for the Redevelopment Agency. Councilmembers are elected at-large to four-year terms, with a Mayor and Vice-Mayor elected to two-year terms by the Councilmembers. Elections are held every two years, with three positions up for election in November 2004 and two positions in November 2006. The Council meets for two regularly scheduled meetings per month, on the second and fourth Tuesdays of each month at 7:00 p.m. at the Grass Valley City Hall, 125 Main Street. Additional special meetings can be scheduled as need arises, which are publicly noticed and open to all members of the community. The 2003 membership of the City Council is provided above, and current membership is listed on the city’s website at www.cityofgrassvalley.com. The Planning Commission is comprised of five members, appointed by the City Council, serving four year terms. Planning Commissioners are appointed by the City Council at-large, based on recommendation of an Interview Committee. Responsibilities include advising the Council on planning and development matters, such as land divisions, tentative tracts, zoning, special use permits, variances, General Plan amendments, proposed ordinances, etc. Decisions concerning development proposals are final at the Commission level, unless appealed to the City Council. The Planning Division of the Community Development Department provides staff support. Meetings are held at 7:00 p.m. once a month. Agenda for the meetings are available 72 hours preceding the meetings at the Planning Division. Meetings of each of these bodies appear to be in compliance with the Brown Act. Interviews with City staff indicate that Planning Commission and City Council meetings are typically attended by 10-40 persons, depending on the content of the meeting. Nevada City – Land use planning related community development services are provided by the City Planner, a part-time contractual employee. In addition to providing current and advance planning services, the City Planner also serves as secretary to the Nevada City Planning Commission, coordinates housing issues, and serves as a liaison to other city departments. The City Planner administers and facilitates updates to the City’s General Plan, sphere of influence plan, and all other related land use policy documents. The City Planner also receives support from the City Manager and City Clerk on planning issues. There is concern about the NEVADA LAFCO 4.1-28 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW WEST COUNTY GENERAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES Section 4.1 Grass Valley and Nevada City ability of one part-time planner to provide a high level of service for all housing and community development services. Management Efficiency The structure of the existing city government, with one part-time planner operating under direction of the City Manager, will likely not be sufficient to maintain a high level of service regarding housing and community development activities. With only one person providing services, restructuring options are limited. Lacking both a website and any brochures regarding typical planning and zoning questions, all planning services and inquiries thereof are filtered through the City Planner. While it is perhaps more cost-efficient for the city to have a part-time, contractual city planner, this arrangement can be inconvenient to users, and can complicate the delivery of services. The City Planner has stated office hours and is available by appointment. Potential options for structural change within the organization include contracting with a private firm to provide these services, contracting with Grass Valley or Nevada County to provide some or all such services, or adding staff and forming a department which combines development related services, including planning, building, engineering, and code enforcement. Ultimately, any decision to reform the structure of the Nevada City government, as it relates to provision of housing and development services, should result from a more thorough analysis of future service demands and potential services that the City will wish to offer residents. Nevada City, particularly its planning department, came under criticism from the Nevada County Grand Jury in 2002. The Grand Jury report concluded that the City’s filing system for property and other records was inefficient and unsecured and that the City lacked written records- management procedures. The City responded by thoroughly updating the way it stores records. In addition to new filing areas within the City Hall building, the City also rents an offsite location for record storage. Nevada City recently determined that it would be more efficient for County HCS to handle administrative work relative to the City’s affordable housing units (contract oversight, etc.). An agreement between the City and the County was finalized in June 2003. It would behoove both parties to continually monitor the efficacy and efficiency of this delegation. The issue of inter-governmental cooperation has also been raised as prominent with respect to government services in Nevada City. Most of the significant planning and community development issues facing Nevada City are related to growth occurring in the sphere of influence. City Clerk Cathy Wilcox-Barnes notes that there has been a lack of communication between the City and County with regards to development projects in this area. There are no structural solutions to this communication problem, but it is important to note that such issues have a significant effect on the ability of a provider to meet its service demands and plan for improvements to services that fit within the regional network of services. Government Structure Nevada City last updated its General Plan in 1986; in 2004, the City is updating the Housing Element. The current version of the Housing Element is under review by the State Department of Housing and Community Development, as of May 2004. The City’s last adopted housing element was completed in 1994, but HCD found the element to be out of compliance. It is these documents which are intended to guide the ultimate growth and expansion of the city’s physical boundaries. Expansion of Nevada City into the SOI may necessitate the addition of staff or staff MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW 4.1-29 NEVADA LAFCO WEST COUNTY GENERAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES Section 4.1 Grass Valley and Nevada City time dedicated to the provision of these services. There are no outstanding issues related to the physical boundaries of the city as they currently exist, notwithstanding issues previously noted. Local Accountability Decisions related to city operations are made by the City Council, which appoints a Planning Commission to consider land use proposals. Councilmembers and planning commissioners serve four year terms, staggered to allow for elections and appointments every two years. One planning commissioner is appointed by each councilmember, and serves a term concurrent with that of the appointing member. Planning Commissioners and City Councilmembers must be residents of the City. The Planning Commission and City Council each meet on the second and fourth Thursday of each month. Meetings held by each of these bodies are done so in accordance with the Brown Act and other applicable State disclosure laws. Meetings are held on weekday evenings to facilitate public attendance and involvement. As relates to planning and community development matters, the Planning Commission and City Council are staffed by the City Planner (a part-time employee) and the City Manager. Each public meeting is advertised by notice in various locations within the city, as well as on the internet. Agendas are posted along with the notices for meetings. The City Council has stated that public participation is encouraged, and that attendance at City Council and Planning Commission meetings are well attended. Information about items on agendas is passed through the community through word of mouth and general community interaction, rather than through e-mail or publication of brochures. For those community members seeking information on matters of planning and community development, there are limited opportunities to obtain information on current issues. No brochures or other information is available from the City regarding current issues. The City Planner would likely be able to provide citizens with information on planning and community development issues, as would the City Manager and possibly the City Clerk. Agendas are available in City Hall for Planning Commission and City Council meetings, and some City Council meetings are televised on Foothills Community Access Television. In addition, several private websites including http://www.yubanet.com and http://www.nevadacitycalifornia.com provide listings of planning issues, contacts, and agendas for meetings. It is important to note that these websites are not government sponsored and the City makes no statements regarding the accuracy of information on these sites. As stated earlier, City Council and Planning Commission meetings are well attended by members of the community, and public participation is encouraged. During the update of the City’s Housing Element in 2003, the community held various visioning workshops with members of the public, seeking public input on the direction and content of housing policy within the City. Transportation and Circulation - Government Structure, Management Efficiencies, and Local Accountability This section considers management efficiency and local accountability as they relate to the provision of transportation services. Government structure issues are addressed on a citywide NEVADA LAFCO 4.1-30 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW WEST COUNTY GENERAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES Section 4.1 Grass Valley and Nevada City basis under the Housing and Community Development heading at the beginning of this subsection. Grass Valley (as well as County of Nevada) has adopted level of service (LOS) standards to measure roadway usage. The use of such standards can promote greater service efficiency by providing an easy administrative tool that can highlight and assign priority to problematic and congested areas. Grass Valley – The City of Grass Valley provides transportation and circulation services through its Public Works and Engineering Department. Two divisions of this Department, the Administrative division and the Streets and Parks division, provide these services. The Administrative division coordinates maintenance and repair of State Route 174 with Caltrans, while the Streets and Parks division coordinates maintenance, planning, and repair of all other roads in the city limits. This structure provides a generally centralized approach to providing these services, and allows for the reasonable operation of necessary activities. No recent reorganizations have been made within the Public Works and Engineering Department applicable to the provision of these services. Transportation and circulation services are carried out in this structure in a manner that appears to be effective, and the organization of the Department appears suitable to provide similar services to growth areas as they are annexed into the city. Grass Valley currently provides no transit services directly, although it does participate in a JPA to provide transit services in the western County. The City has recognized in the Circulation Element of its General Plan that there will be an increasing need to provide and/or coordinate transit services in the future to ensure that the needs of its residents are being met. Policies within the Circulation Element state that the City will improve linkages across the community through improved public transportation, as well as develop plans for transit services in conjunction with existing providers. A specific implementation action for these policies would be the development of a Transit Master Plan for the city. Such a plan has not yet been created, although it will likely be essential to the long-term ability of the City to provide effective transit services. Provision of transportation planning services under the umbrella of a Public Works department is standard among cities and counties within California, and is generally taken to represent the most efficient organization of similar services related to transportation services. This structure is efficient in organizing those individuals and programs involved in the planning, design, and maintenance of transportation facilities in the city. No recommendations are made herein for reorganization of the Public Works and Engineering Department of Grass Valley. Nevada City – The Streets Division of the Nevada City Public Works Department provides planning and maintenance for local roadways in Nevada City. In addition, Public Works staff coordinates with the NCTC and County on regional planning issues and maintenance and operation of highways in the city. This division has an organizational structure sufficient to allow for the continued provision of these services in the City and planned growth areas. The Nevada City Clerk has indicated that recurring communication problems exist between the City and the County with regards to transportation issues. The City has specific concerns regarding the planning and approval of projects within the unincorporated county that have traffic impacts on the city. The ability of the city to effectively plan for traffic and circulation MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW 4.1-31 NEVADA LAFCO WEST COUNTY GENERAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES Section 4.1 Grass Valley and Nevada City requires such communication in advance of project approvals. While communication issues are present, these are not considered the result of structural problems within the Public Works Department of Nevada City. As mentioned in the Grass Valley discussion above, this organization of transportation-related personnel and programs is an efficient and effective method of governmental structure, and is likely the best possible organization given local conditions and services provided. Public Safety and Animal Control - Government Structure, Management Efficiencies, and Local Accountability This section considers management efficiency and local accountability as they relate to the provision of each service. Government structure issues are addressed on a citywide basis under the Housing and Community Development heading at the beginning of this subsection. Grass Valley – The City of Grass Valley Police Department provides public safety services to its residents, and animal control services to the residents of both Grass Valley and Nevada City. Each function is handled by a division of the Police Department. The Police Chief expects the department will be able to provide services at the current level as the city grows both in terms of population and in area. An independent audit of police services conducted by the Police Executive Research Forum analyzed the current and future staffing levels and management structure, and makes recommendations regarding staff levels to meet the expected growth of physical land and population. The ability of the department to meet stated goals and objectives is considered an important aspect of management efficiency. One stated objective of the Grass Valley Police Department for 2002-2003 is to utilize GIS information as a means of evaluating service delivery effectiveness and defining areas for redeployment. The department appears to be progressing toward this objective. The City of Grass Valley’s new police facility, completed in 1997, includes enough space to accommodate anticipated growth into the reasonably foreseeable future. Nevada City – Nevada City provides public safety services to its residents. The Department uses general fund revenue, fees, and grants to provide 10 full-time officers and seven reserve officers under the authority of a Police Chief. Internal documents have indicated that the current staffing level does not allow the City to meet its stated officer to population ratio, thereby reducing the level of service that the Department can reasonably provide. Beyond staffing concerns, this structure appears sufficient to allow the Department to meet the public safety needs of its residents, and should be sufficient to accommodate planned growth, provided staffing levels are increased to the desired ratio of officers per 1,000 population. To further productivity and internal efficiency, the Nevada City Police Department is seeking grant funding for additional computers and communication equipment. NEVADA LAFCO 4.1-32 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW WEST COUNTY GENERAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES Section 4.1 Grass Valley and Nevada City Solid Waste - Government Structure, Management Efficiencies, and Local Accountability Solid waste service for both cities is contracted out to a private company, Waste Management, Inc. Neither the Nevada City nor Grass Valley City Clerks were able to locate the agreements which allow for the company to provide this service for residents and businesses within the two cities. Without having reviewed the contracts, it is impossible to determine whether the cities have the ability to negotiate with WMI for lower rates or whether there are mechanisms in place to ensure accountability. The lack of knowledge about these contracts by the cities indicates that the agreements are long-standing and generally agreeable to all parties involved. NOTE: a franchise agreement between Grass Valley and Waste Management’s predecessor (Grass Valley Disposal, Inc.) was imposed as part of a court settlement. Within the limitations of that agreement, the City continues to be involved in the rate setting process and confirms that it is able to work well with Waste Management, Inc. It may be that opportunities to increase local accountability could be discovered by performing a rate study comparison with other area jurisdictions, thus ensuring that Grass Valley and Nevada City residents and businesses are receiving fair representation in selecting a waste collection and disposal provider. Nevada County recently renegotiated its franchise agreement with WMI, adding new services and increasing franchise fees to the County. County staff has indicated a willingness to assist the cities in reviewing existing contracts and discussing service provision. Storm Drainage - Government Structure, Management Efficiencies, and Local Accountability This section considers management efficiency and local accountability as they relate to the provision of storm drainage services. Government structure issues are addressed on a citywide basis under the Housing and Community Development heading at the beginning of this subsection. Each city addresses storm drainage services incrementally as part of city review of new development with each city. Regional storm drainage planning is addressed in Section 4.3 of the MSR. Grass Valley – Storm drainage planning is handled in the Public Works Department. The City has done substantial planning for storm drainage, including a Stormwater Master Plan and the Master Services Element of the Sphere of Influence Plan. The existing government structure of the Public Works Department has allowed for acceptable current and long-range planning and maintenance of storm drainage facilities in Grass Valley. This structure is considered sufficient to continue to provide the City with this service, both in the existing city limits and in planned growth areas. MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW 4.1-33 NEVADA LAFCO WEST COUNTY GENERAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES Section 4.1 Grass Valley and Nevada City Provision of storm drainage planning services under the umbrella of a Public Works department is standard among cities and counties within California, and is generally taken to represent the most efficient organization of similar services related to local engineering services. This structure is efficient in organizing those individuals and programs involved in the planning, design, and maintenance of storm drainage facilities and plans. No recommendations are made herein for reorganization of the Public Works and Engineering Department of Grass Valley. Nevada City – Storm drainage planning services are also coordinated by the City Engineer, within the Public Works Department. The service is not considered particularly well organized or efficient. Contacts at Nevada County were unable to provide information regarding the County’s existing storm drain system and plans for service expansion. Minimal information about Nevada City’s storm drain system is available in its MSE. The department does not maintain a Stormwater Master Plan or other document setting long-range plans for the sufficiency of the system. While planning of this service has not been done to the degree as in surrounding areas, there do not appear to be viable options for reorganization within the City to make the service more efficient. Improved coordination with the City of Grass Valley and Nevada County, and optimally the adoption of a formal regional stormwater management planning process, would likely improve the planning efforts for storm drainage within the western portion of the county, but the provision of planning and maintenance coordination for this service is appropriately handled by the City Engineer. NEVADA LAFCO 4.1-34 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW WEST COUNTY GENERAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES Section 4.1 Grass Valley and Nevada City City Determinations: Government Structure, Management Efficiencies, and Local Accountability Based on the stated evaluation criteria set forth in the beginning of this section, LAFCo presents the following determinations regarding government structure of the general government service providers: 1. Departments in Grass Valley have undergone reorganizations within the past five years to facilitate better provision of general government services. 