West County Road and Street Operations & Planning

FINAL DRAFT MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW WESTERN NEVADA COUNTY ROAD and STREET OPERATIONS and PLANNING Prepared for: Local Agency Formation Commission of Nevada County 950 Maidu Avenue Nevada City, California 95959 Prepared by: Dudek and Associates, Inc. 605 Third Street Encinitas, California 92024 In conjunction with: Management Partners, Inc. VRPA Technologies 2107 North First Street, Suite 470 9683 Tierra Grande Street, Suite 205 San Jose, California 95131 San Diego, California 92126 January 13, 2005 Table of Contents Page i TTAABBLLEE OOFF CCOONNTTEENNTTSS I. Executive Summary..........................................................................................................1 II. Service Setting..................................................................................................................5 A. Regional Setting and Statutory Requirements for Road Maintenance............5 III. Matching Infrastructure to Growth................................................................................14 A. Infrastructure.................................................................................................14 B. Growth Areas and Projections.......................................................................14 C. Matching Infrastructure and Growth.............................................................15 IV. Financing and Economics of Service...........................................................................17 A. Funding for Road Maintenance - General.....................................................17 B. Jurisdictional Funding...................................................................................18 C. Jurisdictional Expenditures ..........................................................................20 D. Trends and Identified Needs..........................................................................22 V. Governance.....................................................................................................................26 A. Government Structure Options......................................................................26 B. Management Efficiencies..............................................................................26 C. Local Accountability.....................................................................................27 VI. Agency Profiles...............................................................................................................31 City of Grass Valley.............................................................................................31 City of Nevada City.............................................................................................31 Nevada County – County Service Areas..............................................................32 Nevada County..............................................................................................32 County Service Area (CSA) 1A....................................................................32 County Service Area (CSA) 2.......................................................................33 County Service Area (CSA) 12.....................................................................33 County Service Area (CSA) 13.....................................................................34 County Service Area (CSA) 14.....................................................................35 County Service Area (CSA) 18.....................................................................36 County Service Area (CSA) 21.....................................................................36 County Service Area (CSA) 22.....................................................................37 County Service Area (CSA) 24.....................................................................38 Beyers Lane Community Services District (CSD)..............................................39 Mystic Mine Community Service District (CSD)................................................39 Lake of the Pines Ranchos Community Service District (CSD)..........................40 Permanent Road Divisions...................................................................................41 Final Draft January 13, 2005 Table of Contents Page ii VII. Determinations................................................................................................................42 City of Grass Valley.............................................................................................42 City of Nevada City.............................................................................................43 County Service Area (CSA) 1A...........................................................................44 County Service Area (CSA) 2..............................................................................45 County Service Area (CSA) 12............................................................................46 County Service Area (CSA) 13............................................................................47 County Service Area (CSA) 14............................................................................48 County Service Area (CSA) 18............................................................................49 County Service Area (CSA) 21............................................................................50 County Service Area (CSA) 22............................................................................51 County Service Area (CSA) 24............................................................................52 Beyers Lane Community Services District (CSD)..............................................53 Mystic Mine Community Service District (CSD)................................................54 Lake of the Pines Ranchos Community Service District (CSD)..........................55 Appendices Appendix A: Measure F Appendix B: Comments and Responses Final Draft January 13, 2005 I. Executive Summary Page 1 II.. EEXXEECCUUTTIIVVEE SSUUMMMMAARRYY The Municipal Service Review for Road and Street Operations and Planning in Western Nevada County includes the cities of Grass Valley and Nevada City as well as nine County Service Areas (CSAs) and three Community Service Districts (CSDs). While the CSAs and CSDs only provide road maintenance, the cities and the County also provide roadway planning, design and construction. The County’s General Plan includes a Circulation Element that provides information on existing conditions and future plans for the roadways within its jurisdiction. In addition, the Nevada County Transportation Commission is a re- gional agency responsible for planning and financing roadway projects throughout the County. While it does not have any direct maintenance responsibility, it does provide the forward planning that will guide the development of the County’s roadway system in the future. LAFCo must conduct service reviews prior to or in conjunction with the mandated five-year schedule for updating SOIs. The service review report must include an analysis of the issues and written determina- tions for each of the following: • Infrastructure needs or deficiencies; • Growth and population projections for the affected area; • Financing constraints and opportunities; • Cost avoidance opportunities; • Opportunities for rate restructuring; • Opportunities for shared facilities; • Government structure options, including advantages and disadvantages of the consolidation or re- organization of service providers; • Evaluation of management efficiencies; and • Local accountability and governance. In preparing the road and street service review report, the Nevada LAFCo population model was used. The model projected the population increases in Nevada County for four growth scenarios, which in- cluded: Expected Growth; Expected Infill; High Expected Growth; and High Expected Infill. The results of the model were used to estimate future service demands for road and street maintenance. RRooaadd aanndd SSttrreeeett MMaaiinntteennaannccee SSeerrvviicceess The provision of road maintenance services is highly dependent on local conditions, the approved levels of service for the roadways (traffic volume and speed), and projected population growth within each dis- trict. While substantial growth is projected for both cities, the CSAs and CSDs are not expected to have any change in population. These districts primarily serve existing, developed communities and future growth is not expected. Final Draft January 13, 2005 I. Executive Summary Page 2 The roadway infrastructure of the districts varies significantly, ranging from dirt roads to major arterials. The two cities are responsible for road maintenance within their service boundaries. The County is pro- viding the maintenance services for the CSAs, and the CSDs contract for maintenance. CSAs are primar- ily related to subdivisions and are established at the outset to ensure adequate maintenance funding in the future. CSDs are formed for a particular community and may follow development when residents deter- mine that they wish to expand the service levels they are currently receiving. Although not specifically addressed in this service review, the County also has nine active Permanent Road Divisions (PRDs) that are used to fund road maintenance and construction. PRDs are not subject to the authority of LAFCo. There are a number of planning documents that guide the future development of the County’s road system for both incorporated and unincorporated areas. As mentioned earlier, the County’s General Plan includes a Circulation Element that addresses future needs, standards and population growth. The Nevada County Transportation Commission prepares and administers the Regional Transportation Plan, which crosses local boundaries and provides a comprehensive plan for addressing the transportation needs of the County. In addition, the City of Grass Valley has adopted a Street System Master Plan in 2004 that will guide the City’s planning and Capital Improvement Program for its streets. The staff of Nevada County also works closely with the residents in the CSAs and PRDs to develop five-year maintenance plans to ensure that the residents are aware of future infrastructure and financing needs. In Nevada County 75% of the total road miles are privately maintained, with the CSAs and CSDs respon- sible for only a small fraction of those privately maintained roads. The rest are maintained by Homeown- ers Associations (HOA) and property owners. The high percentage of roads maintained privately is largely the result of a policy adopted by the Nevada County Board of Supervisors in 1976 which limited the roads that would be accepted into the publicly maintained system to those for which an established maintenance funding mechanism existed. There is a concern that if this policy is modified in the future to permit roads to be added to the County-maintained system without the requisite funding, it would further exacerbate the financial constraints of the road maintenance agencies. Often the roads in question are below County standards and would require significant funding to implement the necessary improvements and repairs.. Financing for road maintenance is the most critical issue for the districts addressed in this review. Main- tenance is funded by a complex mix of Federal, State and local sources. The primary sources of revenue are the gas tax and Vehicle License Fees. However, the passage of Proposition 13, cutbacks in State and Federal programs, and State policy changes which have diverted monies to other uses have severely re- stricted funding options for road maintenance. The dramatic reductions in the revenue stream and allocations from State and Federal sources have caused a critical deficiency for districts in Nevada County that provide maintenance for public roads. Federal monies are generally used for transit, safety and circulation improvements, not road maintenance. Regional Surface Transportation Program monies (STP) monies may be used for a variety of street and Final Draft January 13, 2005 I. Executive Summary Page 3 road purposes including maintenance. The practice in Nevada County is to allocate these monies for maintenance and rehabilitation of local streets. Nevada County is working with various state-wide organi- zations to try to restore State and Federal funding for roads, but it is unlikely that these efforts will be suc- cessful in the short term. The most promising solution would seem to be increasing funding at the local level and increasing aware- ness that roadway maintenance is critical for Nevada County. Although the Town of Truckee has an ad- ditional ½ cent sales tax for road maintenance and capital improvements, Nevada County has not adopted a local sales tax measure for an additional amount dedicated to roads. Eighteen counties in California use this method to provide an adequate level of funding for street maintenance and improvements. The County does have Measure F, a voter approved initiative adopted in 1996, which stipulates that 50% of State Motor Vehicle In-Lieu fees (Vehicle License Fees) received by the County be used for road mainte- nance. However, with changes in legislation this past year, this funding source has been reduced to a third of its former level. All Vehicle License Fee revenue will be used to fund State health care mandates, so the County will be providing the voter-approved 50% funding for roads from the County General Fund. It is uncertain how the County will deal with the long-term consequences of the reduction in VLF revenue. In summary, the major economic challenges facing Nevada County with respect to road maintenance funding include: 1. Heavy reliance on the State Motor Vehicle In-Lieu fees has resulted in the loss of more than 50% of the money traditionally relied upon by the County for road maintenance. This will have severe impacts in the future on the County’s ability to finance preventative maintenance on county streets and roads. 2. Maintenance and improvement costs are growing faster than gas-tax-related revenues. 3. The inability to maintain a comprehensive preventative maintenance program because of funding shortages has a subsequent exponential impact on long term road maintenance liabilities. 