2. Staffing levels of the service providers considered herein are sufficient to meet demand for government services, with the exception of Nevada City community development. If Nevada City decides to maintain its existing internal structure, they should consider making the City Planner a full-time position or allocating staff time of other City staff to assist in planning activities. As structural change options, Nevada City may need to consider contracting out some planning and community development services to Nevada County or Grass Valley, or a private firm. Nevada City may also require the addition of sworn officers to meet desired levels of service, depending on population growth and funding allocation from the Nevada City Council. 3. The existing departmental structure (Council-Manager-Staff form) of the service providers considered in this report is appropriate for the type of services provided and departmental structure does not significantly and adversely affect the financial stability of the service providers. 4. Each of the service providers covered by this MSR has had the cost effectiveness of its operations analyzed recently as part of annual budgeting or other audit. All recommendations for reorganization of services or departments have been implemented, justifying the existing structure as efficient and appropriate. 5. The cities should continue making use of County resources such as the HCS, GIS tools and other services that the cities could not alone provide in an efficient manner. 6. Public safety providers should consider utilizing more sophisticated communication and analytical tools (such as GIS) as a means of refining and improving their delivery of services. 7. Nevada City’s housing, community development, and storm drainage services appear to require greater oversight and staff dedication to increase management efficiencies to an acceptable level. 8. Both cities conduct adequately noticed public hearings prior to decision-making, with appropriate provisions for public input and involvement. Each provider appears to MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW 4.1-35 NEVADA LAFCO WEST COUNTY GENERAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES Section 4.1 Grass Valley and Nevada City conduct meetings and activities consistent with the Brown Act, as well as other applicable State laws. 9. Grass Valley has made reasonable efforts to engage the public in its activities through the issuance of publications, placing of information on websites, and other means. Nevada City has a noted shortage of information available for the public with regards to matters relating to general government services. The development of brochures, construction of a city website, or other means is necessary to provide this information to the public. 10. The existing government structure of remaining service providers, beyond those mentioned above is sufficient to accommodate planned urban expansion of the municipalities and unincorporated county. NEVADA LAFCO 4.1-36 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW WEST COUNTY GENERAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES 4.2 County of Nevada This section of the MSR examines the manner in which Nevada County provides general government services. Much of the information relied upon for this section of the MSR is based on the County’s Capital Improvements Program (CIP) plans. These documents are available for public viewing at the Nevada County Government Center (located on Maidu Avenue in Nevada City). Nevada County provides not only the services reviewed in this report, but many others including Public Health, Human Services, Library, District Attorney, Child Support, Public Defender & Probation and more. Given this wide range of services and the fact that the funding levels for many of the services are not within the County’s discretion, the County must frequently prioritize services and balance competing needs for public funds. Infrastructure and Growth Infrastructure and growth analysis considers the ability of the County to meet projected population and service growth demands with existing and planned infrastructure. Population projections for the unincorporated portions of western Nevada County, as provided in Section 3 of this report, are provided below (note than the High Growth total is less than the Expected total due to the projection that the high growth population increases will occur mostly in the cities, thus reducing unincorporated area population). Table 4.2-1 Population Projections: Unincorporated Study Area Population of Unincorporated Area Western Nevada County Year Expected High 2007 58,957 59,095 2012 64,343 64,432 2017 70,214 70,068 2022 76,612 75,966 2027 83,586 82,073 Housing and Community Development – Infrastructure and Growth Housing and community development activities of the County occur within the Community Development Agency (CDA) and Human Services (HS) Agency. These agencies maintain no MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW 4.2-1 NEVADA LAFCO WEST COUNTY GENERAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES Section 4.2 County of Nevada significant infrastructure beyond the office spaces in which they operate. Space for the CDA, located within the Nevada County Government Center, is suitable in terms of location, although the current space may be insufficient for housing all the agency’s employees. During 2001 and 2002, the CDA “reengineered” both its human resources and physical space, creating a Permit Processing Center intended to facilitate transactions. Housing services have recently been reorganized to better coordinate with the County’s structure and to improve access for its clients. Energy and housing assistance are now provided by the HSA (Human Services Agency), while Economic Development and Community Development Block Grant administration is now handled by CDA. The Nevada County Sheriff’s Department will take over the space previously occupied by Housing and Community Services in the Nevada County Government Center. Accommodating planned population growth under the existing operational structure appears to be feasible. Growth rates within the unincorporated area are projected to remain steady, with annual growth in the two percent range. While some of the housing and community development services offered by the County will increase with the overall population, most of the services are related to growth rates. Thus, the ability of the Community Development and Human Services Agencies to meet service demands associated with growth will be based on their ability to accommodate the likely incremental increases in the number of development applications, increasing complexity of housing plans and reporting requirements, and related tasks associated with regular growth. Nevada County has restructured the CDA in 2002 to increase efficiency and provide services more effectively. This included a significant “reengineering” effort that is discussed in more detail later in this section, under the Management Efficiencies heading. The ongoing implementation of this program should help the CDA accommodate planned growth in service demands. Overall provision of housing and community development services are guided by long-range planning documents, beginning with the County General Plan, which guides development and designates areas for future growth. The Planning Department of the CDA is facilitating a technical update to the County’s General Plan, with an anticipated completion date in 2004. Planning Department staff will also be instrumental in completing the County’s Housing Element; the revision of the element is under review by the State as of April 2004. With these documents updated by 2004, is it likely that the County will be adequately prepared to provide continued housing and community development services to its residents. Transit – Infrastructure and Growth Most public transit services are provided by the Transit Services Division of DOTS, with paratransit services provided by a private non-profit agency (Gold Country Telecare), under contract to DOTS. Policy oversight is provided by a Transit Services Commission (TSC), established by a joint powers agreement among the three local governments in the area. Long- and short-range planning for transit is provided by the Nevada County Transportation Commission (NCTC) in cooperation with the Transit Services Division, and reflected in the NEVADA LAFCO 4.2-2 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW WEST COUNTY GENERAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES Section 4.2 County of Nevada Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and Transit Development Plan adopted and maintained by the NCTC. The two transit providers are Gold Country Stage and Gold Country Telecare. One measure of Gold Country Stage’s level of service is its passenger surveys. The Western Nevada County Transit Development Plan, May 1997, indicates that a passenger survey was conducted in late 1996 and early 1997. The survey found that 89 percent of passengers rated Gold Country Stage’s service as either “excellent” or “good”. In a related survey, 93 percent of Gold Country Telecare passengers rated the paratransit services they received as “excellent”. A secondary measure of service level is farebox return ratio. Each of these service levels are considered in greater detail under the Finance section of this analysis. Infrastructure for transit is considered good, and the improvements necessary to maintain the systems are included in the County CIP. Infrastructure for transit generally consists of the same infrastructure required for transportation and circulation, with additional infrastructure including vehicles, maintenance facilities, and storage and parking areas. Transit ridership is anticipated to increase generally at the same rate as overall population, and improvements to the infrastructure system to address the ridership increases are identified in the CIP. Although transit ridership is expected to increase with population, it is a matter of public policy as to whether the transit system should be expanded to accommodate projected increases. The Finance and Rate Restructuring section of this MSR considers the financial costs and expectations of continued transit operation and expansion, and addresses the current positions of the cities and County with regard to expansion of transit systems. Transportation and Circulation – Infrastructure and Growth Nevada County maintains a complex system of local roads, collectors, arterials, and freeways to facilitate the movement of vehicles within the county. A complete inventory of the roadways contained within the system can be found in the background report for the Nevada County General Plan, as well as digitally on the Geographic Information System (GIS) maintained by the County. The County, through coordination with the cities and the Nevada County Transportation Commission, has developed a series of necessary improvements and upgrades to transportation infrastructure that has been deemed necessary to ensure that roadways continue to operate at an acceptable level of service. These improvements include highway widenings, realignment of roadways, signalization of major intersections, and establishment of new roadway connections. These improvements are placed within five year timeframes, and incorporated into the County’s Capital Improvements Program (CIP) process. This allows for improvements to be allocated according to priority and budgeted in relation to monies available to the County for transportation improvements. The County makes the CIP available on its website at http://www.mynevadacounty.com, or in paper form at the Nevada County Government Center. Final decisions on the funding and construction of improvements lie with the Board of Supervisors. MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW 4.2-3 NEVADA LAFCO WEST COUNTY GENERAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES Section 4.2 County of Nevada Improvements to the transportation infrastructure within the unincorporated County are based on population projections set forth in the Nevada County General Plan, utilizing industry- accepted standards for increases in associated traffic and trip distribution. The population growth rates projected in the County’s General Plan are significantly higher than those projected in the FACET Model, which is the basis for consideration in this MSR. With likely population growth (according to the FACET Model) approximately 15-20 percent less than what was projected in the County’s General Plan, there appears to be ample planning for increased service demand on County roadways. Nevada County has adopted Level of Service (LOS) standards for County-maintained roadways1. Policy 4.1 of the County’s adopted Circulation Element indicates LOS C for rural roads, and LOS D for more urbanized “community regions.” Only a few roadways in the County’s jurisdiction fall below these standards, but one important roadway, Highway 49 between Placer County and Grass Valley, experiences LOS F during peak hours and is identified in the General Plan as “operating well beyond its capacity.” This roadway is a key circulation route for western Nevada County, connecting the most populated portions of the west County with Interstate 80 to the south. The DOTS is currently working with the Community Development Agency in updating the County’s Circulation Element as part of a broader General Plan update. This, along with regional planning efforts coordinated with the NCTC, should enable the County to accommodate increased traffic and transportation demands associated with planned growth. The County’s adopted RTP indicates that several intersections along SR 20/49 in both of the cities as well as the County will operate in the year 2020 at LOS D or better following implementation of mitigation measures. The process by which the County plans for necessary improvements and upgrades to county roadways is consistent with that of other area cities and counties, and is sufficient to ensure that the transportation infrastructure will continue to operate at an acceptable level of service. Public Safety and Animal Control – Infrastructure and Growth The Sheriff’s Department provides public safety and animal control services within unincorporated Nevada County. The Sheriff’s Department operates from the Nevada County Government Center, located in Nevada City. In addition, the Department owns or rents two satellite buildings for additional storage and operational space. The animal control services operate primarily from the animal shelter located on McCourtney Road. The Sheriff’s Department recognizes that there are operational difficulties associated with the location. Operational difficulties associated with the location of the department on the second floor of the Government Center make access to the offices difficult for the public outside of normal business hours, and the Department has stated a need to be located on the ground floor of a building for ease of officer access. Currently, funding is not available to construct a patrol facility that would address these operational difficulties, but it is anticipated that such a facility will be designed and constructed when funding becomes available. In the interim, the Sheriff’s 1 For a full explanation of what each Level of Service (LOS) represents, refer to Appendix B: Glossary of Terms. NEVADA LAFCO 4.2-4 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW WEST COUNTY GENERAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES Section 4.2 County of Nevada Department is expected to gain office space adjacent to its current location when the Housing and Community Services programs and staff are relocated. The State of California has adopted guidelines for necessary square footage of area needed for executive, professional, and administrative State workers, known as State Space Allowance Standards. Nevada County has recently considered adoption of similar work-space guidelines. It is difficult to utilize the State’s standards for sheriff’s department needs, since many of the workers within the department conduct their primary duties outside of offices, and the department has many shift workers which are not utilizing the facilities at the same time. These conditions result in a much lower space needs determination than strict application of the space allocation standards would indicate (use of the state standards would require 47,000 square feet). The Department currently has approximately 8,700 square feet of usable space. Discussions with Human Resources and Sheriff’s department staff indicate that, although 47,000 square feet of space is not necessary to meet current and projected needs, the existing 8,700 square feet of space is not sufficient to accommodate necessary departmental activities. With the planned expansion into the former Housing and Community Services space, overall square footage will increase to approximately 11,200 square feet. Neither the State standards nor the proposed standards currently under consideration were used in preliminary redesigning efforts for the Sheriff’s space. While neither the public safety nor the animal control functions of the Sheriff’s Department have adopted formal levels of service, both interact extensively with the public. The Nevada County Sheriff’s Department provides approximately one sworn officer per 1,117 residents of the unincorporated portions of Nevada County. This ratio includes only sworn officers to service area population. Ratios for law enforcement personnel are debated internally within the law enforcement community, with no agreed-upon figure for all cities and counties. National statistics are available for the number of officers per thousand population. For larger communities (of over 10,000), the west coast average is 1.8 officers per thousand persons. This may be a reasonable ratio to apply to Nevada County as well as to the two cities. Additional population growth in the unincorporated county will further exacerbate this shortage of officers. As discussed above, the patrol and administrative divisions of the Sheriff’s Department have outgrown their space within the Nevada County Administrative Center. The ability of the Sheriff's Department to accommodate population growth will be dependent upon its ability to increase staff to better meet desired service standards. Among the service-related goals for the Animal Control Division, there is a goal to increase the number of dogs licensed, as well as a related goal to increase enforcement actions for compliance with regulations by the same deadline. Complementing these goals is another approach to reduce the euthanasia rate by increasing pet adoptions. An additional significant issue for the Animal Control Division is its physical plant. Animal Control staff, in response to survey questions addressing the adequacy of space needs, indicates that there is enough space within which it can provide ongoing service, but the available office space for staff is not adequately separated from kennel space, which can be noisy and disruptive. The Space Allocation Standards are difficult to apply to animal shelter facilities as the nature of need (noise separation) is not adequately considered in determination of space allocation under the adopted standards. MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW 4.2-5 NEVADA LAFCO WEST COUNTY GENERAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES Section 4.2 County of Nevada Overall, it is reasonable to state that the animal control services of the County are sufficiently organized and planned to accommodate planned expansion and growth. NEVADA LAFCO 4.2-6 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW WEST COUNTY GENERAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES Section 4.2 County of Nevada Solid Waste – Infrastructure and Growth Solid waste collection, disposal, and other related services are provided by the County and by each of the cities. Each jurisdiction has individual agreements with a private company, Waste Management, Inc. (WMI), to provide waste and recyclable collection and processing services. The ability of the County to provide continued solid waste services is not directly related to projected growth rates. Collection and disposal services are provided, per contract, by WMI, and legal diversion and reporting requirements are the same regardless of population size or change. Infrastructure and growth needs will not vary based on projected growth rates, but will be affected more by changes in local and State laws. Recycling and diversion programs are independently coordinated by the County through planning documents and regulatory measures, requiring no infrastructure beyond office space and typical office equipment. The major solid waste infrastructure within Nevada County is the County-operated McCourtney Road Transfer Station (a converted landfill). At the McCourtney facility, waste and recyclables from the cities and the Western County are processed and redirected to appropriate facilities – either out-of-county landfills or reuse/recycling facilities. As of 2003, there are no operational landfills, public or private, within Nevada County. Waste is instead shipped to landfills in San Joaquin, Yuba, Sutter, Solano, and Placer counties, with some hazardous wastes shipped to a secondary transfer station in Marin County.2 County DOTS is also responsible for ongoing maintenance of other closed public landfills within the county. The Solid Waste Division does not have an internal adopted level of service for its waste collection and diversion services, but one has been set forth in State legislation. AB 939, adopted by the California Legislature in 1989, required that California jurisdictions achieve a waste diversion (i.e., recycling) rate of at least 50 percent by the year 2000. As of 2002 figures, Nevada County has not yet achieved a 50 percent waste diversion rate. The County’s diversion rate peaked at 48 percent in 1998, but fell to 43 percent in 2000. The Solid Waste Division is working with the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB) on determining the diversion rate for the current year. Increasing the waste diversion rate and meeting the requirements of AB 939 will continue to be a significant issue for the Solid Waste Division. Toward this end, the County hired a recycling coordinator in 2002 and developed a five-year recycling plan. In addition, the County renegotiated its franchise agreement with Waste Management, Inc. to increase diversion of woody materials and increase curbside recycling of assorted materials. This indicates that the County is committed to ensuring that solid waste services will be improved in a manner consistent with State law. Storm Drainage – Infrastructure and Growth 2 California Integrated Waste Management Board; 2002 Waste Stream Profiles. MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW 4.2-7 NEVADA LAFCO WEST COUNTY GENERAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES Section 4.2 County of Nevada Storm drainage planning within unincorporated areas is a responsibility of the Engineering Division of the Nevada County DOTS. Largely rural, unincorporated areas of Nevada County have few areas served by any storm drain more complex than a box culvert leading directly into a local waterway. DOTS funds storm drain creation and maintenance through its budgets for road reconstruction and maintenance - storm drain costs are not separately called out. The unincorporated county does not have a significant storm drainage system in place. Most properties and developments within the county utilize surface drainage to remove excess water from the ground, rather than drainage pipes or other such infrastructure. Newer developments are required to provide onsite detention in all critical drainage areas, maintained by property owners indefinitely. New developments are reviewed to ensure that no additional increase in discharge is made as a result of the development. The County’s few facilities and infrastructure are overseen by the Department of Transportation and Sanitation (DOTS). Design of necessary storm drainage facilities is determined on a project-by-project basis, with requirements in place that call for each new development to illustrate how it will drain properties. This approach is consistent with the requirements in most rural areas. As new developments are proposed, these requirements will continue to be applicable. This system of provision allows for population growth called for in County projections. Maintenance of these existing culverts is budgeted and planned as part of the Capital Improvements Program. Because of the large lot sizes associated with unincorporated development, there is not likely to be a significant need for large new storm drainage facilities that will require significant maintenance. Individual developments are required to show that they effectively drain surface water from their properties, and must evaluate impacts on regional waterways. While this method of planning for long-term storm drainage infrastructure is not optimal, it is sufficient to ensure that storm drainage will occur in a manner consistent with the standards for such service within the county. NEVADA LAFCO 4.2-8 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW WEST COUNTY GENERAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES Section 4.2 County of Nevada County Determinations: Infrastructure and Growth Based on analysis of the existing and planned infrastructure for each of the general government services provided by the County, the following written determinations are presented. 1. The County Sheriff’s Department reports a need for additional and/or reconfigured space for its policing and animal control functions. The Department is expected to gain some space for administrative services within the Nevada County Government Center following the 2004 reorganization of Housing and Community Services, but has no current plan to remodel its animal control facility. 2. With the possible exception of Planning and Community Development, facilities are generally adequate to accommodate current and anticipated future operations of the remaining general government services studied, including Public Transit, Solid Waste and Storm Drainage Planning. 3. The County would benefit from the development and adoption of standardized work- space guidelines to improve the agency’s capital facilities planning and to ensure adequate work-space to all departments. 4. Western Nevada County has adequate facilities for the planning of transportation facilities, but the urban transportation network itself presently appears to remain inadequate to address both current and anticipated demand. The Regional Transportation Plan identifies planned improvements designed to ensure the rural transportation network will be adequate to meet projected demand. 5. At 0.90 officers per thousand population, the Nevada County Sheriff’s Department is currently operating below industry-accepted levels of service with regard to officer to population ratios. 6. Staffing levels at the housing and community development departments have recently been reduced and should be reexamined to ensure they are sufficient to allow for the provision of adequate levels of service to new growth areas. 7. The adequacy of planning for stormwater facilities is not sufficient to address potential effects associated with growth of the cities and adjacent areas. Nevada City has acknowledged flooding issues for which planning documents have not identified potential solutions or costs, while Grass Valley is impacted by drainage received from developments and areas outside its planning jurisdiction. Thus the County needs to engage in a collaborative effort with Nevada City and Grass Valley to develop a regional stormwater management plan and funding program. Further expansion of the cities will only intensify the need for such a plan. MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW 4.2-9 NEVADA LAFCO WEST COUNTY GENERAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES Section 4.2 County of Nevada 8. Current plans, policies, and procedures for the other subject services, including Planning and Community Development, Public Safety and Animal Control, Transportation and Circulation Planning, Public Transit, and Solid Waste are sufficient to allow for accommodation of planned growth. 9. Capital improvement plans are used to plan for major outlays, with specialized transportation and public transit planning through the Transportation Commission’s RTP and TDP process. NEVADA LAFCO 4.2-10 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW WEST COUNTY GENERAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES Section 4.2 County of Nevada Cost Avoidance and Facilities Sharing This section highlights current cost avoidance and facilities sharing agreements and, where applicable, identifies additional such opportunities that may assist in meeting increases in service demand. Cost avoidance strategies are considered in light of necessary service requirements and expectations, such that only methods of reducing costs which do not adversely affect service levels are considered. Facilities sharing considerations are also made with regard to service levels, as well as legal and physical constraints which may limit the ability of the County or individual departments to share facilities to avoid costs. The purchasing and budgeting policies of the County are based on typical jurisdictional structure and largely conform to standard practices of public agencies, stipulating requirements for competitive bidding procedures and setting forth cost thresholds for the approval of purchases. The County adopts an annual budget, undergoes annual independent financial audits, and prepares capital improvements plans. Nevada County has a purchasing agent within the County’s office of General Services, whose role is to ensure compliance with County purchasing policies, with the intent of avoiding unforeseen costs. The County has established price thresholds over which executive or legislative approval is required as a means of providing additional cost scrutiny for relatively large purchases. Further, the County and its two cities, along with area school districts, have been working together through Nevada County General Services to make bulk purchases of some commodities (paper, office supplies, etc.). As a potentially less direct means of cost savings, Nevada County has “local preference” policies that give favor to bidders/merchants from the immediate vicinity. Although not immediately or always cost-saving, local business preferences can have time and cost savings, particularly on projects requiring interaction between the jurisdiction and the contractor over a long period of time. Housing and Community Development - Cost Avoidance and Facilities Sharing Nevada County shares resources with Grass Valley and Nevada City by providing each with contract services related to housing and community development activities. Included among the shared services are building inspection, code enforcement, GIS services, and some planning functions. The County does not appear to have significant opportunities to reduce costs further within its housing and community development functions, either through facilities sharing or use of other management or policy tools. MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW 4.2-11 NEVADA LAFCO WEST COUNTY GENERAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES Section 4.2 County of Nevada Transit - Cost Avoidance and Facilities Sharing Public transit services are provided by Nevada County (via Gold Country Stage and the Transit Division of the County Department of Transportation and Sanitation), in coordination with the Nevada County Transportation Commission. The Transit Development Plan (TDP) provides a blueprint for the development and improvement of transit and paratransit services in western Nevada County. The TDP is a broad-based policy and financial planning document that helps establish transit priorities in terms of service and acquisitions. The TDP is developed cooperatively by the Transit Division and the Nevada County Transportation Division (usually utilizing an outside consultant to lead the project). An anticipated cost avoidance policy for the Transit Division is the modification of routes to better capture potential users, along with the potential elimination of unproductive routes. This has been an ongoing policy of the Transit Division; some route changes and schedule changes were implemented in 2003/04. A secondary cost avoidance policy is the use of a private provider of paratransit services. The Transit Division has contracted with Gold Country Telecare, Inc., for the provision of paratransit services. Gold Country Telecare, Inc., itself avoids costs through the use of volunteer drivers who use their own vehicles to provide some paratransit service. A more proactive means of cost avoidance is the selection and upkeep of the transit fleet. The Transit Division continually seeks to utilize the most cost-effective and environmentally friendly buses and fleet vehicles. Several of the County’s buses run on compressed natural gas (CNG); which was originally intended to provide higher quality service at lower cost and lower environmental cost (less pollution). However, these vehicles must be refueled midday (unlike diesel buses) and have experienced operational difficulties during Nevada County’s typical very hot summer weather. Although the County may phase out CNG buses if the reliability issues cannot be resolved, their use involves both cost avoidance and facilities sharing practice. Rather than invest in building its own CNG refueling facility, the County has made arrangements with PG&E to use an existing CNG pump at a PG&E maintenance facility in Grass Valley. In 2002, public transit functions were brought under the umbrella of the Nevada County Department of Transportation and Sanitation (DOTS). This reorganization enables transit employees to work closely with DOTS administration and engineering. The Transit Services Division continues to explore options to reduce costs through improved scheduling of personnel and privatization of specific functions. In January 2004, the TSD began contracting with Gold Country Telecare for the provision of Route 9 evening service, resulting in lower costs and improved farebox recovery. NEVADA LAFCO 4.2-12 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW WEST COUNTY GENERAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES Section 4.2 County of Nevada Transportation and Circulation - Cost Avoidance and Facilities Sharing Nevada County develops capital improvement plans for transportation projects within their jurisdiction. Given the typical large cost of transportation improvements, a careful planning process is a crucial means of cost avoidance. The County, cities, and NCTC cooperatively develop plans and programs for transportation improvements of regional importance. The NCTC is composed of city and county representatives, who jointly produce a Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) for submission to the California Transportation Commission (CTC) and Caltrans. The RTP is meant to be an exhaustive statement of transportation policies and funding plans to address both short and long term priorities on a regional basis. The Department of Transportation and Sanitation, which oversees transportation and circulation activities of the County, is located within the Government Center, along with other County departments. This centralization of space allows for some cost avoidance through sharing of building space and related efficacies in operation (ease of cross-departmental meetings and activities, parking, office equipment, etc.). The DOTS is not known to participate in any additional cost avoidance or facilities sharing arrangements. Public Safety and Animal Control - Cost Avoidance and Facilities Sharing Public safety and animal control services constitute a relatively large portion of the Nevada County budget. As public safety services in general constitute such relatively large proportions of county budgets, cost avoidance and facilities sharing issues have relatively great weight. These considerations must be balanced, however, with the essential need for public safety services. This section reviews cost avoidance and facilities sharing issues of the sheriff’s department functions in the County; fire and emergency service reviews are contained in a separate Municipal Service Review. Animal control facilities are also discussed below. In Nevada County, the Sheriff’s Department provides public safety and animal control services within the unincorporated county. In fiscal 2003-2004, 14.4 percent of total expenditures of County government (including state- and federal-funded programs) are for public safety. The police/sheriff’s offices of the three jurisdictions share facilities and resources to differing degrees. The County and cities have mutual aid agreements with each other as well as with other law enforcement agencies, particularly the California Highway Patrol, as well as State and federal agencies who become involved in local law enforcement matters. Such mutual aid agreements can provide needed back up or emergency coverage when conditions warrant. While this could be seen as a negative/inefficient overlapping of services, these agreements help ensure that an appropriate level of police services can be provided at any time. Another means of lowering the costs of providing services is the use of volunteers. The Nevada County Sheriff reports the use of volunteers in several functions, including patrols, search and rescue operations, traffic control, courier service, and civil process service. MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW 4.2-13 NEVADA LAFCO WEST COUNTY GENERAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES Section 4.2 County of Nevada The Sheriff’s Department is currently headquartered at the Nevada County Government Center. Some offices of the Sheriff’s Department are housed in additional satellite facilities (in addition to corrections, coroner’s office, and animal control buildings), but its main administrative functions are housed at the Nevada County Government Center. The Department is expected to expand into the space vacated by the Housing and Community Services Agency in 2004. A variety of other departments are housed in the Government Center, sharing the facilities and allowing for cost reductions by minimizing independent spaces. A cost avoidance strategy utilized by County animal control includes attempts to increase the percentage of licensed pets (particularly dogs); so as to help offset the costs of providing service. The County also charges fees for the provision of animal control services. Animal control services at the County also avoid costs through the extensive use of volunteers. The County’s animal shelter operates with a paid staff of eight and about thirty volunteers. The use of volunteers enables the County shelter to provide much a higher level of service than the mere use of funded positions. Further consolidation of animal control services between the two cities and the County could represent a possible cost savings opportunity, allowing for streamlining of activities, equipment, and operations. Because animal control activities do not have fees and other income sufficient to cover operational costs, the party assuming control of the service would need to receive funding from the jurisdiction abdicating the service. The County should engage in discussions with the City of Grass Valley regarding the consolidation of this service. Solid Waste - Cost Avoidance and Facilities Sharing Most recycling and diversion programs are independently coordinated by the cities and the County through planning documents and regulatory measures. There are no major opportunities for cost reduction or facilities sharing for either city in the provision of this service. Note that rates assessed by Waste Management Inc. to residents and businesses within the unincorporated County were renegotiated by the County and WMI in 2003, which resulted in an increase in services provided for similar cost. This represents a direct cost savings in that County residents can now receive curbside recycling services at no additional cost, reducing off- site costs previously associated with recycling. Storm Drainage - Cost Avoidance and Facilities Sharing Storm drainage systems are intended to divert or otherwise move stormwater into detention basins, rivers, creeks, or other areas in which the waters do not pose a risk to structures or persons. These systems can be interdependent, depending on the location of multiple systems within one drainage basin. Facilities sharing possibilities related to the provision of storm drainage services within the county include administrative sharing of office space or equipment, interconnectivity with storm water drainage systems operated by other jurisdictions or agencies, and sharing of detention areas. Cost avoidance measures considered in this analysis include NEVADA LAFCO 4.2-14 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW WEST COUNTY GENERAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES Section 4.2 County of Nevada the ability to provide the service at lower costs through reduction in staffing or administrative cost, potential reductions in cost associated with contracting the service out to another agency or private company, and other measures which can be taken to reduce expenditures related to this service without adverse affecting levels of service. The unincorporated county does not have a significant storm drainage system in place. Most existing properties and developments within the county utilize surface drainage to remove excess water from the ground, rather than drainage pipes or other such infrastructure. Newer developments are required to provide onsite detention in all critical drainage areas, maintained by property owners indefinitely. New developments are reviewed to ensure that no additional increase in discharge is made as a result of the development. There are some miscellaneous box culverts and other facilities maintained by the County DOTS. Because the system is generally composed of grading and surface drainage or detention solutions, there are no significant opportunities available to reduce costs through connectivity or sharing with other systems. Administration of the system is done by the County DOTS, which has staff cross- trained to provide oversight of this service in addition to other engineering and public works services. Administrative spaces are shared within the County Government Center building, and there are no additional opportunities for sharing facilities related to this service. Maintenance of these existing culverts is budgeted and planned as part of the Capital Improvements Program. Maintenance of individual detention basins on private properties are required to be maintained by property owners. The County currently funds improvements through allocations from the General Fund. While not a reduction in cost, the County may consider the imposition of impact fees (AB 1600 fees) to offset costs associated with new construction of storm drainage improvements. This would allow for regional or basinwide improvements to be made, with costs shared by new development. Such fees would not add any direct costs to the County (as costs would be borne by developers), but has the potential to increase the overall level of service within the County. There are no other identified opportunities for cost avoidance or facilities sharing related to the provision of storm drainage services within the County. MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW 4.2-15 NEVADA LAFCO WEST COUNTY GENERAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES Section 4.2 County of Nevada County Determinations: Cost Avoidance and Facilities Sharing Based on analysis of the services provided by the County, the following determinations are presented to reduce overall costs and improve facilities sharing among departments providing services. 