4. The anticipated pattern of dispersed development in the County is relatively expensive to serve, and there is increasing pressure for the County to accept private roads into the publicly main- tained road system. If the County modifies existing policy and begins to accept private roads without an established maintenance funding mechanism, funding difficulties would be greatly ex- acerbated. It appears likely from this review that the County in particular will not be able to maintain roads in satis- factory condition in the future with the level of funding currently available. The most effective solution may be to ask for a local tax of some sort, either a ¼ cent addition to the sales tax as is provided for in State law, or some sort of a parcel tax or assessment. This effort would need to be coordinated with the cities and other groups and requires that all the agencies involved, including LAFCo, take more active leadership roles in public outreach efforts to educate residents on the local benefit of, and need for, in- Final Draft January 13, 2005 I. Executive Summary Page 4 creased funding. Critical deficiencies in road maintenance can impact other services. For example, the ability of public safety personnel (i.e. fire, ambulances and police) to respond quickly is directly affected by the quality of roadway maintenance. Improved roadway surfaces, upgraded bridges and other road- related infrastructure can shorten response times. Final Draft January 13, 2005 II. Service Setting Page 5 IIII.. SSEERRVVIICCEE SSEETTTTIINNGG This chapter describes the various jurisdictions within western Nevada County that have responsibility for roads, streets, and traffic maintenance. This includes the California Department of Transportation (Cal- trans), the Nevada County Transportation Commission, Nevada County through its regional programs as outlined in its General Plan and through the County Service Areas (CSAs) that provide road maintenance, the cities of Grass Valley and Nevada City, and three Community Service Districts (CSDs) that also pro- vide road maintenance to specialized areas. The study area for this Municipal Service Review (MSR) is shown in Figures II.1 and II.2 at the end of the chapter. AA.. RREEGGIIOONNAALL SSEETTTTIINNGG AANNDD RREEGGUULLAATTOORRYY RREEQQUUIIRREEMMEENNTTSS The responsibility for planning, building, and maintaining roads and streets in Nevada County is shared among a variety of agencies. This section briefly describes the responsibilities of each agency. CCaalliiffoorrnniiaa DDeeppaarrttmmeenntt ooff TTrraannssppoorrttaattiioonn ((CCaallttrraannss)) Caltrans is the state agency with the responsibility for maintaining Interstate Highways, U.S. Highways, and State Highways (State Routes) throughout California. Within western Nevada County, Caltrans has jurisdiction over Interstate 80 and State Routes 20, 49, and 174. NNeevvaaddaa CCoouunnttyy TTrraannssppoorrttaattiioonn CCoommmmiissssiioonn ((NNCCTTCC)) The Nevada County Transportation Commission (NCTC) is a regional agency that has responsibility for planning and financing roadway projects throughout the county. NCTC’s responsibilities include trans- portation functions that cross local boundaries and can be more efficiently accomplished through shared resources. Examples include maintenance of Nevada County’s traffic forecasting model and preparation of the Regional Transportation Plan. NCTC does not have direct maintenance responsibility for any of Nevada County’s roadways. NNeevvaaddaa CCoouunnttyy Nevada County has the responsibility for planning, building, and maintaining all public roadways, except for State Routes, in the unincorporated area of the County. The County is required by State law to periodi- cally prepare a General Plan, including a Circulation Element that provides information on existing condi- tions and future plans for the roadways in its jurisdiction. Nevada County has established standards for roads and streets right-of-way width, paving width and fuel modification zones (Section L-XVII 3.12 of the Nevada County Code). Maintenance of county roadways is performed by the County Department of Transportation and Sanitation (DOTS). County roadway main- tenance is funded by state funds, gas taxes and Measure F funds. Non-county roadway maintenance is typically funded and maintained by homeowner associations, County Service Areas (CSAs) or Permanent Final Draft January 13, 2005 II. Service Setting Page 6 Road Divisions (PRDs). A permanent road division is a geographic area formed pursuant to California Streets and Highways Code, Section 1160, et seq. to provide road improvements and road maintenance. The County has nine PRDs that are not under LAFCo authority. Although not directly related to road maintenance, the Nevada County DOTS staff developed the 2003 Roadside Vegetation Management Plan to reflect current budgetary constraints in 2003. The revised plan was the result of the Nevada County Board of Supervisors’ request to find alternatives to the use of herbi- cides on roads and streets. The Plan has significance for both the roads and streets service review but also for the fire agencies service review report. Since 1999, DOTS has reduced herbicide use by 60% percent and also uses recycled asphalt which is a by-product of Caltrans work. It is used as shoulder-backing material and has been found to work better than gravel for keeping weeds and grasses down. Native vegetation was tried, but although the seed mix- tures worked well in early spring, by June the shoulder was overtaken by grasses. While the right-of-way along county roads is too narrow for alternative vegetation to compete with native grasses, it worked well on cut banks and slopes. The DOTS staff also added wildflower seeds which were well received by the public. The most permanent method for controlling weeds is to pave the shoulders. In the Plan, the DOTS staff divided Nevada County into five management zones according to the dif- ferent types of weed and grasses, rate of weed growth, climate, public input and other factors. It then de- veloped methods of roadside vegetation control for each zone. Zone 1 includes the Wolf Road-Garden Bar area, Rough and Ready, Penn Valley, and the Bitney Springs- Newtown Road areas. The zone covers approximately 158 miles of roadways. The primary method of vegetation control is herbicides. Zone 2 includes the Dog Bar Road, Rattlesnake Road, Mt. Olive, Alta Sierra and Lower Colfax areas and encompasses approximately 130 miles of road. The primary means of vegetation control is herbicides. Zone 3 includes North Bloomfield Road, Cement Hill area, Washington Road, Banner Mountain area, Cascade Shores, Greenhorn and Orchards Springs and encompasses approximately 145 miles of roadway. The primary means of vegetation control will be herbicides in the lower elevations due to fast growing grasses with mowing at higher elevations where the rate of growth is slower. Zone 4 includes the North San Juan, Oak Tree Road, Murphy Road and Purdon areas as well as Columbia Hill, Grizzly Hill and the Bloomfield area north of the Yuba River. Zone 4 covers approximately 85 miles of road and the primary method of vegetation control will be mowing. One significant drawback to mowing is that the risk of fire is significant even with DOTS requiring a water truck to follow the mower. Zone 5 is entirely in the high country and in the eastern portion of the county and includes the Granite- ville/Bowman Lake area, Hobart Mills, Prosser Lake and Truckee areas, including Soda Springs. Zone 5 Final Draft January 13, 2005 II. Service Setting Page 7 covers approximately 67 miles of roadway. Brushing will be the primary means of vegetation control. Brushing is removing heavy brush and trees to open sight distances, improve road width and allow pedes- trian use of the shoulders. The DOTS uses employees, California Youth Authority (CYA) staff, County inmates and private specialized personnel for brushing. All of the various methods of vegetation management are used to produce the most effective and cost ef- ficient means of vegetation control. CCiittyy ooff GGrraassss VVaalllleeyy The City of Grass Valley has jurisdiction over all public roadways, other than State Routes, that are lo- cated within the city limits. In addition, Grass Valley has responsibility for planning roadways in its sphere of influence (SOI). The sphere of influence is divided into 5-, 10-, 15- and 20-year boundaries. The City and sphere of influence boundaries are shown in Figure II.3 at the end of this chapter. The City is required by State law to periodically prepare a General Plan, including a Circulation Element that pro- vides information on existing conditions and future plans for the roadways in its jurisdiction. CCiittyy ooff NNeevvaaddaa CCiittyy The City of Nevada City has jurisdiction over all public roadways, other than State Routes, that are loca- ted within the city limits. In addition, Nevada City has responsibility for planning roadways in its sphere of influence. The City and its proposed sphere of influence boundaries are shown in Figure II.4 at the end of this chapter (the City’s proposed sphere of influence update has not yet been formally adopted by LAFCo). The City is required by State law to periodically prepare a General Plan, including a Circulation Element that provides information on existing conditions and future plans for the roadways in its jurisdic- tion. CCoouunnttyy SSeerrvviiccee AArreeaass ((CCSSAAss)) County Service Areas (CSAs) are dependent special districts. Typically they are formed at the time final maps are adopted to provide a higher level of service for a specific neighborhood or community. There are a total of nine CSAs in western Nevada County operated by the Nevada County DOTS. Each CSA has a defined area, function, and funding source. The County Service Area Law (Government Code §25210.1 et seq.) was created in the 1950’s to provide a means of providing expanded service levels in unincorporated areas where residents are willing to pay for the extra service. A CSA is authorized to provide a wide variety of services, including street main- tenance and snow removal. Once approved, the CSA is normally granted limited powers and the Board of Supervisors acts as the governing board. Road maintenance and improvements may be funded with benefit assessments (based on the benefit each parcel receives) or by special taxes. In Nevada County, generally both types of charges are subject to annual approval at a public hearing. Final Draft January 13, 2005 II. Service Setting Page 8 Proposals to form CSAs are submitted to LAFCo, which reviews the proposal, holds hearings, and ap- proves, conditionally approves, or denies application. No new CSAs for road maintenance have been formed in the County since the early 1990s, largely since the County now favors the use of Permanent Road Divisions. The following nine CSAs are within western Nevada County and are the subject of this service review: • CSA 1A – Wolf Creek/Clover Valley/Fay Roads • CSA 2 – Birch Meadows • CSA 12 – Adamson / Trotter Roads • CSA 13 – Wolf Drive / Tom Ray Roads • CSA 14 – Retrac Way / Hilltop • CSA 18 – IWB North • CSA 21 – Sharon Oaks • CSA 22 – 6B Ranches Thoroughbred / Ponderosa Way • CSA 24 –Oak Crest – Mountain Lakes Estates CCoommmmuunniittyy SSeerrvviiccee DDiissttrriiccttss ((CCSSDDss)) Community Service Districts (CSDs) are independent special districts. The principal act for the district is found in Government Code §61000-61936, known as the Community Services District Law. LAFCo must review the formation of any new special district, including a CSD. LAFCo approval of pro- posals that do not have 100% consent of all property owners in the area affected by the proposed district formation are subject to a protest hearing. At the protest hearing, which is an administrative process con- ducted by LAFCo staff, protest may be made by petition of affected registered voters or property owners from within the affected area only. Sufficient protest petitions may result in termination of a boundary change approved by LAFCo or, in rare circumstances, an election. Protest proceedings may be waived when there is 100% property owner consent and where any agency gaining territory consents to the waiver of proceedings. The Board of Supervisors may dispense with the election if at least 80% of the registered voters residing within the district signed the original petition. There are four CSDs in western Nevada County, three of which were formed primarily to provide road maintenance services: Beyers Lane, Lake of the Pines Ranchos and Mystic Mine. PPeerrmmaanneenntt RRooaadd DDiivviissiioonnss ((PPRRDDss)) Permanent Road Divisions are not special districts as defined by LAFCo law. They are geographic areas designated by the Board of Supervisors for providing road improvements and maintenance, formed pur- suant to the Streets and Highways Code §1160 et seq. (the Permanent Road Division Law). Services in PRDs can be financed by either special taxes or assessments (also called Parcel Charges). In contrast to County Service Areas and Community Service Districts, PRDs can only be used to fund road Final Draft January 13, 2005 II. Service Setting Page 9 maintenance and improvements. They are established after notice of the landowners and a public hearing. Generally, an assessment or special tax is presented to the landowners at the same time. In Nevada County, there are nine active Permanent Road Divisions. In recent years, the County has fa- vored formation of PRDs to CSAs for provision of enhanced road maintenance and improvements, probably due to the relatively simpler formation process and administrative structure. PRDs are not subject to LAFCo review. OOtthheerr AAggeenncciieess Within Nevada County, there are Federal and State agencies as well as private entities that also provide road and highway maintenance services: • US Forest Service: 213 miles • US Bureau of Land Management 14.1 miles • California Dept. of Parks and Recreation 43.3miles • Caltrans 129.9 miles • Private homeowner associations 52 miles The following figures depict the study area for road and street maintenance within western Nevada County: • Figure II.1 – Regional Map • Figure II.2 – Vicinity Map • Figure II.3 – City of Grass Valley and Sphere of Influence Boundaries • Figure II.4 – City of Nevada City and Sphere of Influence Boundaries Final Draft January 13, 2005 II. Service Setting Page 10 Final Draft January 13, 2005 II. Service Setting Page 11 Final Draft January 13, 2005 II. Service Setting Page 12 Final Draft January 13, 2005 II. Service Setting Page 13 Final Draft January 13, 2005 III. Matching Infrastructure to Growth Page 14 IIIIII.. MMAATTCCHHIINNGG IINNFFRRAASSTTRRUUCCTTUURREE TTOO GGRROOWWTTHH AA.. IINNFFRRAASSTTRRUUCCTTUURREE The number of lane miles (as reported by Caltrans) maintained by each jurisdiction is shown in Figure III.1 below: FFiigguurree IIIIII..11 MMiilleess ooff RRooaadd MMaaiinnttaaiinneedd iinn LLaannee MMiilleess –– 22000000 County Truckee Nevada City Grass Valley 0.0 100.0 200.0 300.0 400.0 500.0 600.0 The County is responsible for more miles of road maintenance than all of the cities combined, or about 74% of the total. City streets see somewhat more daily vehicle miles; however the County system handles the majority of trips, an estimated 68% based on the latest data (2000) available from Caltrans. The Town of Truckee is not included in this service review but is included in Figure III.1 for comparison purposes. BB.. GGRROOWWTTHH AARREEAASS AANNDD PPRROOJJEECCTTIIOONNSS During the preparation of this MSR, population forecasts were prepared for each of the jurisdictions listed above for various future scenarios. The source data for these estimates were population forecasts prepared for Nevada County LAFCo by Facet Decision Systems (Project Summary - Municipal Service Reviews Population and Employment Projection Model, April 2004). As discussed in other service review reports, the four scenarios of future growth include: • Expected General Plan • Expected Infill • High Growth General Plan • High Growth Infill Population was estimated for base year (2002) conditions and population forecasts were prepared for five year increments from 2007 through 2027. Population forecasts for future years were obtained from the LAFCo population model. In determining the total population for each of the cities for future years, the Final Draft January 13, 2005 III. Matching Infrastructure to Growth Page 15 anticipated sphere of influence of the city was included in the population total. For example, the City of Grass Valley’s 2007 total population includes the 2007 population within the geographic area of the exist- ing city limit plus the 2007 population within the geographic area of the City’s five-year sphere of influ- ence. Contact was made with each of the CSAs and CSDs and none had any expectations of population growth. Therefore, CSA and CSD population estimates did not change over time. Given that the CSAs and CSDs provide services to limited areas, it is logical that growth would be non-existent or very limited. In general terms, growth is expected to occur throughout western Nevada County, but is expected to occur in the highest concentrations in and around Grass Valley and Nevada City as well as in some unincorpor- ated communities. For example, under the LAFCo/County Model’s assumptions for the expected growth rate (approximately 2% county-wide) Grass Valley’s current population of 12,000 could reach 29,642 by 2027. Under the same scenario, Nevada City’s population might expand from its current 3,000 to 3,926. CC.. MMAATTCCHHIINNGG IINNFFRRAASSTTRRUUCCTTUURREE AANNDD GGRROOWWTTHH State law requires each Regional Transportation Planning Agency (RTPA) to adopt and submit an up- dated Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) to the California Transportation Commission (Commission) and the Department of Transportation (Caltrans) every three years in urban regions and every four years in non-urban regions [Government Code, §65080 (c)]. Nevada County is considered a non-urban county. In Nevada County, an RTP was prepared in 2001 which addressed existing and future transportation prob- lems, potential solutions and identified both the funding and policies necessary to meet the needs of all of Nevada County for the next twenty years. An update of the RTP will be completed by September 2005. The RTP process included extensive review by the Nevada County Transportation Commission, the Technical Advisory Committee, the Operational Policy Committee, the Social Services Transportation Advisory Council, the Cities of Grass Valley and Nevada City, the Town of Truckee and Nevada County. In addition, a Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared which addresses the environ- mental impacts of the plan. Both the RTP and the associated final EIR are incorporated into this MSR by reference. Since the RTP is detailed and addresses all forms of multi-modal transportation, including streets and roads, it is suggested that Nevada LAFCo participate in the update process for the RTP to ensure that the nine determinations required by Government Code Section §56430 for service reviews are also addressed in the Plan. This could increase efficiencies and reduce costs. Nevada City relies on the planning completed by the County DOTS to determine future needs. Grass Valley completed its Street System Master Plan in August 2004. The City used a twenty-year planning horizon to determine future needs and deficiencies with a five-year timeline for CIP projects. The rec- ommendations will be used to guide the timely implementation of the City’s CIP program in light of pro- jected growth and infrastructure conditions. Final Draft January 13, 2005 III. Matching Infrastructure to Growth Page 16 For the CSAs and CSDs, no growth is projected and infrastructure needs and deficiencies are tied directly to available funding. While a majority of the CSAs have funds for routine maintenance, some are under- funded if large and/or one-time expenditures for repairs are needed. In addition, the Mystic Mine CSD noted that they could benefit from assistance with technical road maintenance questions but that they have difficulty in accessing this type of information. Final Draft January 13, 2005 IV. Financing and Economics of Scale Page 17 IIVV.. FFIINNAANNCCIINNGG AANNDD EECCOONNOOMMIICCSS OOFF SSEERRVVIICCEE AA.. FFUUNNDDIINNGG FFOORR RROOAADD MMAAIINNTTEENNAANNCCEE –– GGEENNEERRAALL The maintenance of local roads is funded by a complex mix of Federal, State and local sources. In Cali- fornia the largest sources of funding for street maintenance are the gas tax and Vehicle License Fees channeled through the General Funds of cities and counties. These revenues are distributed from the State to units of local government (cities and counties). These agencies also make other General Fund commit- ments for road maintenance based on their resources, needs and policy determinations. Some areas have adopted a local sales tax specifically for road maintenance and improvements that provides significant supplemental revenue that is protected from redirection by the State government. Total monies made available by the State to cities and counties are largely derived from gas tax revenues. This revenue source has shown some growth, but it is estimated that since 1990 the real value of these revenues has been eroded by 12% due to inflation.1 In addition, the tax is bringing in only about 70% of what was projected back in 1990 due to improved fuel mileage.2 Gas tax revenues are not keeping up with the cost of living or the cost of repairing roads. This has had a negative effect on all street and road maintenance programs throughout the country, including California and Nevada County. In addition to the gas tax, Vehicle License Fees provide an important source of revenue for local agencies. Nevada County has a unique funding mechanism for street and road purposes via a voter approved initia- tive “Measure F” enacted in 1996. (A portion of this Measure defining its purpose is included as Appen- dix A.) Measure F stipulates that 50% of State Motor Vehicle In-Lieu fees received by the County be used for road maintenance. However, the Measure, as a funding source, has been impacted by State budget disputes over the last few years. In 1998, the State reduced the License Fee (popularly known as the “Car Tax”) to approximately a third of the former level but provided State General funds as “backfill” to local jurisdictions for the loss of revenue with the exception of the first quarter of FY 2003-2004. Nevada County treated this backfill as subject to Measure F and 50% was placed to the credit of the Roads fund. At June 30, 2004 the balance in the Motor Vehicle License Fee Fund for Measure F purposes was approximately $9,240,000. The an- nual Measure F revenues for FY 2003-2004 were approximately $4,277,000. The State budget act of 2004 eliminated the State’s “backfill” of former Motor Vehicle License Fees to local jurisdictions. This will have significant impacts on Measure F funding. It is estimated that the FY 2004-2005 Measure F revenues will be $1,868,000, a loss of approximately $2,409,000 over the previous year. It is anticipated that this loss will be ongoing. The available fund balances in the Motor Vehicle License Fee Fund will help smooth the impacts of this revenue loss over the near term but reductions in the maintenance program funded by Measure F are being made. Due to the uncertainty of the pending 1 Brooking Institute Series on Transportation Reform 3/2003f 2 http://www.transportationca.com Final Draft January 13, 2005 IV. Financing and Economics of Scale Page 18 revenue reduction, the County DOTS eliminated asphalt overlays, chip seals and gravel road oiling from the 2004-2005 year’s work program last spring. The $9.2 million balance in the Road fund will be used to continue the programs in the future as funding permits. Proposition 423, approved by voters in 2002, could provide an additional source of funding; however, the State has been using this funding for other purposes to alleviate its critical financial condition. The long-term prognosis is that funding for road maintenance and improvements will continue to diminish as the State maintains control over a significant portion of revenues intended for local agencies. Federal monies are also important to the street system, but they are generally programmed for transit, safety or circulation improvements. Regional Surface Transportation Program monies (STP) may be used for a variety of street and road purposes including maintenance. These funds are distributed by the Trans- portation Commission. The practice in Nevada County is to allocate these monies for maintenance and rehabilitation of local streets. Another Federal funding program is the Transportation Enhancement Activ- ity program (TEA), which is focused on transportation related projects that improve quality of life. In Ne- vada County TEA funds are allocated for capital costs associated with implementation of pedestrian and bicycle transportation projects. One major source of funding for transportation, including maintenance, is a local sales tax. Eighteen California counties (home to 85% of the State’s residents) have some kind of supplemental voter- approved tax funding for street maintenance and improvements. Nevada County has not adopted a local sales tax, although the Town of Truckee has a ½ cent local sales tax specifically for roadway maintenance and capital improvements. This source of local revenue provides a dedicated funding source to ensure the timely completion of roadway improvements and to minimize or eliminate deferred maintenance. BB.. JJUURRIISSDDIICCTTIIOONNAALL FFUUNNDDIINNGG As discussed above, the agencies responsible for road maintenance in Nevada County rely on a mixture of State, Federal and local revenues for road maintenance. The following charts show monies received from these sources for street and road purposes, as reported in the State Controller’s Street and Roads re- port for FY 2001-2002. 3 Proposition 42 requires, effective July 1, 2003, existing revenues resulting from state sales and use taxes on the sale of motor vehicle fuel be used for transportation purposes as provided by law until June 30, 2008. It further re- quires, effective July 1, 2008, existing revenues resulting from state sales and use taxes be used for public transit and mass transportation; city and county street and road repairs and improvements; and state highway improvements. It also imposes the requirement for a two-thirds vote of the Legislature to suspend or modify the percentage allocation of the revenues. (www.smartvoter.org) Final Draft January 13, 2005 IV. Financing and Economics of Scale Page 19 FFiigguurreess IIVV..11 -- 33 FFYY 22000022 TToottaall RReevveennuueess ffoorr SSttrreeeett aanndd RRooaadd PPuurrppoosseess bbyy TTyyppee Federal: $166,043 6% State: $616,133 City: 21% $1,148,359 Grass Valley 37% Total Funding = $3,004,702 Local Govt Agencies: $1,074,167 36% State: $139,029 23% Nevada City Total Funding = $598,400 City: $459,371 77% Federal: $372,603 5% Nevada County Total Funding = $8,103,160 (includes funding for roads in eastern county) County/Local Sources: $3,880,190 47% State: $3,714,796 46% Cities/Districts: $135,571 2% Final Draft January 13, 2005 IV. Financing and Economics of Scale Page 20 In addition, as described in the previous section, the County relies on small, financially segregated CSAs, PRDs and other types of assessment districts to fund road repair and maintenance costs on a neighbor- hood level. While integral to the system of financing maintenance of the road system, the CSAs and PRDs require some degree of duplicate administration (The County DOTS, for example, must manage over 11 of these districts). The districts average only about $15,000 per year in revenues, but must be managed as legally separate special districts, with all the attendant costs. In addition, passage of Proposition 218 in 1996 has increased the administrative costs and uncertainty associated with the maintenance of CSAs by requiring an election procedure for new or increased assessments. However, while there are costs to administering these districts and they result in varying levels of road maintenance, the County DOTS views them as one of the few methods available for increasing maintenance funding for areas where residents desire en- hanced services. Despite its increased procedural requirements, Proposition 218 has not been an obstacle to obtaining adequate assessments within the districts according to County staff. The following table summarizes voting requirements for different types of taxes and assessments. TYPE VOTE NEEDED WHO VOTES VOTE REQUIREMENT TAXES General Yes All voters in affected area Majority Special Yes All voters in affected area 2/3 ASSESSMENTS All Yes Property Owners Majority FEES Property Related Yes Either property owners or Majority of property own- voters ers or 2/3 voters CC.. JJUURRIISSDDIICCTTIIOONNAALL EEXXPPEENNDDIITTUURREESS Street and road maintenance expenditures vary from year to year based on available funding, extent of deferred maintenance, traffic and climate conditions. For FY 2002, maintenance expenditures in Nevada County for the agencies included in this service review averaged $8,150 per mile of maintained road. The State average is $15,157. Within Nevada County, street maintenance expenditures varied significantly between incorporated and unincorporated areas. Figure IV.4 below shows expenditures per mile by juris- diction in Nevada County. It also shows the overall average for counties and cities in California. The Town of Truckee has been included for comparison purposes but is not addressed in this service review. Final Draft January 13, 2005 IV. Financing and Economics of Scale Page 21 FFiigguurree IIVV..44 FFYY 22000022 EExxppeennddiittuurreess ffoorr RRooaadd MMaaiinntteennaannccee ppeerr MMiillee ooff MMaaiinnttaaiinneedd RRooaaddss $50,000.00 $40,000.00 $30,000.00 $20,000.00 $10,000.00 $0.00 v a d a C o u nt y All c o u nti e s Gr a s s V all e y N e v a d a Cit y Tr u c k e e All citi e s e N All jurisdictions in Nevada County, except Truckee, spent less than the average for similar jurisdictions in 2002 on road maintenance. The Truckee expenditures are higher due to a higher level of available funding from the local sales tax as well as $1.5 million in snow removal costs. Table IV.1 summarizes jurisdictional expenditures for road maintenance. TTaabbllee IIVV..11 CCoommppaarriissoonn ooff SSttrreeeett MMaaiinntteennaannccee EExxppeennddiittuurreess iinn FFYY 22000022 RRaattiioo ooff EExxppeenn-- ddiittuurreess // MMiillee ttoo 22000022 MMaaiinntteennaannccee 22000000 EExxppeennddiittuurreess // JJuurriissddiiccttiioonn SSttaattee AAvveerraaggee EExxppeennddiittuurreess MMiilleess MMiillee ffoorr PPeeeerr JJuurriiss-- ddiiccttiioonnss Nevada County $ 4,003,057 564.5 $ 7,091.33 80% Grass Valley $ 699,703 38.6 $ 18,127.02 87% Nevada City $ 369,203 19.2 $ 19,229.32 92% AVERAGE $ 8,150.35 54% Truckee* $ 6,746,833 146.2 $ 46,147.97 220% All cities $1,490,308,633 71,131.3 $ 20,951.52 NA All counties $ 587,609,125 65,957.7 $ 8,908.88 NA AVERAGE $ 15,157.44 NA *Town of Truckee included for information only; not part of service review Final Draft January 13, 2005 IV. Financing and Economics of Scale Page 22 It should be noted that this is only a one year “snap-shot” of spending. The nature of local transportation expenditures, especially those portions funded with State and Federal appropriations, is quite variable. In any given year a large State or Federal project can skew the general trend. However, the overall average spending for Nevada County is probably close to typical for similarly sized counties with similar land uses. It is not surprising that Nevada County generally expends less per mile than the state average. The county has a scattered population, a fairly small tax base and a higher number of lane-miles per person to maintain. Non-urban agencies are faced with the challenge of maintaining a road system to serve a regional area, but do not have the population or tax base associated with more ur- ban areas that would provide a higher level of funding. DD.. TTRREENNDDSS AANNDD IIDDEENNTTIIFFIIEEDD NNEEEEDDSS The County, which maintains the majority of roadway miles, only spends approximately 80% of the aver- age for counties in California for maintenance per mile. Nevada County faces a continuing problem in deferred repaving and maintenance needs due to limited funding. According to a survey conducted by the California State Association of Counties in late 2004, Nevada County has a repaving cycle of 50 years; the recommended cycle per industry standards is 18 to 20 years. 45% of County roads are in fair to very poor condition. There is a current funding shortfall of $4 million and an existing backlog of $26 million. The cities in Nevada County spend at a higher level and at a rate which is somewhat closer to average for cities in the state. Truckee is obviously an atypical situation because of the higher level of funding due to the local sales tax as well as substantial snowfall and other climatic factors, which require significant ad- ditional expenditures. For example, Truckee reported snow removal costs alone of $1.5 million in 2002. The fact that cities are able to spend relatively more on street maintenance reflects the greater need for such services in more highly trafficked areas and also may reflect the fact that cities have more funding options. Specifically, in Nevada County the cities contain the majority of sales tax generating uses, and sales tax has become the most significant funding source for local government. To fully understand the implications of relative funding levels would require further analysis using each jurisdiction’s Pavement Management System. These are software programs commonly used to optimize maintenance expenditures over the lifetime of a pavement surface. At the current and projected levels of funding, public works managers in the Nevada County agencies responsible for road maintenance are not able to fully fund preventative maintenance programs. This is significant because preventive maintenance is a prudent investment to reduce future costs as shown in Figure IV.5. Final Draft January 13, 2005 IV. Financing and Economics of Scale Page 23 FFiigguurree IIVV..55 IInnccrreeaasseedd RRooaadd MMaaiinntteennaannccee CCoossttss DDuuee ttoo RRooaaddwwaayy DDeetteerriioorraattiioonn 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 0 4 8 12 16 Years Expenditure targets of from $15,000 to $25,000 per year per mile of maintained road are common for typical road conditions. Using this rough rule of thumb, expenditures appear to be at a level that would be considered less than optimal for minimization of long term costs while maintaining a good road surface. Relatively speaking, the County appears to be in a difficult position. Not only does it have less to spend on road maintenance, it is more heavily reliant on State funding than the cities, at least based on the ex- penditure reporting for 2002 (see Figures IV.1-3). State funding has been reduced since 1998 and will continue to be reduced over at least the next two years. Obviously the dollar-for-dollar impact of an equivalent loss of State funding will hit the County harder than the incorporated jurisdictions. The most significant factor impacting the County is the sub- stantial reduction in Motor Vehicle In-Lieu fees and the consequent lower levels of funding from Measure F. Finally, from a land-use perspective, the manner in which Nevada County continues to grow and develop has significant implications for the cost of road improvements and thus long term maintenance costs. If Nevada County continues to grow in a relatively dispersed, very low-density manner, road improvement and maintenance costs will be higher than if a more compact, higher density, model for development is followed. A major study completed by the Center for Urban Policy Research in 1999 concluded that: “Appreciable savings in lane miles constructed and costs incurred could be achieved under a growth regimen emphasizing more compact development patterns.” While this study examined potential costs in 15 California counties it did not include Nevada County. Projections for some counties with which Ne- vada shares some similarities are shown in Table IV.2 below. Final Draft January 13, 2005 )tseB = 01( daoR fo noitidnoC Each $1 of maintenance spent here... Will cost $4-$5 here to achieve same result Pavement Condition Index IV. Financing and Economics of Scale Page 24 TTaabbllee IIVV..22 EEssttiimmaatteedd RRooaadd IImmpprroovveemmeenntt CCoossttss RRooaadd IImmpprroovveemmeenntt CCoossttss 22000000 -- 22002255 ((iinn bbiilllliioonnss)) TTrraaddiittiioonnaall GGrroowwtthh CCoonnttrroolllleedd GGrroowwtthh PPeerrcceennttaaggee CCoouunnttyy RRooaadd CCoosstt SSaavviinnggss PPaatttteerrnn PPaatttteerrnn RReedduuccttiioonn Kern $5.95 $5.29 $0.66 11% San Luis Obispo $3.00 $2.89 $0.11 4% Sonoma $3.87 $3.28 $0.59 15% El Dorado $3.04 $2.89 $0.15 5% Madera $2.51 $2.33 $0.18 7% Stanislaus $2.28 $1.82 $0.46 20% Humboldt $1.96 $1.92 $0.04 2% Monterey $2.68 $2.57 $0.11 4% This type of growth pattern results in fewer center line miles, and reduces the extent of future mainte- nance needs. The reduction in road improvement costs has further benefits as it frees up funding for cur- rent road maintenance. In summary, the major economic challenges facing the road maintenance agencies in Nevada County in- clude the following: 1. Heavy reliance on the State Motor Vehicle In-Lieu fee has resulted in the loss of more than 50% of the money traditionally relied upon by the County for road maintenance. This will have severe impacts in the future on the County’s ability to finance preventative maintenance on county streets and roads. 2. Maintenance and improvement costs are growing faster than gas-tax revenues. 3. The inability to maintain a comprehensive preventative maintenance program because of funding shortages has a subsequent exponential impact on long term road maintenance liabilities. 5. The anticipated pattern of dispersed development in the County is relatively expensive to serve, and there is increasing pressure for the County to accept private roads into the publicly main- tained road system. If the County modifies existing policy and begins to accept private roads without an established maintenance funding mechanism, funding difficulties would be greatly ex- acerbated. It appears likely from this review that the County in particular will not be able to maintain roads in satis- factory condition in the future with the monies currently available. The most effective solution may be to ask for a local tax of some sort, either a ¼ cent addition to the sales tax as is provided for in State law, or some sort of a parcel tax or assessment. This effort would need to be coordinated with the cities. Collabo- ration is needed as there is no clear distinction of use by residents between city or county roads, and all users would need to support the tax increase. Improvements in the County road system provide comple- Final Draft January 13, 2005 IV. Financing and Economics of Scale Page 25 mentary benefits to the cities in the perception of well-maintained roadway infrastructure by the general public and business community. If a local tax is considered a priority, it could be coordinated with a pos- sible effort to consolidate existing CSAs/PRDs into a county-wide maintenance district. This may reduce costs and increase management efficiencies. Final Draft January 13, 2005 V. Governance Page 26 VV.. GGOOVVEERRNNAANNCCEE AA.. GGOOVVEERRNNMMEENNTT SSTTRRUUCCTTUURREE OOPPTTIIOONNSS Alternatives to the current government structure for the CSAs and CSDs are limited. For the CSAs, the residents have chosen to assess themselves to provide a higher level of road and street maintenance. If a CSA chose to reorganize as an independent agency, it would be required to provide its own management, maintenance and operations; costs would undoubtedly increase. The CSAs would also lose any efficiencies created by having one organization, i.e. Nevada County, manage all the CSAs. A CSA could be dissolved and reorganized as a PRD. PRDs may not include other districts, but they can include zones of benefit such that several CSAs could be combined into one PRD. The costs and ex- pected benefits of this approach would need to be analyzed to see whether there are sufficient economies to warrant the change. No other agencies were identified that would be appropriate successor agencies for a CSA or that would be willing to assume responsibilities for the functions of a CSA unless the CSAs (and PRDs) were reorganized into a county-wide district with adequate funding. If a CSA chose to dis- solve and not reorganize, it would have to compete with other roads and streets for the limited resources Nevada County is able to allocate for road maintenance. The situation for the CSDs is similar. The three CSDs—Beyers Lane, Mystic Mine and Lake of the Pines Ranchos—are independent special districts governed by a locally elected and/or appointed Board of Di- rectors. Each was formed to provide road and street maintenance services for a specific area. Each CSD relies on volunteers in the community to help with the operations and management to reduce costs. How- ever, large expenses, such as major repairs and lawsuits, can create financial problems for a CSD. No other successor agencies were identified for the CSDs except for a county-wide assessment district. If a CSD was reorganized as a CSA or PRD, Nevada County could assume responsibility for the CSD’s functions but would require that the roads within the CSD be improved to Nevada County standards. The improvements could make the reorganization financially infeasible although some economies of scale might be achieved through the consolidated administration provided by Nevada County. Under current policy, the County would require a funding mechanism and assessment levels that would provide ade- quate funding to maintain the roads to County standards. In some cases, this may be higher than what residents are currently paying. As a note, CSA #18 serves three unimproved parcels and two improved parcels in Yuba County by con- tract. BB.. MMAANNAAGGEEMMEENNTT EEFFFFIICCIIEENNCCIIEESS The CSAs achieve management efficiencies through the consolidation of administration/operations by the Nevada County Department of Transportation and Sanitation. The CSDs rely on volunteers to achieve management efficiencies. Final Draft January 