1. The County undergoes thorough budgeting processes as a means to avoid unnecessary costs. Departments have enacted purchasing policies of various degrees of complexity to ensure that significant purchases are made efficiently and without unnecessary cost. 2. To better address planning and community development concerns within County administered areas that fall within a city’s adopted or proposed sphere of influence, a more collaborative approach appears necessary to ensure that development is consistent with all relevant community plans – as well as to ensure that city and county plans are not in conflict. 3. Nevada County should consider assessing the potential benefits of consolidating animal control services with the cities. While existing structures are present to provide services efficiently, there may exist opportunities for cost savings by consolidating the service between the two jurisdictions. 4. Increasing fees on public transit may lead to a decrease in usage and a reduced farebox recovery ratio. Public transit service can avoid unnecessary costs through the periodic elimination of unproductive routes and the use of efficient fleet vehicles. 5. Unnecessary costs are avoided in transportation and circulation planning through the cooperative development of a Regional Transportation Plan and Transit Development Plans. 6. Several of the service providers share facilities, finances, and personnel resources among departments. Detailed cost-benefit analysis would be necessary as a precursor to further sharing, consolidation, or centralization of services, including joint storm drainage planning among the cities and Nevada County. 7. The County has improved service levels and reduced costs (by increasing county income) associated with the provision of solid waste services, through its 2003 update to the solid waste franchise agreement with WMI. NEVADA LAFCO 4.2-16 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW WEST COUNTY GENERAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES Section 4.2 County of Nevada Financing and Rate Restructuring Over the last few fiscal years, total county revenue has exceeded total expenditures. The County ended fiscal 2000-2001 with nearly $4.8 million in reserves, equal to about 5 percent of all expenses. As such, the County fund equity balance has grown over the last few years. It would appear that the County is in good financial health and capable of maintaining its public services generally. However, this situation may change, as the grim fiscal situation in 2004- 2005 is anticipated to challenge the resources of the County as well as the cities It is important to note that the County, along with all counties and cities in California, is heavily dependent on funds passed down from the State to local governments. Changes in the allocation of these funds, as well as changes in tax structure, have the potential to impact the County significantly. Annual changes at the State level may impact future funding decisions of the County, and alter projected expenditures for individual departments and the County as a whole. Fees are a major source of financing for most County departments, and fees are set in a variety of ways. Some fees are set according to legal requirements (State-designated); others are set at projected actual costs of service provision. Still others are based on promotion of compliance, in which fees are set at an artificially low level to promote use of the service offered. Each has a valid basis, and thus the consideration of fees takes into account the basis for establishment of each fee, in addition to its fiscal impacts on the department or service level. Refer to service-specific sections below for more detailed information. Housing and Community Development – Financing and Rate Restructuring Neither the county nor the cities under review have any fees directly related to the provision of housing services or the provision of affordable housing (so called “affordable housing” or “housing in-lieu” fees). The lack of affordable housing is a regional (and statewide) issue, relevant to all jurisdictions in western Nevada County. Both the County and the cities are required to show their ability to accommodate and facilitate affordable housing as part of the Housing Element of their General Plans. The Housing Element must be updated every five years. The cities have each updated their Housing Elements within the last 18 months, and the County’s updated Housing Element is still under review by the State as of April 2004. The costs of providing land use planning services are offset in part by fees on development or other applications. Fees for the services of the Nevada County Community Development Agency (CDA) were restructured in 2000 and 2001 in an effort to tie them more closely to the actual costs of providing services3. These costs contain both a static base component and an hourly component to be paid if work on the project exceeds a determined amount of staff time. 3 An additional revision to CDA fees occurred in March 2004, but is not analyzed in this MSR. MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW 4.2-17 NEVADA LAFCO WEST COUNTY GENERAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES Section 4.2 County of Nevada Total user fees for the County Planning Department were anticipated to be $411,829 in FY 02- 03, nearly a tenfold increase in actual user fees collected during FY 99-00. Notably, fiscal year 2002-2003 adopted budgets for Nevada County (as well as for Nevada City and Grass Valley) indicate that projected fee-based revenues for planning service do not nearly cover planning related expenses. County fees for services appear to equal about 29 percent of operating revenue. The County last revised its fee schedule in 2002. Transit – Financing and Rate Restructuring Public transit services are provided by Nevada County through the County Department of Transportation and Sanitation, in coordination with the Nevada County Transportation Commission. Nevada City and Grass Valley participate in a joint powers agreement to fund transit services. This agreement gives the cities input in the operation of both fixed-route and paratransit services. Public transit revenues include several federal and State sources plus a share of County sales tax revenue and user fees (bus fares). The farebox return ratio has varied between 12 and 18 percent in the last several years. Since most transit users are lower income and thus cost- sensitive, public transit providers typically try to avoid fare increases unless critical. Notably, no County general fund revenue is used for public transit services. The financial opportunities for public transit include ongoing attention to federal and State funding sources, increases in bus fares, or decreases in unproductive portions of the public transit system (i.e., routes with comparatively less usage). However, the last two options could have negative service implications. Many transit providers sell advertising space on their fleet vehicles as a means of revenue enhancement. The Transit Services Division is exploring the potential for on-board advertising to provide additional revenue for Gold Country Stage, and Gold Country Telecare has already implemented a program to sell advertising space on its vehicles. It is likely that only modest advertising revenue would likely result from implementation of an advertising sales program. Transportation and Circulation – Financing and Rate Restructuring Regionally, the County, the two cities, and the Nevada County Transportation Commission (NCTC) jointly adopt a Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). The RTP is a consolidated fiscal and policy planning document that has both short- and long-term outlooks. Both regional and local transportation projects are funded with a mixture of federal, State, and local funds. In addition to the federal and State funds that are typically available to most jurisdictions, Nevada County (as well as the two cities) has developed and implemented a Regional Traffic Mitigation Fee (known as the RTMF), applicable to new commercial, industrial, and residential development. This applies to projects within both cities and the county. A nexus study was completed to justify the amount of the fee, and annual updates are undertaken to ensure that the fee is appropriate to the improvements it will fund. NEVADA LAFCO 4.2-18 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW WEST COUNTY GENERAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES Section 4.2 County of Nevada The institution of this fee has augmented revenue sources available for transportation improvements countywide. The RTMF has been distributed to different areas on the basis of usage of regional facilities. The County may elect in the future to change the RTMF as conditions warrant, and does so as part of an annual review process. The intent of this fee, according to the NCTC, is to ensure that growth fully mitigates its direct and cumulative traffic impacts. The amount of the fee is calibrated depending upon the location of the new development. Public Safety and Animal Control – Financing and Rate Restructuring The single greatest area of expense associated with provision of public safety and animal control, as provided by the County Sheriff, is salaries and benefits. Among the three public safety providers under review in this report (Grass Valley, Nevada City as well as the County), expenditures on salaries and benefits comprise between 79 percent and 85 percent of all public safety expenses. County public safety services (police, animal control, fire safety, and emergency services) are largely financed through general fund revenues. Other revenue for the Sheriff includes supplemental grants and fees for permits and licenses. Although there are potential opportunities to increase funding for public safety through increased fees and more aggressive applications for law enforcement related grants, the most significant opportunity to help police services finance the improvements associated with new development would appear to be the adoption of an AB 1600 fee, as the cities have done. AB 1600 fees, as previously noted, cannot be used to meet existing needs, but can be used to offset costs of new infrastructure and service. Solid Waste – Financing and Rate Restructuring Solid waste services, including waste hauling and disposal, as well as recycling collection and processing have been contracted by the County and two cities to Waste Management, Inc. Rates charged in individual homes and businesses are listed in Table 4.1-1, in the previous Chapter. Overall, rates charged to county residents and businesses were negotiated in 2003 by the County, resulting in an increase in the County’s franchise fee and a significant increase in services provided for the existing rates. Nevada County has a Solid and Hazardous Waste Committee which reviews fee structures of DOTS, including solid waste fees. This committee has developed a uniform standard for data and methodology of fees. Fee adjustments are required to go before this Committee prior to adoption. All Nevada County residents and businesses that opt to be served by Waste Management pay that company monthly fees for the collection and transport of waste and recyclables. According MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW 4.2-19 NEVADA LAFCO WEST COUNTY GENERAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES Section 4.2 County of Nevada to Solid Waste Division Manager4, only about half of the western Nevada County residents (inclusive of both incorporated and unincorporated areas) opt to be served by Waste Management, choosing instead to self-haul waste and recyclables to the County’s transfer station. Self-haul customers pay the County a tonnage fee for all waste destined for disposal. Separately, regardless of self-haul status, all County residents and businesses in all jurisdictions are assessed a parcel charge on County property tax bills. This charge is intended to cover the costs of landfill conversions countywide, solid waste related bonded debt, and fees to dispose of waste in landfills outside the county. The parcel charge does not contribute to any waste collection services. The County charges other rates and fees for miscellaneous hazardous waste disposal and recycling programs, which are overseen by the Solid and Hazardous Waste Committee. Many of these fees are state-mandated, while others are set based on projected or known costs. Storm Drainage – Financing and Rate Restructuring Nevada County does not appear to have a dedicated funding source for the storm drain systems it requires in new developments. New developments are required to install and maintain, in perpetuity, onsite detention facilities, which should preclude the need to expend significant County funds on maintenance and repair. Storm drainage improvements undertaken by the County are financed as a roadway maintenance expense through DOTS. The majority of storm drain improvements are financed privately as part of new development improvements. 4 Steve Porter, Personal Communication, August 2003. NEVADA LAFCO 4.2-20 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW WEST COUNTY GENERAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES Section 4.2 County of Nevada County Determinations: Finance and Rate Restructuring Based on the stated evaluation criteria set forth in the beginning of this section, LAFCo presents the following determinations regarding finances of the general government service providers: 1. Through the annual budget, the County sets spending priorities and tracks agency assets and liabilities. The County has in place purchasing policies intended to avoid unnecessary costs (the effectiveness of such policies in meeting this objective was not assessed). 2. Planning, public safety and public transit are relatively labor-intensive services, whereas the other services under review (transportation and circulation, solid waste, and storm drain planning) are more infrastructure intensive. 3. Nevada County should consider adoption of development impact fees as a partial means of better accommodating future growth. The County, as well as the other land use jurisdictions, must approach affordable housing on a regional level. 4. Community development services appear to be the most able to use service fees to recapture the cost of delivering services. County Planning services do not generate fees sufficient to cover staff costs. 5. User fees should, where feasible, be closely tied to the actual cost of providing service. “Flat” fees set too low or too high can have several negative implications, such as insufficient revenue and/or legal action. 6. The Regional Traffic Mitigation Fee (RTMF) is a reasonable and appropriate method of addressing regional transportation improvement needs. A nexus study has been completed to justify the fee assessment, and annual updates to the fee are made, through consultation among jurisdictions and the NCTC. However, it is not clear that the RTMF is adequate to provide funds for the timely construction of new circulation facilities, given the predicted future levels of service and improvements required. 7. Nevada County, as well as the cities, must often revise many of its financing decisions after budgetary issues with the State are finalized. Changes at the State level, including allocation of property tax dollars, changes to the Education Revenue Augmentation Fund (ERAF) and Vehicle License Fee (VLF), and others have the potential to significantly affect departmental and countywide financing of planned improvements and upgrades. MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW 4.2-21 NEVADA LAFCO WEST COUNTY GENERAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES Section 4.2 County of Nevada Government Structure, Management Efficiencies, and Local Accountability Nevada County operates with a five-member governing body, elected from districts, who appoint a County Executive Officer (CEO). The CEO, in turn, oversees individual departments. This style of governmental operation is similar to many cities and counties in California, and is generally accepted as an efficient and economical organizational structure for providing county functions. All departments in Nevada County, including those under review here (the Community Development Agency, Housing and Community Services Agency, all branches of the County Sheriff’s office, Department of Transportation and Sanitation, including the Public Transit, Solid Waste, and Engineering and Administration Divisions), annually set a series of performance measures against which that department’s actual performance is evaluated. These goals and performance measures are interwoven into the County’s annual budget process, so both fiscal and more qualitative performance measures can be evaluated side-by-side. All of these documents are available on the Nevada County website by individual department. A person interested in reviewing the performance of a specific department or division need not go through an entire document; individual department reports are readily available. Housing and Community Development – Government Structure, Management Efficiencies, and Local Accountability Government Structure Housing services were recently reorganized, and are now divided between the Community Development Agency (Economic Development and Community Development Block Grant administration) and the Human Services Agency (Energy and Housing assistance). This structural change occurred in an effort to improve access to affordable housing services to the County’s clients. It is also anticipated that HCS will again be restructured in 2004 to accommodate the Agricultural Commissioner’s Office. Planning and building services are performed by the Community Development Agency (CDA). The CDA was formed in 1997 as a consolidation of multiple departments. While further restructuring options could be considered in this study, it has not been shown that significant structural problems exist that will not be rectified by this recent reorganization (although some operational deficiencies have been found to exist, as described below). No recommendation is therefore made to alter this structure at this time. Management Efficiencies While no structural changes are recommended, several operational issues were identified during a review of various services by a Nevada County Grand Jury. The Code Compliance division was singled out for scrutiny in a 2002 report by the Nevada County Grand Jury. Among the Grand Jury’s findings were that the division was understaffed, that the division’s policy of acting only on complaints received was problematic, and that there was poor communication NEVADA LAFCO 4.2-22 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW WEST COUNTY GENERAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES Section 4.2 County of Nevada between the Community Development Agency and the County Assessor regarding information about non-permitted structures. In a report dated May 20, 2003, the Grand Jury found that the County as a whole was not taking adequate steps to ensure and facilitate the provision of affordable housing. The Grand Jury’s recommendations include: • The County should provide general fund support to HCS (the Agency has had to search for grant funding since the Board of Supervisors created the Agency in 1991) • The County should take a proactive role in gaining community support for affordable housing projects, including overcoming “NIMBY” attitudes • The County should consider a regional housing authority These issues indicate some options for internal restructuring to better provide housing services, especially the instruction of the Grand Jury to consider the creation of a regional housing authority (understanding, however, that creation of such an authority may require General Fund support). Up-to-date planning documents are one measure of the management efficiency of these planning functions. The Nevada County General Plan and Housing Element were last updated in 1996. Both are under revision as of 2003, and the Housing Element is in the final stages of its update, having been approved by the State Department of Housing and Community Development. The County, in a formal response dated September 3, 2003, addressed many of the conclusions and analyses found in the Grand Jury report, including clarification of existing policies and procedures. With regards to housing and community development activities, the County specifically cited its existing affordable housing stance. The County has indicated that it currently has land use policies which require a 10 percent inclusionary housing (for low-income residents) dedication for all subdivisions of greater than 20 units, as well as various policies (density bonuses, deferred mitigation fees, and waiver of design requirements) intended to promote higher-density multi-family housing. The County currently offers fee reductions for affordable housing projects if funds are available to offset the reduction without impacting the General Fund. Historically, these offsetting funds have come from CDBG allocations. While such funds are not always available, the County has added a position within Housing Services to write and administer grants, in the hope that additional funding sources can be found to increase the number and amount of fee waivers available for affordable housing developers. Beginning in 2002, Nevada County community development services underwent a significant “reengineering” process which was largely intended to improve the delivery of planning and building services. The County created a Permit Processing Center, staffed by members of the several different divisions of the CDA. This process was implemented in an effort to expedite the permitting process for the general public as well as to make more efficient use of CDA personnel. The reengineering resulted in significant shifting of CDA personnel and budgets within its divisions. It would be appropriate for the CDA to continue to monitor the implementation of the reengineering process to ascertain whether it can continue to achieve its goals. The County also utilizes detailed websites to provide the general public with answers to frequently asked questions and to make planning and building processes more transparent and MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW 4.2-23 NEVADA LAFCO WEST COUNTY GENERAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES Section 4.2 County of Nevada understandable. The CDA frequently publishes and distributes a newsletter to make the agency’s more frequent users aware of important issues and changes as they occur. Both of these practices require investments of staff time, but can reduce the need for counter personnel if the public is able to and chooses to make heavy use of the electronically available material. Another issue noted in consultation with the cities of Grass Valley and Nevada City was a perceived lack of coordination and planning within the cities’ SOI areas. To address this issue, the County has agreed to begin monthly staff-level meetings with the cities to resolve General Plan inconsistencies and address regional issues of affordable housing, traffic, and special development areas. Local Accountability The County Board of Supervisors and its appointed County Planning Commission make decisions regarding planning and community development within the unincorporated areas of the county. The Nevada County Planning Commission reviews and recommends actions to the Board of Supervisors for General Plan and zoning amendments, reviews all capital improvement plans, and reviews subdivision and final map applications. The Board of Supervisors reviews, amends, and adopts General and Specific Plans, zoning ordinances, subdivision maps, as well as supervising all County departments, including the Department of Transportation and Sanitation, Community Development, and Community Services. Planning Commissioners are appointed by the Supervisor elected from their district, and serve at the will of the Supervisor. Meetings of the Planning Commission occur as needed on the second and fourth Thursdays of each month. When no items are scheduled for public hearing, the Planning Commission does not hold a meeting. Meetings occur at 6:30 p.m., and are held in the Board of Supervisor’s chambers in the County Government Center. The Board of Supervisors' regular meetings are scheduled for the first, second and fourth Tuesdays of every month at 9:00 a.m. in the Board Chambers, at the County Government Center. All meetings are recorded. Agendas are posted 72 hours in advance of each meeting at the Administrative Center (outside the Board office, outside the Board Chambers, and outside the main entrance), the Nevada County Courthouse, and on the County’s website at http://ncbos.co.nevada.ca.us. Meetings of each of both the Planning Commission and the Board appear to be in compliance with the Brown Act. Interviews with County staff indicate that Planning Commission and Board meetings are typically attended by 5-30 persons, depending on the content of the meeting. Transit – Government Structure, Management Efficiencies, and Local Accountability Nevada County provides the Gold Country Stage, a fixed route transit system providing service to significant areas of western Nevada County. The County operates this system under their DOTS, which provides suitable operational management. County staff has indicated that the provision of this service occurs in a relatively stable manner, and that there are no significant NEVADA LAFCO 4.2-24 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW WEST COUNTY GENERAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES Section 4.2 County of Nevada issues likely to occur that would facilitate the change in ability to operate the service. The structure of the DOTS is sufficient to allow this service to continue in an efficient manner. Public transit services are provided by the County, in coordination with the cities of Grass Valley and Nevada City and the Nevada County Transportation Commission. Management Efficiencies One measure of service efficiency is the farebox recovery ratio – the percentage of total service cost that is covered directly by fares paid by riders. The County has set a goal of an 18 percent recovery ratio for 2002-2003. However, available data indicate a downward trend for the recovery ratio in the past few years. From FY 1995/96, when the farebox ratio was 16.0 percent, the ratio has declined to 12.8 percent in FY 2002/03. In response to this declining indicator, the County developed and implemented a plan of service reductions and fare increases in the fall of 2003. Local Accountability Transit services are administered by the Transit Services Division pursuant to a joint powers agreement between Nevada County, Grass Valley, and Nevada City. Policy guidance is provided by the Transit Services Commission (TSC), a seven-member commission consisting of three city representatives, two County Supervisors, and two public members selected by the County Supervisors. This Commission shall: a) establish fares; b) adopt the level of transit and paratransit services, including route structure and service areas; c) monitor public response; d) approve proposed purchase of additional vehicles; e) oversee on a regular basis and advise as necessary on the daily operations of the system; f) review and approve the annual budget for transit and paratransit operations. The Board of Supervisors may adopt the transit and paratransit services budget upon a majority vote only after a noticed joint public hearing with the Transit Services Commission exclusively to consider the approved budget. Any subsequent modifications of the budget for transit and paratransit services shall first be considered by the Transit Services Commission before being submitted by the Board of Supervisors, which can modify the budget only upon an affirmative 4/5 vote. g) approve applying for grants for usual operation and/or for demonstration or study projects; h) direct staff to perform studies and analysis to evaluate options and alternatives for providing transit and paratransit services on a short term and long term basis and report back to the Transit Commission; i) approve adjustments in the program in order to serve the public with maximum efficiency and services, including contracting with others for a portion or all transit, paratransit and ancillary services. Expansion of the services, by the acquisition of additional vehicles shall be under the auspices of the Transit Services Commission. Transportation and Circulation – Government Structure, Management Efficiencies, and Local Accountability Nevada County DOTS provides for planning and maintenance of all non-highway roads in unincorporated western Nevada County. The DOTS operates under the authority of the County Executive Officer, and coordinates with NCTC, the two cities, and Caltrans in planning regional transportation improvements. MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW 4.2-25 NEVADA LAFCO WEST COUNTY GENERAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES Section 4.2 County of Nevada Management Efficiencies The current organization of the Department of Transportation and Sanitation is a structure which provides for an apparently efficient allocation of these services. Options for reorganization include merging of the DOTS with other engineering or planning services, or dividing up the department to allow one department for each major service (transportation). While each of these options have benefits, the existing structure is sufficient to provide services within the foreseeable future. Without sufficient existing deficiencies, it is not recommended that the structure be changed. The internal structure of the DOTS is sufficient to allow for the adequate provision of transportation and circulation services within the unincorporated county. The County adopts capital improvement plans and participates with the Cities in the joint development of a Regional Transportation Plan. The Nevada County has adopted level of service (LOS) standards to measure roadway usage. The use of such standards can promote greater service efficiency by providing an easy administrative tool that can highlight and assign priority to problematic and congested areas. The organizational structure of the Nevada County Department of Transportation and Sanitation (DOTS) is in itself an attempt to promote greater managerial control and efficiency. The DOTS encompasses not only transportation services (including public transit), but also storm drain planning and solid waste planning (each of which is discussed below). Local Accountability The Board of Supervisors serves as the decision-making authority for transportation and circulation planning services within the unincorporated area, in cooperation with the Nevada County Transportation Commission, which coordinates regional transportation planning activities for all jurisdictions in the county. Public Safety and Animal Control – Government Structure, Management Efficiencies, and Local Accountability Management Efficiencies Public safety and animal control services are assigned to the Nevada County Sheriff’s Department. Survey responses from this Department indicate that the current structure allows for the provision of services in accordance with adopted levels of service. The correctional facilities administered by the Sheriff’s Department are under periodic review by the Nevada County Grand Jury. Current structure requires that the Grand Jury review the facilities of the Sheriff’s Department annually. In its 2002 report on County Correctional facilities, the Wayne Brown Correctional Facility was found to be well-maintained and capable of serving the present needs of the community. The Nevada County Courthouse Holding Facility, also overseen by the Sheriff’s Department, was found to be sufficient for temporary housing of inmates but otherwise inefficient and obsolete in its layout. All County correctional facilities were found to face staffing shortages, possibly due to the difficulty the County has had in recruitment and retention. NEVADA LAFCO 4.2-26 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW WEST COUNTY GENERAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES Section 4.2 County of Nevada The operation of animal control and public safety services under one department is considered sufficient, and no recommendations are warranted to alter this structure. Staffing levels are a noted deficiency in the operation of the department, but does not warrant changes in the organization of the department or in the provision of service. During 2003, the Nevada County Sheriff’s Department planned to test improved communication and computer systems as a means of more efficient service delivery. In particular, the County seeks to place computer systems within patrol cars so that patrol officers can more quickly and easily document incidents and gain greater access to wider bodies of information. The Nevada County Grand Jury has periodically conducted oversight into the status of correctional and holding facilities. These facilities are administered by the Nevada County Sheriff. In a 2003 report, the Grand Jury noted that the County’s main correctional institution, the Wayne Brown Correctional Facility, has, but rarely uses, the equipment to conduct videoconferencing of court hearings and arraignments, obviating the need for the transport of detainees. The decision to utilize this video-conferencing equipment would be made by the individual judges. The Grand Jury also found that the County Courthouse Holding Facility has improved its communication system, following a prisoner escape in June 2002. The County is one of two direct providers of animal control services in western Nevada County (City of Grass Valley also provides animal control services and runs an animal shelter). Nevada County stretches the ability of its animal control staff through the extensive use of volunteers at its animal shelter. Local Accountability The Board of Supervisors serves as the decision-making authorities for public safety and animal control services within the unincorporated area. Solid Waste – Government Structure, Management Efficiencies, and Local Accountability Management Efficiencies The Solid Waste Division of DOTS is responsible for the coordination and implementation of recycling services, and has the primary responsibility of ensuring that the County complies with the provisions of AB 939. AB 939, adopted by the California Legislature in 1989, required that California jurisdictions achieve a waste diversion (i.e., recycling) rate of at least 50 percent, as determined by the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB). In 2002, the County hired a recycling coordinator and developed a five-year recycling plan. In 2003, the County renegotiated its franchise agreement with WMI. These steps make it reasonable to conclude that this departmental and organizational structure is sufficient to provide this service within the county. Solid waste collection and disposal services in western Nevada County are provided by the two cities and Nevada County; all three jurisdictions contract separately with Waste Management, Inc., of Nevada County for the actual provision of waste hauling and disposal services. The use MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW 4.2-27 NEVADA LAFCO WEST COUNTY GENERAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES Section 4.2 County of Nevada of a private sector company to provide these services reduces overhead costs for each of the jurisdictions, who would otherwise need to have waste hauling staff and infrastructure. Local Accountability The Board of Supervisor serves as the decision-making authority for solid waste services within the unincorporated area. The solid waste services are also under the purview of the Solid and Hazardous Waste Committee, an eleven-member (nine voting members) Board overseeing solid waste and hazardous waste issues within the County. The Committee is made up of two County Supervisors, three city representatives (one each from Grass Valley, Nevada City, and Truckee), four citizens with expertise in various areas, and two non-voting members (County executive and County auditor). The Committee meets every other month, and is charged with assisting the County in the development of a comprehensive long-range plan for the disposal and recycling of solid and hazardous waste within the County, and the management of the County’s solid waste operations, including all of the financial matters pertaining thereto. Storm Drainage – Government Structure, Management Efficiencies, and Local Accountability Management Efficiencies Storm drainage services are also provided by the Department of Transportation and Sanitation (DOTS). Coordinating this service through the DOTS has proven to be acceptable, and the planning and coordination of these services has occurred without major problems. Reorganization of the DOTS to place storm drainage planning in another department or contract out such services to the private sector is not seen as necessary as County population grows, although it may be considered as an option if deemed appropriate or desirable by the County. Contacts at Nevada County were unable to provide information regarding the County’s existing storm drain system and plans for service expansion. Local Accountability The Board of Supervisors serves as the decision-making authority for storm drainage services within the unincorporated area. NEVADA LAFCO 4.2-28 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW WEST COUNTY GENERAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES Section 4.2 County of Nevada County Determinations: Government Structure, Management Efficiencies, and Local Accountability Based on the stated evaluation criteria set forth in the beginning of this section, LAFCo presents the following determinations regarding government structure of the general government service providers: 1. The County’s existing government structure is sufficient to accommodate anticipated growth and urban expansion within the unincorporated county. 2. County departments have undergone reorganizations within the past five years to facilitate better provision of general government services. 3. County staffing levels should possibly be reconsidered in light of recent staffing reductions in CDA to ensure they are sufficient to meet demand for government services. 4. Implementation of several of the recommendations provided in the May 2003 Grand Jury report is advisable to ensure appropriate provision of housing services within the county. 5. The existing County departmental structure considered in this report is appropriate for the type of services provided, and the structure of each department does not significantly and adversely affect the agency’s financial stability. 6. The cost effectiveness of County operations has been analyzed recently as part of annual budgeting or other audit. All recommendations for reorganization of services or departments have been implemented, justifying the existing structure as efficient and appropriate. 7. Nevada County uses goal setting procedures as a means of better delivering services. 8. Nevada County’s creation of a Permit Processing Center appears to foster a more efficient arrangement of personnel and more efficient delivery of services to the public. The CDA should in general continue to monitor all aspects of its reengineering program to ensure continued achievement of objectives. 9. The websites of the Nevada County CDA are a model for other jurisdictions in terms of providing detailed information that would otherwise need to be gleaned through direct conversations with planning staff. 10. The County should continue making available County resources such as Housing Services, GIS tools, and other services to the cities, in order to spread the cost and utility of such systems. MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW 4.2-29 NEVADA LAFCO WEST COUNTY GENERAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES Section 4.2 County of Nevada 11. The County Sheriff should consider utilizing more sophisticated communication and analytical tools (such as GIS) as a means of refining and improving their delivery of services. 12. A variety of transportation planning processes is intended to more efficiently provide transportation facilities and services to all residents of Nevada County. Given the regional nature of most transportation issues, continued and/or increased coordination of the cities, the County, and Caltrans by NCTC is appropriate. 