13, 2005 V. Governance Page 27 CC.. LLOOCCAALL AACCCCOOUUNNTTAABBIILLIITTYY NNeevvaaddaa CCoouunnttyy CSAs are governed by the Nevada County Board of Supervisors, and staff from the Land Use and Special District Division of the Department of Transportation and Sanitation manages all road CSAs and perma- nent road divisions (PRDs). The Board of Supervisors and their terms are listed in the following table, Table V.1. TTaabbllee VV..11 NNeevvaaddaa CCoouunnttyy BBooaarrdd ooff SSuuppeerrvviissoorrss aanndd TTeerrmmss EExxppiirraattiioonn CCoommppeennssaa-- NNaammee ooff MMeemmbbeerr DDiissttrriicctt TTiittllee DDaattee ooff TTeerrmm ttiioonn Nate Beason District 1 Supervisor 2008 $37,186 Sue Horne District 2 Vice-Chair 2008 $37,186 John Spencer District 3 Supervisor 2006 $37,186 Robin Sutherland District 4 Chair 2006 $39,046 Ted Owens District 5 Supervisor 2008 $37,186 Compensation is for all Board of Supervisor responsibilities; no additional compensation for CSA responsibilities. The Board of Supervisors meets at 9:00 a.m. on the first, second and fourth Tuesdays of every month at the Rood Administration Center, 950 Maidu Avenue, Nevada City, California. The Board may also meet at other times and places as decided by the Board. Notices are posted on bulletin boards at least ten days in advance of any public hearing at three locations, are published in local newspapers and are posted on the web site. The County also maintains a website with reports, agenda and other documents posted. The County’s website is www.mynevadacounty.com. Final Draft January 13, 2005 V. Governance Page 28 CCiittyy ooff GGrraassss VVaalllleeyy The City of Grass Valley provides road maintenance services through its Public Works Department. The City Council and their terms are listed in the following table, Table V.2. TTaabbllee VV..22 CCiittyy ooff GGrraassss CCiittyy CCoouunncciill aanndd TTeerrmmss EExxppiirraattiioonn NNaammee ooff MMeemmbbeerr TTiittllee CCoommppeennssaattiioonn DDaattee ooff TTeerrmm Gerard Tassone Mayor 2006 Stipend Mark Johnson Vice-Mayor 2008 Stipend Dean Williams Council Member 2008 Stipend Lisa Swarthout Council Member 2008 Stipend Patti Ingram Council Member 2006 Stipend Compensation is for all City Council responsibilities The regularly scheduled meeting days for the City of Grass Valley are the second and fourth Tuesdays of each month at 7:00 PM. The City Council meets in the Council chambers at the Grass Valley City Hall which is located at 125 E. Main Street. The City gives the public notice of their meetings through district posting, email, website and newspapers. The City’s website is www.cityofgrassvalley.com. CCiittyy ooff NNeevvaaddaa CCiittyy The City of Nevada City provides road maintenance services through its Public Works Department. The City Council and their terms are listed in the following table, Table V.3 TTaabbllee VV..33 NNeevvaaddaa CCiittyy CCoouunncciill aanndd TTeerrmmss EExxppiirraattiioonn NNaammee ooff MMeemmbbeerr TTiittllee CCoommppeennssaattiioonn DDaattee ooff TTeerrmm Conley Weaver Mayor 2006 NP Kerry Arnett Vice Mayor 2006 NP Sally Harris Council Member 2004 NP Steve Cottrell Council Member 2004 NP David McKay Council Member 2004 NP Compensation is for all City Council responsibilities The regularly scheduled meeting days for the City of Nevada City are the second and fourth Mondays of each month at 7:00 PM. The City Council meets in the Council chambers at 317 Broad Street. The City Final Draft January 13, 2005 V. Governance Page 29 gives the public notice of their meetings through district posting and newspapers. The City does not maintain a website. BBeeyyeerrss LLaannee CCSSDD The Beyers Lane CSD is an independent special district; its board of directors and their terms are listed in the following table, Table V.4. TTaabbllee VV..44 BBeeyyeerrss LLaannee CCSSDD BBooaarrdd ooff DDiirreeccttoorrss aanndd TTeerrmmss EExxppiirraattiioonn NNaammee ooff MMeemmbbeerr TTiittllee CCoommppeennssaattiioonn DDaattee ooff TTeerrmm Vacant Board member Dec, 2004 0 Steve Hurliman Board member 0 Nancy Footlick Board member 0 Winifred Ward Board member 0 Hal (no last name provided) Board member 0 Several of the board members are newly appointed and will be completing the terms of previous board members. The regularly scheduled meeting day for the Beyers Lane CSD is the third Thursday of Janu- ary, March, May, August, October and December. All meetings begin at 7:00 PM at the Clear Creek School, 17700 McCourtney Road, Grass Valley. The district gives the public notice of meetings through posting but does not maintain a website. MMyyssttiicc MMiinnee CCSSDD The Mystic Mine CSD is an independent special district with board members serving two- or four-year terms. Its board of directors and their terms are listed in the following table, Table V.5. TTaabbllee VV..55 MMyyssttiicc MMiinnee CCSSDD BBooaarrdd ooff DDiirreeccttoorrss aanndd TTeerrmmss EExxppiirraattiioonn NNaammee ooff MMeemmbbeerr TTiittllee CCoommppeennssaattiioonn DDaattee ooff TTeerrmm Sushila Mertens Chairman Dec. 2008 0 Jeffrey Kirishian Board Member Dec. 2004 0 Jennie Longmire Board Member Dec. 2006 0 Richard Robertshaw Board Member Dec. 2006 0 Vacant Board Member Dec. 2006 0 Final Draft January 13, 2005 V. Governance Page 30 The regularly scheduled meetings for the Mystic Mine CSD in 2005 are January 9th, April 10th, June 5th, and August 7th. The meetings begin at 6:30 PM and the regular location for meetings is the Rough & Ready Grange Hall. The district gives the public notice of meetings through posting but does not main- tain a website. LLaakkee ooff tthhee PPiinneess RRaanncchhooss CCSSDD The Lake of the Pines Ranchos CSD is an independent special district; its board of directors and their terms are listed in the following table, Table V.6. TTaabbllee VV..66 LLaakkee ooff tthhee PPiinneess RRaanncchhooss CCSSDD BBooaarrdd ooff DDiirreeccttoorrss aanndd TTeerrmmss EExxppiirraattiioonn NNaammee ooff MMeemmbbeerr TTiittllee CCoommppeennssaattiioonn DDaattee ooff TTeerrmm Mike Quintana Board Member 2006 0 Bill Rowland Board Member 2004 0 Lenoard Gaetz Board Member 2004 0 Dennis Salter Board Member 2006 0 Dick Shannon Board Member 2006 0 The regularly scheduled meeting day for the Lake of the Pines Ranchos CSD is the third Wednesday of each month. All meetings begin at 7:30 PM and the regular location for meetings is the Lake of the Pines ECC room. The district gives the public notice of meetings through posting but does not maintain a web- site. DDiissccuussssiioonn Nevada County is locally accountable through the variety of means it uses to receive input from and communicate with residents. No issues were noted for Nevada County regarding local accountability for CSAs. At their best, small, single-purpose districts such as the CSDs and the CSAs can be invaluable in fostering community identity and local governance. Local accountability is ensured through the close interaction of the residents, immediate impact of services, and the single purpose of its functions. The impact on a small agency from rising costs and increasing governmental regulation is magnified since its resources, especially volunteer board members, are limited from the start. As discussed in Governmental Structure Options, the range of governmental structure options for the CSAs and CSDs is limited. The Mystic Mine CSD noted that the paper work required to meet current regulations is a constraint. They suggested that LAFCo can help by facilitating sessions for Board members of small agencies. The sessions could focus on current and pending changes in laws and regulations, provide assistance in com- pleting forms and allow Board members from small agencies to meet and discuss issues. Final Draft January 13, 2005 VI. Agency Profiles Page 31 VVII.. AAGGEENNCCYY PPRROOFFIILLEESS CCIITTYY OOFF GGRRAASSSS VVAALLLLEEYY Types of Service: Road Maintenance Current Population Served: 12,000 Estimated Population in 2027: 29,642 Length of Roadway Maintained (Centerline Miles): 38.6 Type of Road Surface: Varies FFIINNAANNCCIIAALL IINNFFOORRMMAATTIIOONN Budget: (FY 2002-2003) Revenues: Expenses: Fund Equity: $ 1,298,587 $ 740,563 $518,232 Sources of Funding: See text CCIITTYY OOFF NNEEVVAADDAA CCIITTYY Types of Service: Road Maintenance Current Population Served: 3,000 Estimated Population in 2027: 3,926 Length of Roadway Maintained (Centerline Miles): 19.2 Type of Road Surface: NP FFIINNAANNCCIIAALL IINNFFOORRMMAATTIIOONN Budget: (FY 2002-2003) Revenues: Expenses: Fund Equity: $ NP $369,203 $ NP Sources of Funding: See text NP – not provided Final Draft January 13, 2005 VI. Agency Profiles Page 32 NNEEVVAADDAA CCOOUUNNTTYY Types of Service: Road Maintenance Current Population Served: 65,500 Estimated Population in 2027: NP Length of Roadway Maintained (linear Feet): 564 miles (410 paved, 154 unpaved) Type of Road Surface: Varies FFIINNAANNCCIIAALL IINNFFOORRMMAATTIIOONN Budget: (FY 2002-2003) Revenues: Expenses: Fund Equity: $8,103,160* $4,003,057 $ NP Sources of Funding: See text. * for all roads, all purposes NP – not provided CCOOUUNNTTYY SSEERRVVIICCEE AARREEAA ##11AA** Types of Service: Road Maintenance Current Population Served: 714 Estimated Population in 2027: 714 Length of Roadway Maintained (centerline miles): 11.4 Type of Road Surface: Chipseal FFIINNAANNCCIIAALL IINNFFOORRMMAATTIIOONN Budget: (FY 2002-2003) Revenues:* Expenses:* Fund Equity:* $79,567 $55,000 ($31,513) Sources of Funding: Zone 1 $194 (land only) Per parcel assessment $249 (land/improvements) Zone 2 $191 (land only) Special tax $260 (land/improvements.) Zone 3 $27 (land only) Special tax $35 (land/improvements) * CSA 1A encompasses three zones – Wolf Creek (Zone 1), Clover Valley (Zone 2), and Fay Road (also Zone 2); where noted by an *, data has been combined. Final Draft January 13, 2005 VI. Agency Profiles Page 33 CCOOUUNNTTYY SSEERRVVIICCEE AARREEAA ##22,, BBIIRRCCHH MMEEAADDOOWWSS Types of Service: Road Maintenance Current Population Served: 44 Estimated Population in 2027: 44 Length of Roadway Maintained (centerline miles): 1.25 Type of Road Surface: Gravel FFIINNAANNCCIIAALL IINNFFOORRMMAATTIIOONN Budget: (FY 2002-2003) Revenues: Expenses: Fund Equity: $1,800 $8,000 $6,200 Sources of Funding: Per parcel assessment $0 CCOOUUNNTTYY SSEERRVVIICCEE AARREEAA ##1122** Types of Service: Road Maintenance Current Population Served: 212 Estimated Population in 2027: 212 Length of Roadway Maintained (Centerline Miles): 3.05 Type of Road Surface: Chipseal FFIINNAANNCCIIAALL IINNFFOORRMMAATTIIOONN Budget: (FY 2002-2003) Revenues:* Expenses:* Fund Equity:* $19,269 $14,500 ($4,767) Sources of Funding: Zone 1 $192 (land only) Per parcel assessment $240 (land/improvements) Zone 2 $184 (land only) Per parcel assessment $221 (land/improvements.) * CSA 12 encompasses two zones – Adamson Road (Zone 1), and Trotter Road (Zone 2); where noted by an *, data has been combined. Final Draft January 13, 2005 VI. Agency Profiles Page 34 CCOOUUNNTTYY SSEERRVVIICCEE AARREEAA ##1133** Types of Service: Road Maintenance Current Population Served: 67 Estimated Population in 2027: 67 Length of Roadway Maintained (centerline miles): 1.6 Type of Road Surface: Chipseal (0.65 CLM); Gravel (0.95 CLM) FFIINNAANNCCIIAALL IINNFFOORRMMAATTIIOONN Budget: (FY 2002-2003) Revenues:* Expenses:* Fund Equity:* $7,817 $14,500 $6,683 Sources of Funding: Zone 1 $33 (land only) Per parcel assessment $40 (land/improvements) Zone 2 $158 (land only) Per parcel assessment $192 (land/improvements.) Zone 3 $164 (land only) Special tax $197 (land/improvements.) * CSA 13 encompasses three zones – Wolf Drive (paved Zone 1), Tom Ray Road (Zone 2), and Wolf Drive (unpaved Zone 3); where noted by an *, data has been combined. Final Draft January 13, 2005 VI. Agency Profiles Page 35 CCOOUUNNTTYY SSEERRVVIICCEE AARREEAA ##1144 Types of Service: Road Maintenance Current Population Served: 487 Estimated Population in 2027: 487 Length of Roadway Maintained (Centerline Miles): 4.75 Type of Road Surface: Gravel, Chipseal FFIINNAANNCCIIAALL IINNFFOORRMMAATTIIOONN Budget: (FY 2002-2003) Revenues: Expenses: Fund Equity: $NP $NP` $NP Sources of Funding: Zone 1 $104 (land only) Per parcel assessment $132 (land/improvements) Zone 2 $104 (land only) Per parcel assessment $132 (land/improvements.) Zone 3 $104 (land only) Per parcel assessment $132 (land/improvements.) Zone 4 $104 (land only) Per parcel assessment $132 (land/improvements.) Zone 5 $104 (land only) Per parcel assessment $132 (land/improvements.) Final Draft January 13, 2005 VI. Agency Profiles Page 36 CCOOUUNNTTYY SSEERRVVIICCEE AARREEAA ##1188,, IIWWBB NNOORRTTHH Types of Service: Road Maintenance Current Population Served: 44 Estimated Population in 2027: 44 Length of Roadway Maintained (Centerline Miles): 1.2 Type of Road Surface: Gravel FFIINNAANNCCIIAALL IINNFFOORRMMAATTIIOONN Budget: (FY 2002-2003) Revenues: Expenses: Fund Equity: $2,447 $3,500 $1,053 Sources of Funding: Per parcel assessment $180 (land only) – six parcels $259 (land/improvements) – two parcels CSA 18 also serves (by contract) three unimproved and two improved parcels in Yuba County CCOOUUNNTTYY SSEERRVVIICCEE AARREEAA ##2211,, SSHHAARROONN OOAAKKSS Types of Service: Road Maintenance Current Population Served: 484 Estimated Population in 2027: 484 Length of Roadway Maintained (Centerline Miles): 2 Type of Road Surface: Gravel FFIINNAANNCCIIAALL IINNFFOORRMMAATTIIOONN Budget: (FY 2002-2003) Revenues: Expenses: Fund Equity: $11,378 $41,500 $30,122 Sources of Funding: Per parcel assessment $49 (land only) (153 parcels) $78 (land/improvements) (42 parcels) Final Draft January 13, 2005 VI. Agency Profiles Page 37 CCOOUUNNTTYY SSEERRVVIICCEE AARREEAA ##2222** Types of Service: Road Maintenance Current Population Served: 94 Estimated Population in 2027: 94 Length of Roadway Maintained (Centerline Miles): 2 Paved (1.85 miles); Type of Road Surface: Gravel (0.15 miles) FFIINNAANNCCIIAALL IINNFFOORRMMAATTIIOONN Budget: (FY 2002-2003) Revenues:* Expenses:* Fund Equity:* $7,048 $11,500 $4,452 Sources of Funding: Zone 1 $139 (land only) Per parcel assessment $171 (land/improvements.) Zone 2 $85 (land only) Per parcel assessment $108 (land/improvements.) * CSA 22 encompasses three zones – 6B Ranches Thoroughbred (Zone 1), Ponderosa