13. The County conducts adequately noticed public hearings prior to decision-making, with appropriate provisions for public input and involvement. County appears to conduct meetings and activities consistent with the Brown Act, as well as other applicable State laws. 14. The County has made reasonable efforts to engage the public in its activities, through the issuance of publications, placing of information on websites, and other means. NEVADA LAFCO 4.2-30 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW WEST COUNTY GENERAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES 4.3 Regional Service Provision This chapter reviews the manner in which general government services are coordinated regionally by specific agencies or are provided by regional agencies throughout the study area. Regional traffic circulation planning and public transit services are provided by the Nevada County Transportation Commission (NCTC) and the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in coordination with the County and cities. Housing, Planning and Community Development, Public Safety and Animal Control, Solid Waste and Storm Drainage Planning are generally provided within the jurisdictional control of the County or municipality and are therefore examined in the chapters of this MSR that focus on those agencies. Infrastructure and Growth Transportation and Circulation Coordination of transportation and circulation infrastructure planning is vitally important to the operational success of inhabited areas. Planning, construction, and operation of roadways and associated improvements must traverse municipal boundaries, as the roadways themselves cross such boundaries to connect cities, counties, and regions to one another. Nevada County Transportation Commission – The NCTC participates in planning and financing operations, but does not own, construct, or otherwise operate any infrastructure. The NCTC operates in space leased from Nevada County, at 101 Providence Mine Road, Suite 102, in Nevada City. Staff at the NCTC has indicated that the existing office space is sufficient to continue to provide its services within Nevada County. Caltrans – Caltrans maintains all State and Interstate highways in California, including those in western Nevada County. Caltrans creates Transportation Concept Reports (TCRs) which provide operational information on each roadway and project necessary improvements to ensure that each roadway section operates at a level of service deemed acceptable by Caltrans and the local governing jurisdiction. In addition to the TCRs for each roadway, Caltrans also adopts and implements a ten-year State Highway Operation and Protection Plan (SHOPP) which prioritizes, schedules, and recommends financing mechanisms for improvements to the entire State highway and bridge network. State Route 49 is one of the primary north/south routes through western Nevada County, extending from Placer County on the south, through Grass Valley and Nevada City, and extending through Yuba County to the north. The segments of SR 49 running through Nevada County are identified as Segment Seven (Placer County to Grass Valley) and Segment Eight (Nevada City). The portion of SR 49 between Grass Valley and Nevada City is classified as part of SR 20. MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW 4.3-1 NEVADA LAFCO WEST COUNTY GENERAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES Section 4.3 Regional Service Provision Segment Seven has a current operational Level of Service (LOS) of E, one level below the minimum standard identified in the Nevada County General Plan. The TCR for SR 49 calls for the widening of the entire segment from is current configuration (2-4 lanes, varying) to a continuous five-lane highway (four travel lanes with a continuous left turn lane). Without such a widening, operations along the roadway are expected to drop to LOS F within 20 years. With full widening of the segment, LOS D is considered the likely service level. Segment Eight, running from Nevada City to the Yuba County line, currently operates at LOS E, and is anticipated to decline to LOS F within 20 years. The TCR indicates only necessary safety and operational improvements, with no additional lanes to be added. Even with improvements, LOS F is expected to occur. LOS F is not considered acceptable for community needs, either in Nevada City or in Nevada County. The TCR for SR 20, which includes the portion of SR 49 from Grass Valley to Nevada City, has not yet been updated. This report is expected in 2004. The previous TCR contains information and data which are outdated, and insufficient to provide meaningful analysis. Interstate 80 is a Caltrans maintained roadway which extends into Nevada County west of Kingvale. Only a small portion of the roadway, several miles in length, is located within the study limits of this MSR. This portion of the roadway is classified in the TCR as Segment Eight. This section of the highway is currently operating at LOS E, with a projected LOS E if two additional lanes are added. Without these improvements, the operation of this segment is expected to drop to LOS F within 20 years. The Nevada County General Plan identifies LOS E as the acceptable level of service for this roadway. As noted in the TCRs and SHOPP, improvements are needed for portions of I-80 and SR 49 in order to improve or maintain levels of service. Even if all desired improvements are made, resulting levels of service along SR 49 will still be below the threshold identified as acceptable in local planning documents. Completion of the improvements called for in these transportation plans is also dependent on state budgeting and Caltrans allocation procedures, which are outside of local control by cities or the County. See information under the Finance and Rate Restructuring heading for more information regarding funding of improvements. The creation of TCRs and the SHOPP are largely outside of local control, and are written according to State procedures. Maintenance and improvements to Caltrans roadways within Nevada County are coordinated with the NCTC to ensure that local improvements can be planned in a manner that is compatible with and supportive of Caltrans plans. Even with desired improvements, transportation infrastructure is not anticipated to be able to meet minimum levels of service in western Nevada County. Storm Drainage Coordination of storm drainage planning is necessary, as watersheds and drainage basins often cross jurisdictional boundaries. Regional stormwater management and storm drainage planning has not occurred within the study area in the past, although local plans have identified this as a need for future planning efforts. To this end, the City of Grass Valley has identified a list of NEVADA LAFCO 4.3-2 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW WEST COUNTY GENERAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES Section 4.3 Regional Service Provision regional drainage improvements needed within the next 20 years. These improvements are provided in Table 4.3-1. Table 4.3-1 Regional Drainage Improvements Total 5 Total 5-20 Grand Total Facility Years Years ($) ($) ($) Colfax Avenue Drain 817,000 817,000 Matson Creek Lateral 90,000 90,000 Matson Creek Phase I 245,000 245,000 Matson Creek Phase II 470,000 470,000 South Auburn Street Drainage Phase II 231,000 231,000 Wolf Creek Improvements 950,000 950,000 Woodpecker Ravine 380,000 380,000 Source: City of Grass Valley Capital Improvement Program, 1998. Notes: 1. All project estimates are based upon a present worth analysis for August 1996. 2. Project listing developed from 1986 Storm Drain Master Plan, City of Grass Valley General Plan and Studies by the Grass Valley Engineering and Public Works Departments. MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW 4.3-3 NEVADA LAFCO WEST COUNTY GENERAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES Section 4.3 Regional Service Provision Regional Analysis: Growth and Infrastructure Determinations Based on analysis of the existing and planned infrastructure for each of the general government service providers in western Nevada County, the following written determinations are presented. 1. To better address planning and community development concerns within County administered areas that fall within a city’s adopted or proposed sphere of influence, a more collaborative approach is necessary to ensure that new development is consistent with all relevant community plans – as well as to ensure that city and county plans are not in conflict. 2. Western Nevada County has adequate infrastructure for the planning of transportation facilities, but the transportation network itself appears to remain inadequate to address both present and anticipated demand. While the regional transportation roadway network generally provides acceptable levels of service, some portions of roadways within downtown Grass Valley operate at levels of service below those deemed acceptable. Improvements for these roadway segments have been identified and timeframes for implementation have been established. 3. Implementation of transportation system improvements as set forth in the 2001 RTP will not, by 2020, mitigate to acceptable levels (LOS D or above) all major roadway segments and intersections. Highway 49 and Interstate 80 are expected to operate as LOS E or LOS F during this time frame. The widening of Highway 49 and several intersection improvements along it are expected to make the most significant positive traffic impacts. All transportation agencies in the County should help ensure that the improvements called for in the RTP are implemented on a timely basis. 4. NCTC, Caltrans, the County, and the cities should closely coordinate and collaborate on a standard set of regional growth projections. 5. The cities, the County, and Nevada Irrigation District should collaborate to develop a comprehensive approach toward planning and funding regional stormwater improve- ments to ensure adequate drainage and flood protection throughout the area. NEVADA LAFCO 4.3-4 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW WEST COUNTY GENERAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES Section 4.3 Regional Service Provision COST AVOIDANCE AND SHARING OF FACILITIES Transportation and Circulation Planning – Regional Analysis Each of the cities, as well as the County, develops capital improvement plans for transportation projects within their jurisdiction. Given the typical large cost of transportation improvements, a careful planning process is a crucial means of cost avoidance. The NCTC develops the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) for submission to the California Transportation Commission (CTC) and Caltrans. The RTP is meant to be an exhaustive statement of transportation policies and funding plans to address both short and long term priorities. In addition to the coordinating role it plays with Nevada County transportation agencies, the NCTC also works with other nearby counties on programs of regional import. In particular, the 2001 RTP indicates that the NCTC is participating in a program coordinated by the Placer County Transportation Planning Agency to plan and implement Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) in the Tahoe Gateway Planning Area (Nevada, Placer, El Dorado, and Sierra Counties). There are cost avoidance policies specific to functioning of the NCTC and Caltrans. The NCTC maintains a manual of policies and procedures for its operation, which includes policies for outside hiring of consultants for Professional Services (Section 108.2 of the manual). The NCTC utilizes a Request for Proposal (RFP) method to ensure that a variety of bids are received for services which require outside hiring. Internally, an annual budget and work program are adopted to project needed funding and ensure that planned work items can be completed given available budget. Caltrans has no cost avoidance policies unique to Nevada County. As a department of the State of California, Caltrans maintains policies statewide which govern its expenditures, consistent with the budget adopted by the State legislature for the current year. Storm Drainage Regional coordination of storm drainage planning is not done at this time. MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW 4.3-5 NEVADA LAFCO WEST COUNTY GENERAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES Section 4.3 Regional Service Provision Regional Analysis: Determinations on Cost Avoidance & Facility Sharing Based on the stated evaluation criteria set forth in the beginning of this section, LAFCo presents the following determinations regarding cost avoidance and sharing of facilities of the general government service providers: 1. Unnecessary costs are avoided in transportation and circulation planning through the cooperative development of a Regional Transportation Plan and Transit Development Plans. 2. There are no identified cost avoidance or facilities sharing actions in place or in use by Caltrans within Nevada County. NEVADA LAFCO 4.3-6 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW WEST COUNTY GENERAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES Section 4.3 Regional Service Provision FINANCING AND RATE RESTRUCTURING This section of the MSR explains the statutory framework for establishing and updating fees and rates, and then evaluates the common various financial constraints and opportunities of the regional service providers in western Nevada County. Regional service providers such as the Nevada County Transportation Commission and California Department of Transportation work under financial planning frameworks and funding mechanisms very different than those of the cities or County. As provided in State law, NCTC is funded through Transportation Development Act funds for administration and planning, STIP funds for planning, programming, and monitoring, and Regional Planning Assistance funds from the State. Caltrans, as a department of the State of California, is financed according to annual budgets passed by the State legislature and signed by the Governor. Transportation and Circulation – Financing and Rate Restructuring Both regional and local transportation projects are funded with a mixture of federal, State, and local funds. In addition to the federal and State funds that are typically available to most jurisdictions, the NCTC and its member jurisdictions have developed and implemented a Regional Transportation Mitigation Fee (known as the RTMF), applicable to new commercial, industrial, and residential development. The RTMF was adopted by each jurisdiction and thus applies to projects within both cities and the county. A nexus study was completed to justify the amount of the fee, and annual updates are undertaken to ensure that the fee is appropriate to the improvements it will fund. The institution of this fee has augmented revenue sources available for transportation improvements countywide. The RTMF has been applied at different levels for different areas, based on usage of roadways. The intent of this fee, according to the NCTC, is to ensure that growth fully mitigates its direct and cumulative traffic impacts. The amount of the fee is calibrated depending upon the location of the new development. In 2003/04, the NCTC budget (as amended) shows planned expenditures of $1,084,313. It is important to note that this total is well above the average budget totals for the NCTC, which generally average $500,000 to $600,000. The variation for this fiscal year is due to a large consultant study addressing the Crestview interchange, which is budgeted to cost more than $440,000. This type of study is not conducted regularly, and thus the 2003/2004 budget is not necessarily indicative of the average annual costs of operation for the NCTC. Of the $1,084,313 budget, approximately 26.2 percent is allocated for staff salary and benefits, 66.0 percent for direct costs (which include special studies, consultant services, and auditing), and 7.7 percent for indirect costs (including facilities leasing, legal, and administrative costs). Without the Crestview Interchange Study, a special one-year study which is not expected to occur in the majority of fiscal years, the breakdown of budget expenditures would change to MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW 4.3-7 NEVADA LAFCO WEST COUNTY GENERAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES Section 4.3 Regional Service Provision 44.0 percent for staff salary and benefits, 42.7 percent for direct costs, and 13.1 percent for indirect costs. Revenues generated by the NCTC equal planned expenditures, resulting in a balanced budget. Major revenue sources for the Commission include Local Transportation Fund (LTF) revenues, State and federal transportation planning grants, Regional Transportation Mitigation Fees (RTMF), and special revenues (including developer-financed studies). For FY 2003/2004, the largest source of income is from special revenues, totaling $471,845, of which approximately 94 percent is for the Crestview Interchange study. Other major revenue sources for the fiscal year include $304,025 from past and current LTF, $241,733 from State and federal grants, and $66,710 from the RTMF. Budget documents are made available to the public as part of the Overall Work Program (OWP), which includes the purpose, work schedule, and products of studies and activities undertaken by the NCTC. The budget documents are easy to read and well organized, and show revenues and expenditures by Project, as well as in summary form. Expenses for improvements, planning, and miscellaneous operational costs for services within Caltrans, as related to the provision of services within Nevada County, are part of the overall budget for the Department. Western Nevada County is within District 3 of Caltrans, with its regional office located in Marysville, in Yuba County. As part of the State’s budgeting process, funding for Caltrans activities comes from the various forms of State income, including property and sales taxes, investment revenues, and other sources. There are no specific fees or costs to western county residents assessed by Caltrans for the provision of services. The State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), used to fund improvements to Caltrans roadways, consists of two programs, the Regional Improvement Program (RIP) and Interregional Improvement Program (IIP). The RIP is funded from 75 percent of the new STIP funds, divided by formula into county shares. Each county Regional Transportation Planning Agency (NCTC in Nevada County) determined the projects to be funded from its county share in its Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP). The other 25 percent of the STIP funds are allocated to the IIP, with projects from this funding source selected by Caltrans. Therefore, decisions made at the State level affect the ability to complete improvements to a degree, although 74 percent of STIP funds are under control of the NCTC. Storm Drainage Regional coordination of storm drainage planning is not done at this time. There are no financing or rate restructuring issues to be analyzed. NEVADA LAFCO 4.3-8 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW WEST COUNTY GENERAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES Section 4.3 Regional Service Provision Regional Analysis: Determinations on Finance & Rates Based on the stated evaluation criteria set forth in the beginning of this section, LAFCo presents the following determinations regarding finances of the general government service providers: 1. NCTC and Caltrans both adopt annual budgets as a means of setting spending priorities and tracking agency assets and liabilities. Each jurisdiction has in place purchasing policies intended to avoid unnecessary costs. NCTC budget documents are well organized and readable, with expenditures balanced against projected revenues. 2. The Regional Transportation Mitigation Fee (RTMF) is a reasonable and appropriate method of addressing regional transportation improvement needs. A nexus study has been completed to justify the fee assessment, and annual updates to the fee are made, through consultation among jurisdictions and the NCTC. 3. There are not appropriate financing mechanisms in place to ensure the long-term adequacy of Caltrans roadways within Nevada County, given the predicted future levels of service and improvements required on State Route 49. MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW 4.3-9 NEVADA LAFCO WEST COUNTY GENERAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES Section 4.3 Regional Service Provision GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE, MANAGEMENT EFFICIENCIES & ACCOUNTABILITY This section provides an assessment of the common aspects of the governing structure, management efficiencies and accountability of each of the service providers, as well as a more focused review of the regional providers (NCTC and Caltrans). The objective is to assess the ability of the providers to meet regional service demands under the existing structure and to provide analysis regarding potential reorganizations or other changes to organize governmental operations to more effectively provide services. This analysis includes consideration of alternative governmental structures, alternative physical boundaries, and identification of impediments to efficient operation found within the current regional operating structure. Agency specific issues relative to the County and the two cities are reviewed in their specific sections of the MSR. Transportation and Circulation – Regional Analysis Nevada County Transportation Commission – The government structure, management efficiencies, and local accountability of the NCTC are provided below. Government Structure Government structure relates to the appropriateness and suitability of the physical boundaries of a district. The NCTC, as required by its enabling legislation, is countywide in scope and cannot be altered physically. The boundaries are thus appropriate for the services provided, and suitable for prolonged regional transportation service provision. Management Efficiencies The NCTC provides some oversight of transit service providers within western Nevada County. The NCTC is responsible for the coordination of transit planning, while the Transit Services Commission and Nevada County Transit Services Division are responsible for operation of transit services throughout the county. Existing law provides for an audit of transit service providers to be conducted once every three years. In addition, the NCTC applies for funding for the operation of transit activities on behalf of transit service providers. The Nevada County Transportation Commission governing body is appointed rather than elected. With a relatively small staff (four full-time staff members), the NCTC does not maintain separate departments for services, but rather has a centralized department to handle all activities of the Commission. The organization of the NCTC is set by State law, and the small staff and resources of the Commission do not allow for any significant options for internal reorganization. The NCTC is considered an efficient provider of transportation planning services, and has an internal mechanism for assessing restructuring needs as part of its triennial review process. No recommendations are made here for reorganization of this Commission, although a thoughtful review of the Commission’s work program may have merit. NEVADA LAFCO 4.3-10 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW WEST COUNTY GENERAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES Section 4.3 Regional Service Provision The Nevada County Transportation Commission (NCTC) is an independent regional transportation planning agency which coordinates long-range planning, transit planning, and grant applications for Nevada County and each of its incorporated cities. The NCTC is headed by an Executive Director, with a staff of three to provide support in planning and operation. The major role of the NCTC is to create and maintain the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), which organizes long-range transportation and circulation planning throughout the county. In addition, the NCTC also performs many additional tasks, including the writing and coordinating of grant applications, facilitation of meetings to address ongoing issues, oversight of transit services, and others. The NCTC is audited once every three years by an independent auditor, as required by State law. The last audit, completed in 2001, indicated that the structure of the NCTC is adequate to provide the services called for in its mandate. Recommendations for the addition of staff and other organizational changes were made in this most recent audit, which were implemented and have improved the functioning of the NCTC. The NCTC in its Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) seeks to promote strategies known collectively as Transportation System Management (TSM) to make more efficient use of existing roadway facilities. In addition, the NCTC promotes Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures to reduce transportation system usage and coordinates with other counties in the Tahoe Gateway in the introduction and implementation of Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS). Local Accountability Decisions of the NCTC regarding coordination of planning of transit services within western Nevada County are made by the seven Commissioners of the Nevada County Transportation Commission. The Commissioners meet to discuss and act upon the contents and updates of the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), which serves to coordinate the planning, operation, and funding of the various transit service providers in the County. The organization and appointment of Commissioners is set by Government Code Section 67920, as follows: The governing body shall be composed of four members appointed by the county board of supervisors, and one member appointed by the city council of each incorporated city in the county. The appointing authority, for each regular member it appoints, may appoint an alternate member to serve in place of the regular member when the regular member is absent or disqualified from participating in a meeting of the agency. Meetings of the Commission occur on the third Wednesday of each month. Meetings are typically scheduled to begin at 8:30 p.m., although some meetings are held at 9:30 a.m. and some at 7:00 p.m. The location of the meetings alternates between Nevada City, Grass Valley, Truckee, and Nevada County, at the following locations: Grass Valley – City Hall Nevada City – City Hall City Council Chambers City Council Chambers 125 East Main Street 317 Broad Street Grass Valley, CA Nevada City, CA Nevada County – Eric Rood Center Truckee – Town Hall Board of Supervisors Chambers Town Council Chambers 950 Maidu Avenue 10183 Truckee Airport Road Nevada City, CA Truckee, CA MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW 4.3-11 NEVADA LAFCO WEST COUNTY GENERAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES Section 4.3 Regional Service Provision Agendas are posted in advance of each meeting at the NCTC offices, as well as to interested parties through direct mailings and on the internet at http://www.nctc.ca.gov. Press releases are also issued for some meetings. Meetings vary by location and time to accommodate people in each area who wish to attend. Meetings of each of these bodies appear to be in compliance with the Brown Act. Interviews with NCTC staff indicate that Commission meetings are typically attended by fewer than five members of the public, depending on the content of the meeting. Daytime meetings may contribute to this relatively low turnout, in addition to the general indifference of the public to attend meetings regarding transportation and transit planning. Operations of the transit providers are governed by the Transit Services Commission and Nevada County Transit Services Division. Refer to Section 4.2 of the MSR for information regarding the decision-making procedures and accountability of the TSC and County. Caltrans – The government structure, management efficiencies, and local accountability of the NCTC are provided below. Government Structure Caltrans is responsible for maintenance and operation District 3 is responsible for 1,450 miles of State Routes in 11 Sacramento Valley and Northern Sierra counties. Marysville is headquarters for District 3 which includes Administration, Maintenance, Planning and Local Assistance, Traffic Operations and Lake Tahoe Basin Divisions. It is also the North Region office which oversees the interrelated functions of Divisions committed to Project Delivery within the 22 counties of Districts 1, 2 and 3. These Divisions include: Construction, Design and Engineering Services, Environmental, Program/Project Management and Right of Way. Management Efficiencies The Division of Planning and Local Assistance is an interdisciplinary team of professionals working together to meet California's transportation needs while being sensitive to the needs of our customers and planning partners. Transportation planners, engineers, and support staff work cooperatively to meet our planning goals. The Public Information Office facilitates the promotion and awareness of transportation projects and programs to the traveling public, the Department's stakeholders and its employees. This office is the media contact for inquiries concerning Departmental and District specific issues. The weekly Roadwork report, highlighting construction project status, weekly maintenance operations and anticipated road closures, is communicated to the public by this office. The Public Information Officer serves as the Legislative Affairs Liaison to Headquarters for issues occurring within the District. Caltrans plans and maintains all interstate and State highways both in western Nevada County and throughout the California. As a State agency with thousands of employees, this agency has an extraordinarily complex organizational structure. Regional offices provide for coordination of local planning and maintenance needs, as well as conceptual and operational plans adopted and maintained for each roadway. Discussions with the regional Caltrans officers responsible for the planning and coordination of maintenance of the State roads in western Nevada County indicates that the structure under which the Department currently operates is sufficient to ensure that Caltrans will be able to continue to maintain and plan for these roadways in an efficient NEVADA LAFCO 4.3-12 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW WEST COUNTY GENERAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES Section 4.3 Regional Service Provision manner. Caltrans does not have any management efficiencies particular to the planning or operations of the facilities it maintains in western Nevada County. Local Accountability The offices of Caltrans District 3 are located at 703 B Street, Marysville, CA 95901. District representatives can be reached at (530) 741-4211. The mailing address of the district is Caltrans, District 3, P.O. Box 911, Marysville, CA 95901. Storm Drainage Regional coordination of storm drainage planning is not done at this time. There are no government structures, management efficiency, or local accountability issues to be analyzed. MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW 4.3-13 NEVADA LAFCO WEST COUNTY GENERAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES Section 4.3 Regional Service Provision Regional Analysis: Determinations on Governance, Management Efficiencies, and Accountability Based on the stated evaluation criteria set forth in the beginning of this section, LAFCo presents the following determinations regarding government structure of the general government service providers: 1. Improved communication regarding transportation improvements is necessary among Grass Valley, Nevada City, Nevada County, and Caltrans to ensure that each agency is acquainted with the transportation planning, construction, and implementation activities of the other agencies. NCTC currently engages in this process through monthly Technical Advisory Committee meetings and mailings. However, this approach has not generated its intended results, and should be augmented with additional efforts to engage each member agency through joint workshops and collaborative planning activities to promote consistency throughout the various agencies’ planning efforts. 2. A variety of transportation planning processes is intended to more efficiently provide transportation facilities and services to all residents of Nevada County. Given the regional nature of most transportation issues, continued and/or increased coordination of the cities, the County, and Caltrans by NCTC is appropriate. 3. NCTC conducts adequately noticed public hearings prior to decision-making, with appropriate provisions for public input and involvement. NCTC appears to conduct meetings and activities consistent with the Brown Act, as well as other applicable State laws. 4. Caltrans and the NCTC should seek ways to improve coordination and planning of transportation improvements within Nevada County. This should include mechanisms for ensuring participation by NCTC in preparation of S.H.O.P.P. and other Caltrans planning documents affecting transportation facilities within the County. NEVADA LAFCO 4.3-14 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW WEST COUNTY GENERAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES Section 5.0 Comments Received and Responses 5.0 COMMENTS RECEIVED AND RESPONSES Introduction Nevada LAFCo, in an effort to ensure that public comment is taken into account and the document is as accurate and informative as possible, has elected to create this section of the Municipal Service Review to address comments received on the Public Review Draft MSR. Nevada LAFCo directed preparation and circulation for public review a Draft MSR for General Government Services within the Western portion of Nevada County. The Cortese-Knox- Hertzberg (CKH) statute requires a minimum 21-day public review period; however, LAFCo extended this to a 30-day public review period, which closed on July 12, 2004. Comments received from service providers during the Administrative Draft review and a preliminary hearing on April 15, 2004 and at the LAFCo public hearing on the Public Review Draft MSR on July 15, 2004 are given responses in this section. This section of the MSR consists of: • A list of persons, organizations, and public agencies commenting on the Draft MSR • Comments and recommendations on the Draft MSR • Responses to each substantive point raised in comment letters, numbered to match the numbered paragraphs in the comment document. Some of the comments provide clarification of factual information or address issues of grammar and sentence structure. Other comments provide opinion, alternate views of appropriate metho- dology or conclusions, and similar commentary. All comments made in the letters received are responded to in some form. Comments Received on the Draft MSR This section contains comment letters and responses to comments received during the public review period for the Draft MSR. The following persons, public agencies, and organizations submitted comment letters on the Draft MSR: • Gene Haroldsen, City Manager, City of Grass Valley, letter dated April 26, 2004 and e- mail dated July 12, 2004 • Dan Landon, Executive Officer, Nevada County Transportation Commission, e-mail dated April 6, 2004 • Mike Woodman, Nevada County Transportation Commission, e-mail dated April 7, 2004 • William Derrick, Nevada County Department of Transportation and Sanitation, e-mail dated April 2, 2004 • John Rumsey, Nevada County Department of Transportation and Sanitation, e-mail dated April 2, 2004 Section 5.0 Comments Received and Responses COMMENT LETTER A Section 5.0 Comments Received and Responses Section 5.0 Comments Received and Responses Section 5.0 Comments Received and Responses Section 5.0 Comments Received and Responses Response to Comment Letter A Gene Haroldsen, City Manager, City of Grass Valley, April 8, 2004 Comment 1 The comment concerning the organization of the report is noted. There are several ways in which the report could have been organized. Ultimately, the LAFCo Executive Officer determined that this version of the report would best meet LAFCo’s needs. Comment 2 The MSR, including pertinent determinations, has been modified to reflect the need for coordination among the cities and the County in planning and funding stormwater management. Comment 3 The report adopted in June 2003 was available too late to be referenced and analyzed in this MSR. Comment 4 The MSR has been amended to reflect this recommendation. Comment 5 The MSR has been amended to reflect this recommendation. Comment 6 Comment noted. Comment 7 The MSR described growth rates using output from the Facet model, which included a high growth rate and a lower, more likely rate. The MSR includes a determination that recommends that the cities and County agree to a common growth rate projection methodology. Comment 8 This section of the MSR has been changed to refer to Nevada City Highway not operating at the accepted level of service threshold. Comment 9 through 17 The MSR has been amended to reflect these recommendations. Section 5.0 Comments Received and Responses COMMENT LETTER B Section 5.0 Comments Received and Responses Response to Comment Letter B Gene Haroldsen, City Manager, City of Grass Valley, e-mailed dated July 12, 2004 Comment 1 and 2 The MSR has been revised to reflect these recommendations. Comment 3 Section 5 of the MSR, which contains responses to comments, was not available at the time of Mr. Haroldsen’s review. It was prepared following LAFCO’s action to adopt the report on July 15, 2004. A copy of the Final Report, including Section 5.0 has been provided to the City of Grass Valley. Comment 1 through 4 The Final MSR has been revised to reflect these recommendations. Section 5.0 Comments Received and Responses COMMENT LETTER C Section 5.0 Comments Received and Responses Response to Comment Letter C Dan Landon, Executive Officer, Nevada County Transportation Commission, e-mail dated April 6, 2004 Comment 1 The triennial performance audit was not available when the MSR was being prepared. Comments 2 and 3 The Final MSR has been revised to reflect these recommendations. Comment 4 The determination relative to the population growth projections has been revised in the Final MSR. Section 5.0 Comments Received and Responses COMMENT LETTER D Section 5.0 Comments Received and Responses Section 5.0 Comments Received and Responses Response to Comment Letter D Mike Woodman, Nevada County Transportation Commission, e-mail dated April 7, 2004 Comment 1 through 9 The Final MSR has been revised to reflect these recommendations. However, the MSR addresses only the western portion of the County; therefore, references to the Town of Truckee have not been included as requested. Section 5.0 Comments Received and Responses COMMENT LETTER E Section 5.0 Comments Received and Responses Section 5.0 Comments Received and Responses Response to Comment Letter E William Derrick, Nevada County Department of Transportation and Sanitation, e-mail dated April 2, 2004 Comments 1 through 10 The Final MSR has been revised to reflect these recommendations. Section 5.0 Comments Received and Responses COMMENT LETTER F Section 5.0 Comments Received and Responses Response to Comment Letter F John Rumsey, Nevada County Department of Transportation and Sanitation, e-mail dated April 2, 2004 Comments 1 through 5 The Final MSR has been revised to reflect these recommendations. Appendix A Service Provider Profiles SERVICE PROVIDER PROFILES This section of the MSR provides a profile of each of the service providers in western Nevada County. These summaries are intended for reference only. Refer to Section 4.1 through 4.3 of this report for a full analysis of general government services provided by each service provider. MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW A-1 NEVADA LAFCO WEST COUNTY GENERAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES Appendix A Service Provider Profiles PROFILE – NEVADA COUNTY Contact Person: Richard A. Haffey, County Executive Officer Address: 950 Maidu Avenue Phone: (530) 265-7040 Nevada City, California 95959 Date of Formation: May 18, 1851 Enabling Leg.: Established by California Legislature Governing Body: Five member Board of Supervisors elected by geographic districts; board structure pursuant to California General Code § 25000 et seq. District/Person Position Term Expiration 2003 Membership: 2nd Sue Horne Chair January 2005 4th Robin Sutherland Vice Chair January 2007 1st Peter Van Zant Supervisor January 2005 3rd Drew Bedwell Supervisor January 2007 5th Barbara Green Supervisor January 2005 Compensation: As of 5/2001, $34,122 annually per supervisor, plus reimbursement for travel and other County work related expenses. Public Meetings: Board of Supervisors' regular meetings are scheduled the first, second and fourth Tuesdays of every month at 9:00 a.m. in the Board Chambers, First Floor, Eric Rood Administrative Center, 950 Maidu Avenue, Nevada City, California. Services Provided: The Board of Supervisors is the legislative and executive body of county government and also serves as the governing body of the Nevada County Housing Authority. In its legislative duties the Board adopts ordinances, resolutions and rules and is responsible for seeing that all Federal and State mandated functions are properly discharged. The Board exercises executive authority for the provision of local government services to County residents. Land Area: Entire County: 612,000 acres or 978 square miles Population: 92,033 (2000 U.S. Census) Employees: Approximately 1,050 full time employees 1998-1999 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 Expenditures 76,720,886 80,430,868 93,809,263 103,024,380 Capital/Fixed Assets 58,965,238 60,612,537 65,291,164 76,267,993 Tax and Assess Rev. 15,917,346 17,588,551 18,933,436 19,705,093 NEVADA LAFCO A-2 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW WEST COUNTY GENERAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES Appendix A Service Provider Profiles PROFILE – CITY OF GRASS VALLEY Contact Person: Gene Haroldsen, City Administrator Address: 125 East Main Street Phone: (530) 274-4310 Grass Valley, California 95945 Fax: (530) 274-4399 Date of Formation: March, 1893 Enabling Legislation: City Charter, Government Code Section 34450 Governing Body: Five-member Council elected at-large; four-year terms; Mayor and Vice Mayor elected by Council to two-year terms. Person Title Term Expiration 2003 Membership: Patti Ingram Mayor December 2006 DeVere "Dee" Mautino Vice Mayor December 2004 Gerard Tassone Councilmember December 2006 Linda Stevens Councilmember December 2004 Steve Enos Councilmember December 2004 Compensation: The Mayor receives a monthly stipend of $300, inclusive of all meetings and duties. All other Councilmembers receive a monthly stipend of $275, inclusive of all meetings and duties. Public Meetings: Regularly scheduled meeting on the second and fourth Tuesdays of each month at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall, 125 Main Street. Services Provided: Water (supply, treatment, and distribution), sewer (collection, treatment, and disposal), storm drainage (collection and disposal), police services, animal control, fire protection, parks and recreation, circulation, land use planning, building, housing, redevelopment, code enforcement, public works, and general government services. Land Area: Within City Limits: 2,521 acres Within SOI: 7,373 acres Population: 10,922 (U.S. Census, 2000) Employees: 107 full time employees Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 Expenditures $8,406,674 $8,808,068 $9,357,043 $9,823,078 $11,273,329 Capital/Fixed Assets $2,474,767 $4,496,019 $11,477,100 $4,807,745 $4,432,873 Prop. Tax Revenues $1,045,549 $1,094,947 $1,180,930 $1,328,684 $1,444,999 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW A-3 NEVADA LAFCO WEST COUNTY GENERAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES Appendix A Service Provider Profiles PROFILE – CITY OF NEVADA CITY Contact Person: Mark Miller, City Manager Address: 317 Broad Street, Nevada City, CA 95959 Date of Formation: April 19, 1856 Enabling Legislation: City Charter, Government Code Section 34450 Governing Body: Five-member Council elected at-large; four-year terms; Mayor and Vice Mayor elected by Council to 1-year terms. Person Title Term Expiration 2003 Membership: Kerry Arnett Mayor March 2006 Conley Weaver Vice Mayor March 2006 Steve Cottrell Council Member March 2004 Tom Balch Council Member June 2004 Dave McKay Council Member June 2004 Compensation: None; City Councilmembers and Planning Commissioners volunteer their time. The City will cover certain work-related expenses. Public Meetings: Regularly scheduled meeting on the second and fourth Tuesdays of each month at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall, 125 Main Street. Services Provided: Police services, animal control, fire protection, parks and recreation, circulation, land use planning, public works, and general government services. Land Area: Within City Limits: 1,307 acres Within SOI: +/- 1,100 acres Population: 3,001 (U.S. Census, 2000) Employees: 25 full time employees plus several part time seasonal positions and 22 volunteer fire fighters. Actual Actual Budgeted 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 Expenditures $2,552,569 $3,143,238 $3,570,000 Capital/Fixed Assets $6,176,505 $7,356,161 $8,000,000 Prop. Tax Revenues $703,533 $707,391 $775,000 NEVADA LAFCO A-4 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW WEST COUNTY GENERAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES Appendix A Service Provider Profiles PROFILE NEVADA COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Contact Person: Dan Landon, Executive Director Address: 101 Providence Mine Road, #102 Phone: (530) 265-3202 Nevada City, California 95959 Fax: (530) 265-3260 Date of Formation: July 1972 Enabling Legislation: Title 7.88, of the State of California Government Code, Section 67920 Governing Body: Seven member Commission; four members appointed by County Board of Supervisors, three members appointed by incorporated cities. Person Title 2003 Membership: Josh Susman Chairman Linda Stevens Vice-Chairman Kerry Arnett Commissioner Drew Bedwell Commissioner Robin Sutherland Commissioner Ann Guerra Commissioner Chet Krage Commissioner Compensation: Commissioners receive no compensation for duties of the NCTC. Public Meetings: Meetings are held on the third Wednesday of each month, alternating between Nevada City, Grass Valley, Truckee, and