Way (Zone 2), and 6B Ranches FF (Zone 3); where noted by an *, data has been combined. Final Draft January 13, 2005 VI. Agency Profiles Page 38 CCOOUUNNTTYY SSEERRVVIICCEE AARREEAA ##2244** Types of Service: Road Maintenance Current Population Served: 74 Estimated Population in 2027: 74 Length of Roadway Maintained (Centerline Miles): 2.8 Gravel (0.6 miles); Type of Road Surface: Paved (2.2 miles) FFIINNAANNCCIIAALL IINNFFOORRMMAATTIIOONN Budget: (FY 2002-2003) Revenues:* Expenses:* Fund Equity:* $11,534 $15,910 $4,376 Sources of Funding: Zone 1 $54 (land only) (7 parcels) Per parcel assessment $97 (land/improvements) (8 parcels) Zone 2 $160 (land only) (13 parcels) Per parcel assessment $220 (land/improvements) (33 parcels) * CSA 24 encompasses two zones – Oak Crest Estates (Zone 1), Mountain lake Estates (Zone 2). Where noted by an *, data has been combined. Final Draft January 13, 2005 VI. Agency Profiles Page 39 BBEEYYEERRSS LLAANNEE CCOOMMMMUUNNIITTYY SSEERRVVIICCEESS DDIISSTTRRIICCTT Types of Service: Road Maintenance Current Population Served: 156 Estimated Population in 2027: 156 Length of Roadway Maintained (linear Feet): 6 (miles of dirt roads) Type of Road Surface: Unpaved, dirt FFIINNAANNCCIIAALL IINNFFOORRMMAATTIIOONN Budget: (FY 2002-2003) Revenues: Expenses: Fund Equity: $1,800 $NP $NP Sources of Funding: NP MMYYSSTTIICC MMIINNEE CCOOMMMMUUNNIITTYY SSEERRVVIICCEESS DDIISSTTRRIICCTT Types of Service: Road Maintenance Current Population Served: 237 Estimated Population in 2027: 237 Length of Roadway Maintained (linear Feet): NP Type of Road Surface: NP FFIINNAANNCCIIAALL IINNFFOORRMMAATTIIOONN Budget: (FY 2002-2003) Revenues: Expenses: Fund Equity: $11,520 $ NP $ NP Sources of Funding: Per parcel assessment $120 (98 parcels) Final Draft January 13, 2005 VI. Agency Profiles Page 40 LLAAKKEE OOFF TTHHEE PPIINNEESS RRAANNCCHHOOSS CCOOMMMMUUNNIITTYY SSEERRVVIICCEESS DDIISSTTRRIICCTT Types of Service: Road Maintenance Current Population Served: 425 Estimated Population in 2027: 425 Length of Roadway Maintained (linear Feet): 6.2 (miles) Type of Road Surface: NP FFIINNAANNCCIIAALL IINNFFOORRMMAATTIIOONN Budget: (FY 2002-2003) Revenues: Expenses: Fund Equity: $138,484 $138,484 $NP Sources of Funding: $200 annual per parcel tax (170 parcels) Final Draft January 13, 2005 VI. Agency Profiles Page 41 PPEERRMMAANNEENNTT RROOAADD DDIIVVIISSIIOONNSS -- CCOOMMBBIINNEEDD Types of Service: Road Maintenance Current Population Served: NP Estimated Population in 2027: NP Area Miles Funding Assessment Perimeter Road 11.58 $129 (land) $187 (land/improvements Assessment Ski Town (includes snow re- .34 $97 moval) $259 Special Tax Hidden Glen .8 $102 (land) $125 (land/improvements) Assessment Canyon Creek Estates 2.2 $24, $32, $67 (land) (three zones) $26, $37, $86 (land/improvements) Special Tax Hillsdale 1.5 $259 (land) $385 (improved land) Special Tax Greenwood 1 $373 (land) $555 (improved land) Special Tax Ridgeview 1 $485 (all parcels) Special Tax Altair 1 $500 (all parcels) Special Tax Darkhorse 8 $298 (all but Golf course) $6,600 (Golf course) Length of Roadway Maintained 27.42 (Centerline Miles): Gravel (10.3 miles); Type of Road Surface: Paved (15.84 miles) Chipseal (1.28 miles) FFIINNAANNCCIIAALL IINNFFOORRMMAATTIIOONN Budget: (FY 2002-2003) Revenues:* Expenses:* Fund Equity:* $NP $NP $NP Final Draft January 13, 2005 VII. Determinations Page 42 VVIIII.. DDEETTEERRMMIINNAATTIIOONNSS CCiittyy ooff GGrraassss VVaalllleeyy • Infrastructure needs or deficiencies 1. That the City of Grass Valley maintains 38.6 centerline miles of roadway. The City has adopted a Street System Master Plan that will assist in prioritizing capital improvement projects and road maintenance planning. • Growth and population projections for the affected area 1. That the population within the City of Grass Valley is projected to increase to 29,642 by 2027. 2. That the City of Grass Valley has a daytime population that is significantly greater than its residential population due to people entering the city to work. • Financing constraints and opportunities 1. That the City of Grass Valley uses funding from Federal, State, Local and City sources to fund street maintenance and improvements. 2. That the City spends approximately 87% of the State average for cities on road mainte- nance; funding for improvements and maintenance is an ongoing challenge. • Cost avoidance opportunities 1. That the City of Grass Valley is minimizing future maintenance costs through the adop- tion of a Street System Master Plan. • Opportunities for rate restructuring 1. That the City of Grass Valley does not have a revenue generating program for public road maintenance and relies on funding from the City’s General Fund. • Opportunities for shared facilities 1. That the City of Grass Valley utilizes the County General Plan and Regional Transporta- tion Plan to augment its own transportation planning. • Government structure options, including advantages and disadvantages of the consoli- dation or reorganization of service providers 1. None were noted. • Evaluation of management efficiencies 1. That the City of Grass Valley manages its roadway maintenance program in-house through the public works department. • Local accountability and governance 1. That the City of Grass Valley addresses roadway maintenance in city council meetings and has systems and procedures in place to ensure local accountability. Final Draft January 13, 2005 VII. Determinations Page 43 CCiittyy ooff NNeevvaaddaa CCiittyy • Infrastructure needs or deficiencies 1. That the City of Nevada City relies on the County DOTS for transportation planning ser- vices. • Growth and population projections for the affected area 1. That the population within the City of Nevada City is projected to increase to 3,926 by 2027. • Financing constraints and opportunities • That the City of Nevada City uses funding from State and City sources to fund street main- tenance and improvements. • That the City spends approximately 92% of the State average for cities on road mainte- nance; funding for improvements and maintenance is an ongoing challenge. • Cost avoidance opportunities 1. That the City of Nevada City has not updated its General Plan in the past twenty years, which may increase costs due to outdated land use information, and population levels and transportation system needs. • Opportunities for rate restructuring 1. That the City of Nevada City does not have a revenue generating program for public road maintenance and relies on funding from the City’s General Fund. • Opportunities for shared facilities 1. That the City of Nevada City utilizes the County General Plan and Regional Transporta- tion Plan for transportation planning. • Government structure options, including advantages and disadvantages of the consoli- dation or reorganization of service providers 1. None were noted. • Evaluation of management efficiencies 1. That the City of Nevada City manages its roadway maintenance program in-house through the public works department. • Local accountability and governance 1. That the City of Nevada City addresses roadway maintenance in city council meetings and has systems and procedures in place to ensure local accountability. Final Draft January 13, 2005 VII. Determinations Page 44 CCoouunnttyy SSeerrvviiccee AArreeaa ##11AA • Infrastructure needs or deficiencies 1. That CSA #1A provides road maintenance for 11.4 miles of roadway. • Growth and population projections for the affected area 1. That CSA #1A has a current population of 714 people and no growth is expected. • Financing constraints and opportunities 1. That CSA #1A increased its fund equity in FY 2002-2003 by $31,513. 2. That any need for new or increased assessments will require a two-thirds majority vote of the registered voters within the district. • Cost avoidance opportunities 1. That CSA #1A is minimizing future maintenance costs through providing as much cur- rent maintenance as funding will allow. • Opportunities for rate restructuring 1. That CSA #1A charges a current per parcel assessment or special tax based on benefit zone; there is a rate differential between developed and undeveloped parcels. • Opportunities for shared facilities 1. That CSA #1A utilizes the County DOTS to provide planning and maintenance services. • Government structure options, including advantages and disadvantages of the consoli- dation or reorganization of service providers 1. That a representative of CSA #1A should participate in discussions with other CSAs, CSDs and PRDs regarding alternatives to provide more stable funding, including a coun- tywide road maintenance assessment district. • Evaluation of management efficiencies 1. That CSA #1A achieves management efficiencies through the use of County DOTS staff for all maintenance operations. • Local accountability and governance 1. That CSA #1A is a dependent special district governed by the County’s Board of Super- visors and the County has procedures in place to ensure local accountability. Final Draft January 13, 2005 VII. Determinations Page 45 CCoouunnttyy SSeerrvviiccee AArreeaa ##22 –– BBiirrcchh MMeeaaddoowwss • Infrastructure needs or deficiencies 1. That CSA #2 provides road maintenance for 1.25 miles of roadway. • Growth and population projections for the affected area 1. That CSA #2 has a current population of 44 people and no growth is expected. • Financing constraints and opportunities 1. That CSA #2 incurred a $6,200 operating loss in FY 2003 which impacts the fund equity. 2. That any need for new or increased assessments will require a two-thirds majority vote of the registered voters within the district. • Cost avoidance opportunities 1. That CSA #2 is minimizing future maintenance costs through providing as much current maintenance as funding will allow. • Opportunities for rate restructuring 1. That CSA #2 does not charge a per parcel assessment. • Opportunities for shared facilities 1. That CSA #2 utilizes the County DOTS to provide planning and maintenance services. • Government structure options, including advantages and disadvantages of the consoli- dation or reorganization of service providers 1. That a representative of CSA #2 should participate in discussions with other CSAs, CSDs and PRDs regarding alternatives to provide more stable funding, including a countywide road maintenance assessment district. • Evaluation of management efficiencies 1. That CSA #2 achieves management efficiencies through the use of County DOTS staff for all maintenance operations. • Local accountability and governance 1. That CSA #2 is a dependent special district governed by the County’s Board of Supervi- sors and the County has procedures in place to ensure local accountability. Final Draft January 13, 2005 VII. Determinations Page 46 CCoouunnttyy SSeerrvviiccee AArreeaa ##1122 • Infrastructure needs or deficiencies 1. That CSA #12 provides road maintenance for 3.05 miles of roadway. • Growth and population projections for the affected area 1. That CSA #12 has a current population of 212 people and no growth is expected. • Financing constraints and opportunities 1. That CSA #12 increased fund equity by $4,767 in FY 2002-2003. 2. That any need for new or increased assessments will require a two-thirds majority vote of the registered voters within the district. • Cost avoidance opportunities 1. That CSA #12 is minimizing future maintenance costs through providing as much current maintenance as funding will allow. • Opportunities for rate restructuring 1. That CSA #12 charges a per parcel assessment based on benefit zones; there is a rate dif- ferential between developed and undeveloped parcels. • Opportunities for shared facilities 1. That CSA #12 utilizes the County DOTS to provide planning and maintenance services. • Government structure options, including advantages and disadvantages of the consoli- dation or reorganization of service providers 1. That a representative of CSA #12 should participate in discussions with other CSAs, CSDs and PRDs regarding alternatives to provide more stable funding, including a coun- tywide road maintenance assessment district. • Evaluation of management efficiencies 1. That CSA #12 achieves management efficiencies through the use of County DOTS staff for all maintenance operations. • Local accountability and governance 1. That CSA #12 is a dependent special district governed by the County’s Board of Supervi- sors and the County has procedures in place to ensure local accountability. Final Draft January 13, 2005 VII. Determinations Page 47 CCoouunnttyy SSeerrvviiccee AArreeaa ##1133 • Infrastructure needs or deficiencies 1. That CSA #13 provides road maintenance for 1.6 miles of roadway. • Growth and population projections for the affected area 1. That CSA #13 has a current population of 67 people and no growth is expected. • Financing constraints and opportunities 1. That CSA #13 incurred an operating loss of $6,683 in FY 2003 which impacts fund eq- uity. 2. That any need for new or increased assessments will require a two-thirds majority vote of the registered voters within the district. • Cost avoidance opportunities 1. That CSA #13 is minimizing future maintenance costs through providing as much current maintenance as funding will allow. • Opportunities for rate restructuring 1. That CSA #13 charges an annual assessment per parcel based on benefit zones; there is a rate differential between developed and undeveloped parcels. • Opportunities for shared facilities 1. That CSA #13 utilizes the County DOTS to provide planning and maintenance services. • Government structure options, including advantages and disadvantages of the consoli- dation or reorganization of service providers 1. That a representative of CSA #13 should participate in discussions with other CSAs, CSDs and PRDs regarding alternatives to provide more stable funding, including a coun- tywide road maintenance assessment district. • Evaluation of management efficiencies 1. That CSA #13 achieves management efficiencies through the use of County DOTS staff for all maintenance operations. • Local accountability and governance 1. That CSA #13 is a dependent special district governed by the County’s Board of Supervi- sors and the County has procedures in place to ensure local accountability. Final Draft January 13, 2005 VII. Determinations Page 48 CCoouunnttyy SSeerrvviiccee AArreeaa ##1144 • Infrastructure needs or deficiencies 1. That CSA #14 provides road maintenance for 4.75 miles of roadway. • Growth and population projections for the affected area 1. That no growth is expected for CSA #14. • Financing constraints and opportunities 1. No financial information was provided; however any need for new or increased assess- ments will require a two-thirds majority vote of the registered voters within the district. • Cost avoidance opportunities 1. That CSA #14 is minimizing future maintenance costs through providing as much current maintenance as funding will allow. • Opportunities for rate restructuring 1. That CSA #14 charges an annual per parcel assessment based on benefit zones; there is a rate differential between developed and undeveloped parcels. • Opportunities for shared facilities 1. That CSA #14 utilizes the County DOTS to provide planning and actual maintenance services. • Government structure options, including advantages and disadvantages of the consoli- dation or reorganization of service providers 1. That a representative of CSA #14 should participate in discussions with other CSAs, CSDs and PRDs regarding alternatives to provide more stable funding, including a coun- tywide road maintenance assessment district. • Evaluation of management efficiencies 1. That CSA #14 achieves management efficiencies through its use of County DOTS staff for all maintenance operations. • Local accountability and governance 1. That CSA #14 is a dependent special district governed by the County’s Board of Supervi- sors and the County has procedures in place to ensure local accountability. Final Draft January 13, 2005 VII. Determinations Page 49 CCoouunnttyy SSeerrvviiccee AArreeaa ##1188 –– IIWWBB NNoorrtthh • Infrastructure needs or deficiencies 1. That CSA #18 provides road maintenance for 1.2 miles of roadway. • Growth and population projections for the affected area 1. That CSA #18 has a current population of 44 people on 8 parcels and no growth is ex- pected. • Financing constraints and opportunities 1. That CSA #18 incurred an operating loss of $1,053 in FY 2003 which impacts fund eq- uity. 2. That any need for new or increased assessments will require a two-thirds majority vote of the registered voters within the district. • Cost avoidance opportunities 1. That CSA #18 is minimizing future maintenance costs through providing as much current maintenance as funding will allow. • Opportunities for rate restructuring 1. That CSA #18 charges a current assessment of $180 per unimproved parcel and $259 per improved parcel. • Opportunities for shared facilities 1. That CSA #18 utilizes the County DOTS to provide planning and maintenance services. • Government structure options, including advantages and disadvantages of the consoli- dation or reorganization of service providers 1. That CSA #18 serves three unimproved parcels and two improved parcels in Yuba County by contract. 2. That a representative of CSA #18 should participate in discussions with other CSAs, CSDs and PRDs regarding alternatives to provide more stable funding, including a coun- tywide road maintenance assessment district. • Evaluation of management efficiencies 1. That CSA #18 achieves management efficiencies through the use of County DOTS staff for all maintenance operations. • Local accountability and governance 1. That CSA #18 is a dependent special district governed by the County’s Board of Supervi- sors and the County has procedures in place to ensure local accountability. Final Draft January 13, 2005 VII. Determinations Page 50 CCoouunnttyy SSeerrvviiccee AArreeaa ##2211 –– SShhaarroonn OOaakkss • Infrastructure needs or deficiencies 1. That CSA #21 provides road maintenance to 2.0 miles of roadway. • Growth and population projections for the affected area 1. That CSA #21 has a current population of 484 people and no growth is expected. 2. That CSA #21 serves 153 unimproved parcels and 42 improved parcels. • Financing constraints and opportunities 1. That CSA #21 incurred an operating loss of $30,122 in FY 2003 which impacts the fund equity. 2. That any need for new or increased assessments will require a two-thirds majority vote of the registered voters within the district. • Cost avoidance opportunities 1. That CSA #21 is minimizing future maintenance costs through providing as much current maintenance as funding will allow. • Opportunities for rate restructuring 1. That CSA #21 charges a current assessment of $49 per unimproved parcel and $78 per improved parcel. • Opportunities for shared facilities 1. That CSA #21 utilizes the County DOTS to provide planning and maintenance services. • Government structure options, including advantages and disadvantages of the consoli- dation or reorganization of service providers 1. That a representative of CSA #21 should participate in discussions with other CSAs, CSDs and PRDs regarding alternatives to provide more stable funding, including a coun- tywide road maintenance assessment district. • Evaluation of management efficiencies 1. That CSA #21 achieves management efficiencies through the use of County DOTS staff for all maintenance operations. • Local accountability and governance 1. That CSA #21 is a dependent special district governed by the County’s Board of Supervi- sors and the County has procedures in place to ensure local accountability. Final Draft January 13, 2005 VII. Determinations Page 51 CCoouunnttyy SSeerrvviiccee AArreeaa ##2222 • Infrastructure needs or deficiencies 1. That CSA #22 provides road maintenance for 2.0 miles of roadway. • Growth and population projections for the affected area 1. That CSA #22 has a current population of 94 people and no growth is expected. • Financing constraints and opportunities 1. That CSA #22 incurred an operating loss of $4,452 in FY 2003 which impacts fund eq- uity. 2. That any need for new or increased assessments will require a two-thirds majority vote of the registered voters within the district. • Cost avoidance opportunities 1. That CSA #22 is minimizing future maintenance costs through providing as much current maintenance as funding will allow. • Opportunities for rate restructuring 1. That CSA #22 charges a current assessment based on benefit zones; there is a rate differ- ential between developed and undeveloped parcels. • Opportunities for shared facilities 1. That CSA #22 utilizes the County DOTS to provide planning and maintenance services. • Government structure options, including advantages and disadvantages of the consoli- dation or reorganization of service providers 1. That a representative of CSA #22 should participate in discussions with other CSAs, CSDs and PRDs regarding alternatives to provide more stable funding, including a coun- tywide road maintenance assessment district. • Evaluation of management efficiencies 1. That CSA #22 achieves management efficiencies through the use of County DOTS staff for all maintenance operations. • Local accountability and governance 1. That CSA #22 is a dependent special district governed by the County’s Board of Supervi- sors and the County has procedures in place to ensure local accountability. Final Draft January 13, 2005 VII. Determinations Page 52 CCoouunnttyy SSeerrvviiccee AArreeaa ##2244 • Infrastructure needs or deficiencies 1. That CSA #24 provides road maintenance for 2.8 miles of roadway. • Growth and population projections for the affected area 1. That CSA #24 has a current population of 74 people and no growth is expected. 2. That CSA #24 currently serves 20 undeveloped parcels and 41 developed parcels. • Financing constraints and opportunities 1. That CSA #24 incurred an operating loss of $4,376 in FY 2003 which impacts fund eq- uity. 2. That any need for new or increased assessments will require a two-thirds majority vote of the registered voters within the district. • Cost avoidance opportunities 1. That CSA #24 is minimizing future maintenance costs through providing as much current maintenance as funding will allow. • Opportunities for rate restructuring 1. That CSA #24 charges a current assessment based on benefit zones; there is a rate differ- ential between developed and undeveloped parcels. • Opportunities for shared facilities 1. That CSA #24 utilizes the County DOTS to provide planning and maintenance services. • Government structure options, including advantages and disadvantages of the consoli- dation or reorganization of service providers 1. That a representative of CSA #24 should participate in discussions with other CSAs, CSDs and PRDs regarding alternatives to provide more stable funding, including a coun- tywide road maintenance assessment district. • Evaluation of management efficiencies 1. That CSA #24 achieves management efficiencies through the use of County DOTS staff for all maintenance operations. • Local accountability and governance 1. That CSA #24 is a dependent special district governed by the County’s Board of Supervi- sors and the County has procedures in place to ensure local accountability. Final Draft January 13, 2005 VII. Determinations Page 53 BBeeyyeerrss LLaannee CCoommmmuunniittyy SSeerrvviicceess DDiissttrriicctt • Infrastructure needs or deficiencies 1. That Beyers Lane CSD provides road maintenance to six miles of dirt roads. • Growth and population projections for the affected area 1. That Beyers Lane CSD has a current population of 156 people and no growth is expected. 2. That current land uses within the CSD limit population to a maximum of 425 people with residential and open space uses. • Financing constraints and opportunities 1. That Beyers Lane CSD assesses property owners within its boundaries for road mainte- nance. 2. That Beyers Lane CSD only received $1,800 in revenue for FY 2003. 3. That any need for new or increased assessments will require a two-thirds majority vote of the registered voters within the district. • Cost avoidance opportunities 1. That Beyers Lane CSD is minimizing future maintenance costs through providing as much current maintenance as funding will allow. • Opportunities for rate restructuring 1. No rate information was provided. • Opportunities for shared facilities 1. None were noted. • Government structure options, including advantages and disadvantages of the consoli- dation or reorganization of service providers 1. That a representative of Beyers Lane CSD should participate in discussions with other CSAs, CSDs and PRDs regarding alternatives to provide more stable funding, including a countywide road maintenance assessment district. • Evaluation of management efficiencies 1. That Beyers Lane CSD achieves management efficiencies through the use of volunteers for management and operations. • Local accountability and governance 1. That Beyers Lane CSD is an independent special district with an elected board. The CSD meets quarterly and is as locally accountable as possible to the community. Final Draft January 13, 2005 VII. Determinations Page 54 MMyyssttiicc MMiinnee CCoommmmuunniittyy SSeerrvviicceess DDiissttrriicctt • Infrastructure needs or deficiencies 1. That Mystic Mine CSD provides road maintenance. • Growth and population projections for the affected area 1. That Mystic Mine CSD has a current population of 237 people on 98 parcels and no growth is expected. 2. That current land uses within the CSD are limited to residential and open space uses. • Financing constraints and opportunities 1. That Mystic Mine CSD assesses property owners within its boundaries for road mainte- nance. 2. That any need for new or increased assessments will require a two-thirds majority vote of the registered voters within the district. • Cost avoidance opportunities 1. That Mystic Mine CSD is minimizing future maintenance costs through providing as much current maintenance as funding will allow. • Opportunities for rate restructuring 1. That Mystic Mine CSD charges a current assessment of $120 per parcel. • Opportunities for shared facilities 1. None were noted. • Government structure options, including advantages and disadvantages of the consoli- dation or reorganization of service providers 1. That a representative of Mystic Mine CSD should participate in discussions with other CSAs, CSDs and PRDs regarding alternatives to provide more stable funding, including a countywide road maintenance assessment district. • Evaluation of management efficiencies 1. That Mystic Mine CSD achieves management efficiencies through the use of volunteers for management and operations. 2. That Mystic Mine CSD has appointed a volunteer to serve as a general manager for the district. • Local accountability and governance 1. That Mystic Mine CSD is an independent special district with an elected board. The CSD is as locally accountable as possible to the community. Final Draft January 13, 2005 VII. Determinations Page 55 LLaakkee ooff tthhee PPiinneess RRaanncchhooss CCoommmmuunniittyy SSeerrvviicceess DDiissttrriicctt • Infrastructure needs or deficiencies 1. That LOP Ranchos CSD provides road maintenance to 6.2 miles of roadway. • Growth and population projections for the affected area 1. That LOP Ranchos CSD has a current population of 425 people on 170 parcels and no growth is expected. 2. That current land uses within the CSD are limited to residential and open space uses. • Financing constraints and opportunities 1. That LOP Ranchos CSD assesses property owners within its boundaries for road mainte- nance. 2. That LOP Ranchos CSD balanced revenue and expenses for FY 2003. 3. That any need for new or increased assessments will require a two-thirds majority vote of the registered voters within the district. • Cost avoidance opportunities 1. That LOP Ranchos CSD is minimizing future maintenance costs through providing as much current maintenance as funding will allow. • Opportunities for rate restructuring 1. That LOP Ranchos CSD charges a current assessment of $200 per parcel. • Opportunities for shared facilities 1. None were noted. • Government structure options, including advantages and disadvantages of the consoli- dation or reorganization of service providers 1. That a representative of LOP Ranchos CSD should participate in discussions with other CSAs, CSDs and PRDs regarding alternatives to provide more stable funding, including a countywide road maintenance assessment district. • Evaluation of management efficiencies 1. That LOP Ranchos CSD achieves management efficiencies through the use of volunteers for management and operations. • Local accountability and governance 1. That LOP Ranchos CSD is an independent special district with an elected board. The CSD meets regularly and is as locally accountable as possible to the community. Final Draft January 13, 2005 Appendices AAPPPPEENNDDIIXX AA MMEEAASSUURREE FF Final Draft January 13, 2005 Appendices Final Draft January 13, 2005 Appendices AAPPPPEENNDDIIXX BB CCOOMMMMEENNTTSS AANNDD RREESSPPOONNSSEESS Final Draft January 13, 2005 Appendices From: Gene Haroldsen [gene@cityofgrassvalley.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2004 1:31 PM To: Carolyn Schaffer Cc: 'Joe'; 'Keith Sauers'; 'Joe'; 'Carol Fish'; richardf@cityofgrassvalley.com; 'Mark Miller'; dlan- don@nccn.net Subject: Comments on Road and Street Operations and Planning To Whom It May Concern: In reviewing the Public Review Draft for the Municipal Service Review of Street Operations and Planning, I noted the following items needed correction or clarification: 1) Table III.1 shows Grass Valley population at 8,847 for 2002. Current population from the State Department of Finance (DOF) as well as the MSR on Fire Services indicates 12,000. It is noted that “For the Cities of Grass Valley and Nevada City, current population estimates were developed by adding the population of the TAZs located within the city boundaries. If a TAZ was located partially within city limits, the percentage of population of the TAZ that was inside the city was estimated.” Apparently, the Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZs) are not consistent with either the 2000 census or the DOF numbers. For consistency, it is suggested that the DOF estimates for cities be used for current population. The projected population growth under the expected growth scenario is not consistent with the City’s Gen- eral Plan (much less Fire and Emergency Services MSR). It is suggested that the consultant review the City’s Gen- eral Plan which is available on line at www.cityofgrassvalley.com and work with Joe Heckel, the City’s Community Development Director (530-274-4330), on population projections for the City and the Grass Valley planning area. Response: The percentages used for the TAZ analysis did not accurately reflect the City’s current population. The base year population was corrected to 12,000 and the LAFCo growth model was recalculated. Corrections have been made within the report. 2) IV. Financing and Economics of Service “Beginning in FY2004-05 (should read FY2003-04), all of the LTF funds of Grass Valley, Nevada City and the County have been used to support public transit. In the future, it is anticipated that there will not be any LTF funds available for road maintenance. Response: Due to the fact that Local Transportation Funds (LTF) are not used by any of the agencies in the review for road maintenance, the discussion on LTF has been removed from the report. 3) It is important to distinguish between operational and maintenance (O&M) costs and capital costs, which could include a review and summary of each agency’s budgets, pavement management plans and capital improve- ment plans. It may be helpful to include an analysis that better depicts ongoing O&M costs and transportation capi- tal improvements for each agency. The consultant could contact Dan Landon, Nevada County Transportation Commission Executive Director (530-265-3202), to discuss how such information could be obtained and presented. Response: Comment noted. However, an Operations and Maintenance study is beyond the scope of this report. Final Draft January 13, 2005 Appendices 4) Table V.2 Governance does not take in account that the Grass Valley City Council recently reorganized with a new mayor and vice mayor. Below is the update of its membership: Gerard Tassone Mayor 12-12-06 Mark Johnson Vice Mayor 12-9-08 Patti Ingram Council Member 12-12-06 Lisa Swarthout Council Member 12-9-08 Dean Williams Council Member 12-9-08 Response: The report has been updated to reflect the recent changes. 5) VI. Agency Profiles shows the City of Grass Valley shows no revenues for streets and little information in general. The revenues and fund equity should show the City’s Gas Tax and the Traffic Safety funds. The consultant could contact Carol Fish, Director of Finance (530-274-4302), to further discuss these revenues and fund equity. Beginning Point / End Point, Type of Road Surface, Right-of Way (ROW) Width and Pavement Condition Index make no sense in terms of a City roadway system. It is suggested that the consultant develop a better way to present such profile information about agencies that maintain roadway systems. Response: The information provided by Carol Fish has been incorporated into the City’s profile. The profile forms have been revised. 6) In the VII. Determinations, the statement is made “That the City of Grass Valley is projecting a 270% population increase to 24,078 by 2027” is inaccurate and needs to be revised. I believe that Nevada City officials will be amazed with the statement in the MSR “That the City of Nevada City is projecting a 250% population in- crease to 8,441 by 2027.” Response: The population growth estimates have been corrected in the report. 7) Also in Determinations, the statement is made “That the City’s Street System Master Plan is seriously un- der funded”, yet there is no analysis that supports that conclusion. The Street System Master Plan can be reviewed at www.cityofgrassvalley.com. For most public agencies, funding is always an important and ongoing challenge in providing both services and infrastructure. Response: Comment noted. The determination has been deleted and the City’s Street System Master Plan has been noted in the report. Thank you for the opportunity to review this document and provide input. Gene Haroldsen City Administrator City of Grass Valley 530-274-4312 Final Draft January 13, 2005 Appendices From: Michael Hill-Weld 12/23/2004 11:40:41 AM >>> Sent: Thursday, December 23, 2004 11:40:41 PM To: SR Jones Subject: Re: MSR for road maintenance SR, I'll get back to you after my meeting with Rick, Laura, et al. A couple of other items from my review that I want to make sure get on the table: 1. In the Exe Summary (pg 3), I think #4 is mis-leading. As I told the Commissioners, the growth in the cost of transit has no impact on funds being available for road maintenance, because the County has been dedicating all of its Local Transportation Funds including TDA to transit for at least 5 years. So I believe #4 is at best irrelevant and at worst raises the issue of competition for dollars between transit and maintenance that doesn't exist and, therefore, diverts people's attentions from the real issues. Response: Comment noted. The discussion on transit funding has been removed. 2. In the discussion of CSAs (pg 7), the statement is made that no new CSAs have been formed since the "early 1990's". I am not sure that the statement is true and I suggest you confirm that it is or isn't true. Even if it is true, because the MSR doesn't discuss Permanent Road Divisions in the Service Section it may create the impression that CSA-type structures are not being used to fund road maintenance. In fact, the formation of CSAs at the time final maps are adopted has been replaced with the creation of PRDs which serve the same function. (They are preferred because they are restricted to providing road related ser- vices and cannot be expanded to furnish other services (e.g. fire, ambulance). Examples of PRDs formed over the last few years include Dark Horse, Greenwood Estates and LaBarr Pines. I thought I had suggested a section on PRD's when I commented before, but I may not have. So I am suggesting now that the consultant add a section on PRDs to the Service Setting section and include the info that this structure has replaced the CSA and will continue to do so. Response: Nevada LAFCo has confirmed that no new CSAs have been formed since the early 1990s. Discussion on Permanent Road Divisions has been included in the report as suggested. 3. In Funding for RM-General (pg 18), in the introductory paragraphs there is too much information on the funding available for transit. Again, I think that this raises the specter of competition between the 2 programs that doesn't exist and that will divert people's attention needlessly. I suggest the consultant edit out the info on transit and leave it for another MSR. That will bring the focus back on our primary funding sources for road maintenance: gas taxes and VLF. Response: The discussion on transit has been removed. Final Draft January 13, 2005 Appendices 4. In Funding (pg 19), there is a statement concerning VLF "backfill". I'm not sure that in light of the pas- sage of Prop 1A that the statement is accurate. I suggest you check with Joe Christoffel on the accuracy of the statement in the MSR. Response: The State has permanently eliminated VLF backfill; the report has been corrected based on information provided by Joe Christoffel. As VLF fees will be used entirely to fund State-mandated health care programs, The County will provided the required level of road funding out of the General Fund. 5. In Funding (pg 19), CalTrans delivered some revised cost estimates for the Dorsey Drive interchange this week which may make the last statement in the last paragraph inaccurate. You might want to check with Dan Landon to verify the accuracy of the statement. Response: The report is intended to focus on local road and street maintenance and planning, not on State High- way projects. This paragraph has been eliminated as it would be funded by a source that is not available for local road or street maintenance. 6. Jurisdictional funding (pg 20), in the opening sentence is it $14,700 for all types of roads in the state including rural roads and freeways? Or is it just local roads (whether paved or unpaved)? It would be helpful to know what the figure is based on so that the reader can do a good comparison when given the $8150 figure in the next section of the MSR. Response: The chapter on Financing and Economics of Service has been revised and the figures corrected. The statewide average is $15,157; the average of the agencies included in this review is $8,150. 7. Jurisdictional funding (pg 20), I have a problem with the blanket statement (first sentence of last paragraph) that CSAs and PRDs are "expensive to administer". I don't think that when you look at the individual budgets or the budgets as a whole that this is true. And I don't think it serves any purpose to make this statement when it is at least questionable. Again, I think it diverts people's attention from more important issues. Response: Comment noted. 8. Jurisdictional expenditures (pg 21), again the reader needs to know that the state average of $14,700 is comparing local Nevada County, Nevada City and Grass Valley roads with similar local roads and not to the cost of maintaining freeways in Alameda County. It's not clear to me that we are comparing apples to apples. Response: The report has been revised; see response to Comment No. 6 Final Draft January 13, 2005 Appendices 9. Trends (pg 24), I'm not sure the paragraph on LTF adds value to the conversation since the County has not used any LTF for at least 5 years. Also, neither of the cities has used their TDA funds for road maintenance either. I suggest dropping the paragraph. Response: The discussion on LTF has been removed. 10. Trends (pg 25), again I suggest dropping #4 from the list for the reasons outlined above. Response: The statement has been removed. 11. Govt structure options (pg 26), PRDs should be included in the discussion. Response: The discussion on PRDS has been included in Government Structure options. . 12. Discussion, PRDs should be included in the text. Response: The discussion on PRDS has been included. 13. Agency profiles (beginning pg 31), shouldn't the PRDs be included to complete the picture of how maintenance is funded through formal structures? Response: The PRDs have been added to the profile section. I hope that this input is helpful. I'm off next week, but can meet with you in 2005!! Happy holidays, Michael Michael Hill-Weld, Director Department of Transportation and Sanitation County of Nevada 950 Maidu Avenue Nevada City, CA 95959 530-265-1351 michael.hill-weld@co.nevada.ca.us Final Draft January 13, 2005 Appendices From: pnorsell <pnorsell@direcway.com> Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 2004 5:40 PM Cc: jcrosthwaite@cox.net; Carolyn Schaffer Subject: Re: Road & Street MSR SR, I noticed that the Unincorporated County Population (65,266) includes the PRD's, while the Road Miles Maintained (564.5) does not include the PRD Road Miles. Another observation is that the U.S. Forest Service Road Miles is not noted, as are several other Agen- cies. When I published the "NCBA Balance Issues: Measures & Goals Community Indicators" book in January 1999, the Maintained Rural & Urban Roads breakouts were the following: • County Unincorporated 571.5 miles 46.68% o (Paved: 378.9 Unpaved: 192.6) • Truckee 139.8 11.42 • Nevada City 18.0 1.51 • Grass Valley 39.6 3.23 • U.S. Forest Service 213.0 17.40 • U.S. Bureau of Land Management 14.1 1.18 • State Parks & Recreation 43.3 3.63 • California State Highways 129.9 10.61 • Lake Wildwood 30.5 2.56 • Lake of the Pines 21.5 1.80 o Total 1,193.2 miles 100.14% (rounding errors) I didn't have the CSA or CSD breakouts, so the Total and Percentage distributions are incorrect -- minor differences. The reduction in County Road Miles is likely due to the Glenbrook Basin annexations. As you can see, the U.S. and State Road Miles Maintained are significant. Paul Response: Comment noted. Road miles shown in the report were provided by the agencies. Final Draft January 13, 2005 Appendices From: SR Jones [SR.Jones@co.nevada.ca.us] Sent: Friday, January 07, 2005 4:56 PM To: Carolyn Schaffer Subject: mystic mines csd Sushila Mertens called to say that their annual assessment is $120 and she thinks they have 98 parcels. SR Response: The report has been revised to reflect this change. Final Draft January 13, 2005