Nevada County. Services Provided: Coordinates transportation and transit planning, updates RTP, RTIP, manages Regional Surface Transportation Program funds and Regional Improvement Program Employees: 4 full-time employees MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW A-5 NEVADA LAFCO WEST COUNTY GENERAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES Appendix B Glossary of Terms GLOSSARY OF TERMS TERM DEFINITION Affected city Any city which: (a) contains, or its sphere of influence (SOI) contains, territory for which a change of organization is proposed or ordered either singularly or as part of a reorganization; or (b) would contain the territory described in subdivision (a) as a result of proceedings for a change of organization or reorganization taken pursuant to this division. Affected county Each county which contains, or would contain, any territory for which a change of organization or reorganization is proposed or ordered or which contains all or any part of a district for which a change of organization or reorganization is proposed or ordered with respect to territory outside that county. Affected district A special district, as defined by §56036, which contains, or whose SOI contains, any territory for which a reorganization or a change of organization is proposed or ordered. Affected LAFCO When more than one county is affected by, or participating in a municipal service review, the LAFCO for a county other than the principal county, in which a municipal service review is conducted. Affected local agency Any agency which contains, or would contain, or whose SOI contains, any territory within any proposal or study to be reviewed by the Commission. Affected territory Any territory for which a change of organization or reorganization is proposed or ordered. Annexation The annexation, inclusion, attachment, or addition of territory to a city or district. Board of Directors The legislative body or governing board of a district. Board of Supervisors The elected board of supervisors of a county. Change of organization A city incorporation, district formation, annexation to, or detachment from, a city or district, disincorporation of a city, district dissolution, consolidation of cities or special districts, or merger or establishment of a subsidiary district. City Any charter or general law city, including any city the name of which includes the word "town." MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW B-1 NEVADA LAFCO WEST COUNTY GENERAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES Appendix B Glossary of Terms TERM DEFINITION City Council The elected legislative body of a city. Consolidation The uniting or joining of two or more cities located in the same county into a single new successor city or two or more districts into a single new successor district. In the case of consolidation of special districts, all of those districts shall have been formed pursuant to the same principal act. Cost avoidance Actions to eliminate unnecessary costs derived from, but not limited to, duplication of service efforts, higher than necessary administration/operation cost ratios, use of outdated or deteriorating infrastructure and equipment, underutilized equipment or buildings or facilities, overlapping/inefficient service boundaries, inefficient purchasing or budgeting practices, and lack of economies of scale. County Service Area (CSA) A dependent agency governed by the Board of Supervisors of a County pursuant to §25210.1 - §25211.33 of the Government Code. A CSA may perform most services, which the county is authorized to perform by law, but is limited by the county’s ability to show that the proposed level of extended service is not otherwise provided on a county-wide basis. Detachment The detachment, deannexation, exclusion, deletion, or removal from a city or district of any portion of the territory of that city or district. Disincorporation The disincorporation, dissolution, extinguishment, and termination of the existence of a city and the cessation of its corporate powers, except for the purpose of winding up the affairs of the city. Dissolution The dissolution, disincorporation, extinguishment, and termination of the existence of a district and the cessation of all its corporate powers, except for the purpose of winding up the affairs of the district. District or special district An agency of the state, formed pursuant to general law or special act, for the local performance of governmental or proprietary functions within limited boundaries. "District" or "special district" includes a county service area. NEVADA LAFCO B-2 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW WEST COUNTY GENERAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES Appendix B Glossary of Terms TERM DEFINITION District of limited powers An airport district, community services district, municipal utility district, public utilities district, fire protection district, harbor district, port district, recreational harbor district, small craft harbor district, resort improvement district, library district, local hospital district, local health district, municipal improvement district formed pursuant to any special act, municipal water district, police protection district, recreation and park district, garbage disposal district, garbage and refuse disposal district, sanitary district, county sanitation district, or public cemetery district. Education Revenue The state mechanism for shifting property tax revenues from Augmentation Fund (ERAF) local governments to schools. Enterprise activities Activities accounted for in a manner similar to a private business such as a water utility. The acquisition, operation, and maintenance of governmental facilities and services are entirely or predominantly self-supporting through user charges or fees. The State Controller separates enterprise activities into seven categories: airports, electric, harbor and port, transit, waste disposal, utility, and hospital. Feasible Capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, legal, social and technological factors. Formation The formation, incorporation, organization, or creation of a district. Function Any power granted by law to a local agency or a county to provide designated governmental or proprietary services or facilities for the use, benefit, or protection of all persons or property. Functional revenues Revenues generated from direct services or associated with specific services, such as a grant or statute, and expenditures. General revenues Revenues not associated with specific services or retained in an enterprise fund. Incorporation The incorporation, formation, creation, and establishment of a city with corporate powers. Any area proposed for incorporation as a new city must have at least 500 registered voters residing within the affected area at the time commission proceedings are initiated. MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW B-3 NEVADA LAFCO WEST COUNTY GENERAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES Appendix B Glossary of Terms TERM DEFINITION Independent special district Any special district having a legislative body all of whose members are elected by registered voters or landowners within the district, or whose members are appointed to fixed terms, and excludes any special district having a legislative body consisting, in whole or in part, of ex officio members who are officers of a county or another local agency or who are appointees of those officers other than those who are appointed to fixed terms. "Independent special district" does not include any district excluded from the definition of district contained in §56036. Independent SD officer The presiding officer or a member of the legislative body of an independent special district. Infrastructure needs and The term, “infrastructure” is defined as public services and deficiencies facilities, such as sewage-disposal systems, water-supply systems, other utility systems, and roads (General Plan Guidelines). Any area needing or planned for service must have the infrastructure necessary to support the provision of those services. The term, “infrastructure needs and deficiencies,” refer to the status of existing and planned infrastructure and its relationship to the quality and levels of service that can or need to be provided. Interested agency Each local agency, which provides facilities or services in the affected territory that a subject agency would provide. Joint Commission A single Commission formed to preside over the functions of a multi-LAFCO Joint Powers Agreement. The Commission may be comprised of all or a portion of the Commissioners of the individual Commissions that are participating in the Joint Powers Agreement. A Joint Commission, as herein defined, does not constitute an individual agency. It is intended to jointly exercise existing powers common to each agency. LAFCO Local Agency Formation Commission Lead LAFCO The LAFCO with primary responsibility for conducting a municipal service review affecting more than one county. Loaded Cost A cost that has overhead and/or other fees or charges added to the actual and direct service or item cost. NEVADA LAFCO B-4 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW WEST COUNTY GENERAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES Appendix B Glossary of Terms TERM DEFINITION Local accountability and The term, “local accountability and governance,” refers to governance public agency decision making, operational and management styles that include an accessible staff, elected or appointed decision-making body and decision making process, advertisement of, and public participation in, elections, publicly disclosed budgets, programs, and plans, solicited public participation in the consideration of work and infrastructure plans; and regularly evaluated or measured outcomes of plans, programs or operations and disclosure of results to the public. Local agency A city, county, or special district or other public entity, which provides public services. Management efficiency The term, “management efficiency,” refers to the organized provision of the highest quality public services with the lowest necessary expenditure of public funds. An efficiently managed entity (1) promotes and demonstrates implementation of continuous improvement plans and strategies for budgeting, managing costs, training and utilizing personnel, and customer service and involvement, (2) has the ability to provide service over the short and long term, (3) has the resources (fiscal, manpower, equipment, adopted service or work plans) to provide adequate service, (4) meets or exceeds environmental and industry service standards, as feasible considering local conditions or circumstances, (5) and maintains adequate contingency reserves. Mentor LAFCO A LAFCO with the experience and resources necessary to advise, or contract with, other LAFCOs for the implementation of municipal service reviews. Nevada LAFCO is among the first LAFCOs to engage in comprehensive MSRs and may serve as a mentor LAFCO. Merger The extinguishment, termination, and cessation of the existence of a district of limited powers by the merger of that district with a city as a result of proceedings taken pursuant to this division. MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW B-5 NEVADA LAFCO WEST COUNTY GENERAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES Appendix B Glossary of Terms TERM DEFINITION Municipal services The full range of services that a public agency provides, or is authorized to provide, except general county government functions such as courts, special services and tax collection. Nevada LAFCO will review services that are provided by public agencies that are required to have a Sphere of Influence, as well as other agencies providing services to a countywide, regional, or statewide area that includes portions of Nevada County. Non-enterprise activity A non-enterprise activity, such as fire protection, is an activity that has an accounting system organized on a governmental fund basis. Open space Any parcel or area of land or water, which is substantially unimproved and devoted to an open-space use. Overlapping territory Territory which is included within the boundaries of two or more districts or within one or more districts and a city or cities. Out of Agency Contract A contract to provide services outside of an agency’s boundaries. Planning area The area directly addressed by the general plan. A city’s planning area typically encompasses the city limits and potentially annexable land within its SOI (General Plan Guidelines (GPG) page 230). Plan of reorganization A plan or program for effecting a reorganization and which contains a description of all changes of organization included in the reorganization and setting forth all terms, conditions, and matters necessary or incidental to the effectuation of that reorganization. NEVADA LAFCO B-6 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW WEST COUNTY GENERAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES Appendix B Glossary of Terms TERM DEFINITION Prime agricultural land An area of land, whether a single parcel or contiguous parcels, that has not been developed for a use other than an agricultural use and that meets any of the following qualifications: (a) Land-that, if irrigated, qualifies for rating as class l or class II in the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service land use capability classification, whether or not the land is actually irrigated, provided that irrigation is feasible; (b) Land that qualifies for rating 80 through l00 Storie Index Rating; (c) Land that supports livestock used for the production of food and fiber and that has an annual carrying capacity equivalent to at least one animal unit per acre as defined by the United States Department of Agriculture in the National Handbook on Range and Related Grazing Lands, July, 1967, developed pursuant to Public Law 46, December 1935; (d) Land planted with fruit or nut-bearing trees, vines, bushes, or crops that have a nonbearing period of less than five years and that will return during the commercial bearing period on an annual basis from the production of unprocessed agricultural plant production not less than four hundred dollars ($400) per acre; (e) Land that has returned from the production of unprocessed agricultural plant products an annual gross value of not less than four hundred dollars ($400) per acre for three of the previous five calendar years. Principal act In the case of a district, the law under which the district was formed and, in the case of a city, the general laws or a charter, as the case may be. Principal county The county having all or the greater portion of the entire assessed value, as shown on the last equalized assessment roll of the county or counties, of all taxable property within a district or districts for which a change of organization or reorganization is proposed. Principal LAFCO for The LAFCO with the lead responsibility for a municipal service municipal service review review. Lead responsibility can be determined pursuant to the CKH Act definition of a Principal LAFCO as it applies to government organization or reorganization actions, by negotiation, or by agreement among two or more LAFCOs. Proceeding Proceedings taken by the commission for a proposed change of organization or reorganization pursuant to Part 4 (commencing with §57000). MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW B-7 NEVADA LAFCO WEST COUNTY GENERAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES Appendix B Glossary of Terms TERM DEFINITION Proposal A request or statement of intention made by petition or by resolution of application of a legislative body or of a school district proposing proceedings for the change of organization or reorganization described in the request or statement of intention. Public agency The state or any state agency, board, or commission, any city, county, city and county, special district, or other political subdivision, or any agency, board, or commission of the city, county, city and county, special district, or other political subdivision. Rate restructuring Rate restructuring does not refer to the setting or development of specific rates or rate structures. During a municipal service review, LAFCO may compile and review certain rate related data, and other information that may affect rates, as that data applies to the intent of the CKH Act (§56000, §56001, §56301), factors to be considered (§56668), SOI determinations (§56425) and all required municipal service review determinations (§56430). The objective is to identify opportunities to positively impact rates without adversely affecting service quality or other factors to be considered. Regional Pertaining to activities or economies at a scale greater than that of a single jurisdiction, and affecting a broad geographic area. Reorganization Two or more changes of organization initiated in a single proposal. Responsible LAFCO The LAFCO of a county other than the Principal County that may be impacted by recommendations, determinations or subsequent proposals elicited during a municipal service review being initiated or considered by the Lead LAFCO. Retained Earnings The accumulated earnings of an enterprise or intragovernmental service fund which have been retained in the fund and are not reserved for any specific purpose (debts, planned improvements, contingency/emergency). NEVADA LAFCO B-8 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW WEST COUNTY GENERAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES Appendix B Glossary of Terms TERM DEFINITION Reserve (1) For governmental type funds, an account used to earmark a portion of fund balance, which is legally or contractually restricted for a specific use or not appropriable for expenditure. (2) For proprietary type/enterprise funds, the portion of retained earnings set aside for specific purposes. Unnecessary reserves are those set aside for purposes that are not well defined or adopted or retained earnings that are not reasonably proportional to annual gross revenues. Service A class established within, and as a part of, a single function, as provided by regulations adopted by the commission pursuant to Chapter 5 (commencing with §56820) of Part 3. Service review A study and evaluation of municipal service(s) by specific area, sub-region or region culminating in written determinations regarding nine specific evaluation categories. Special reorganization A reorganization that includes the detachment of territory from a city or city and county and the incorporation of that entire detached territory as a city. Sphere of influence (SOI) A plan for the probable physical boundaries and service area of a local agency, as determined by the LAFCO commission. Stakeholder Refers to LAFCOs, members of the public, affected and interested agencies, and other entities interested in, and affected by, service(s) being reviewed. Subject agency Each district or city for which a change of organization is proposed or provided in a reorganization or plan of reorganization. Sub-region The study area for a municipal service review chosen because of characteristics, such as geography, government structure, or development characteristics, which produces meaningful comparisons and evaluations of government structure options. Subsidiary district A district of limited powers in which a city council is designated as, and empowered to act as, the ex officio board of directors of the district. MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW B-9 NEVADA LAFCO WEST COUNTY GENERAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES Appendix B Glossary of Terms TERM DEFINITION Substantial SOI amendment An amendment to an SOI which causes the SOI to be internally inconsistent, is inconsistent with provisions of the CKH Act, has the potential to cause significant adverse social, economic, environmental or other consequences, or has substantial adverse regional planning implications. A substantial amendment to an SOI prior to a municipal service review is inconsistent with §56430. Urban service area Developed, undeveloped, or agricultural land, either incorporated or unincorporated, within the SOI of a city, which is served by urban facilities, utilities, and services or which are proposed to be served by urban facilities, utilities, and services during the first five years of an adopted capital improvement program of the city if the city adopts that type of program for those facilities, utilities, and services. The boundary around an urban area shall be called the "urban service area boundary" and shall be developed in cooperation with a city and adopted by a commission pursuant to policies adopted by the commission in accordance with §56300, §56301, and §56425. NEVADA LAFCO B-10 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW WEST COUNTY GENERAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES Appendix B Glossary of Terms ACRONYMS CAFR Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CKA Cortese-Knox Local Government Reorganization Act of 1985 as amended CKH Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 CLG Commission on Local Governance for the 21st century COG Council of Governments CSA County Service Area CSD Community Services District DEIR Draft Environmental Impact Report DOF State Department of Finance EIR Environmental Impact Report ERAF Education Revenue Augmentation Fund GWB Growth Within Bounds (Publication of CLG, 2000) GPG General Plan Guidelines JPA Joint Powers Agreement LAFCO Local Agency Formation Commission MSE Master Service Element MSR Municipal Service Review OPR California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research PUC Public Utilities Commission PUD Public Utility District SOI Sphere of Influence SACOG Sacramento Area Council of Governments MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW B-11 NEVADA LAFCO WEST COUNTY GENERAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES