All County Resource Conservation Services

(cid:70)(cid:105)(cid:110)(cid:97)(cid:108)(cid:32)(cid:82)(cid:101)(cid:112)(cid:111)(cid:114)(cid:116) (cid:77)(cid:77)(cid:117)(cid:117)(cid:110)(cid:110)(cid:105)(cid:105)(cid:99)(cid:99)(cid:105)(cid:105)(cid:112)(cid:112)(cid:97)(cid:97)(cid:108)(cid:108)(cid:32)(cid:32)(cid:83)(cid:83)(cid:101)(cid:101)(cid:114)(cid:114)(cid:118)(cid:118)(cid:105)(cid:105)(cid:99)(cid:99)(cid:101)(cid:101)(cid:32)(cid:32)(cid:82)(cid:82)(cid:101)(cid:101)(cid:118)(cid:118)(cid:105)(cid:105)(cid:101)(cid:101)(cid:119)(cid:119) (cid:82)(cid:82)(cid:101)(cid:101)(cid:115)(cid:115)(cid:111)(cid:111)(cid:117)(cid:117)(cid:114)(cid:114)(cid:99)(cid:99)(cid:101)(cid:101)(cid:32)(cid:32)(cid:67)(cid:67)(cid:111)(cid:111)(cid:110)(cid:110)(cid:115)(cid:115)(cid:101)(cid:101)(cid:114)(cid:114)(cid:118)(cid:118)(cid:97)(cid:97)(cid:116)(cid:116)(cid:105)(cid:105)(cid:111)(cid:111)(cid:110)(cid:110)(cid:32)(cid:32)(cid:68)(cid:68)(cid:105)(cid:105)(cid:115)(cid:115)(cid:116)(cid:116)(cid:114)(cid:114)(cid:105)(cid:105)(cid:99)(cid:99)(cid:116)(cid:116) (cid:77)(cid:65)(cid:89)(cid:32) (cid:50)(cid:48)(cid:48)(cid:54) (cid:80)(cid:82)(cid:69)(cid:80)(cid:65)(cid:82)(cid:69)(cid:68)(cid:32)(cid:70)(cid:79)(cid:82)(cid:58) (cid:78)(cid:101)(cid:118)(cid:97)(cid:100)(cid:97)(cid:32)(cid:67)(cid:111)(cid:117)(cid:110)(cid:116)(cid:121)(cid:32)(cid:76)(cid:111)(cid:99)(cid:97)(cid:108)(cid:32)(cid:65)(cid:103)(cid:101)(cid:110)(cid:99)(cid:121)(cid:32)(cid:70)(cid:111)(cid:114)(cid:109)(cid:97)(cid:116)(cid:105)(cid:111)(cid:110)(cid:32)(cid:67)(cid:111)(cid:109)(cid:109)(cid:105)(cid:115)(cid:115)(cid:105)(cid:111)(cid:110) (cid:57)(cid:53)(cid:48)(cid:32)(cid:77)(cid:97)(cid:105)(cid:100)(cid:117)(cid:32)(cid:65)(cid:118)(cid:101)(cid:110)(cid:117)(cid:101) (cid:78)(cid:101)(cid:118)(cid:97)(cid:100)(cid:97)(cid:32)(cid:67)(cid:105)(cid:116)(cid:121)(cid:44)(cid:32)(cid:67)(cid:97)(cid:108)(cid:105)(cid:102)(cid:111)(cid:114)(cid:110)(cid:105)(cid:97)(cid:32)(cid:57)(cid:53)(cid:57)(cid:53)(cid:57) (cid:80)(cid:82)(cid:69)(cid:80)(cid:65)(cid:82)(cid:69)(cid:68)(cid:32)(cid:66)(cid:89)(cid:58) (cid:68)(cid:117)(cid:100)(cid:101)(cid:107) (cid:54)(cid:48)(cid:53)(cid:32)(cid:84)(cid:104)(cid:105)(cid:114)(cid:100)(cid:32)(cid:83)(cid:116)(cid:114)(cid:101)(cid:101)(cid:116) (cid:69)(cid:110)(cid:99)(cid:105)(cid:110)(cid:105)(cid:116)(cid:97)(cid:115)(cid:44)(cid:32)(cid:67)(cid:97)(cid:108)(cid:105)(cid:102)(cid:111)(cid:114)(cid:110)(cid:105)(cid:97)(cid:32)(cid:57)(cid:50)(cid:48)(cid:50)(cid:52) FINAL REPORT NEVADA COUNTY RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW 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 May 2006 TABLE OF CONTENTS LAFCO RESOLUTION.....................................................................................................................................................1 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...................................................................................................................................3 A. Service Review Process 3 B. Resource Conservation Services Summary 4 2. SERVICE SETTING...........................................................................................................................................6 A. Service Area 6 B. Regulatory Framework 6 C. Programs and Services 7 3. MATCHING INFRASTRUCTURE TO GROWTH.............................................................................................11 A. Current Population 11 B. Land Use Trends 11 C. Growth Areas and Projections 12 D. Matching Infrastructure and Growth 12 4. FINANCING, RATES AND SERVICE ECONOMIES.......................................................................................13 A. Funding Sources 13 B. NCRCD Financial History 13 C. Rate Structures 14 D. Cost Avoidance Opportunities and Shared Facilities 15 5. MANAGEMENT, GOVERNANCE AND LOCAL ACCOUNTABILITY.............................................................17 A. Management Efficiencies 17 B. Government Structure Options 18 C. Local Accountability 19 6. DISTRICT PROFILE........................................................................................................................................21 7. DETERMINATIONS.........................................................................................................................................22 APPENDIX A – COMMENTS AND RESPONSES.........................................................................................................25 Nevada County LAFCo: Resource Conservation District Municipal Service Review May 2006 – Final Report TOC-i ACRONYMS BLM Bureau of Land Management CDF California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection CEQA California Environmental Quality Act ERAF Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund NID Nevada Irrigation District NCRCD Nevada County Resource Conservation District NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service RCD Resource Conservation District USDA United States Department of Agriculture USFS United States Forest Service Cover Photos: Provided by Nevada County Resource Conservation District and Nevada County LAFCO Nevada County LAFCo: Resource Conservation District Municipal Service Review May 2006 – Final Report TOC-ii LAFCO RESOLUTION Nevada County LAFCo: Resource Conservation District Municipal Service Review May 2006 – Final Report 1 LAFCo Resolution Nevada County LAFCo: Resource Conservation District Municipal Service Review May 2006 – Final Report 2 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Nevada County Resource Conservation District (NCRCD) provides a range of conservation and watershed-related services to both rural and urban areas within Nevada County and western Sierra County. The NCRCD’s programs promote conservation, environmental awareness and watershed stewardship. Like most other Resource Conservation Districts in the state, the NCRCD originated from the local Soil Conservation District, which was formed in 1943 by election of the landowners. As explained below in the summary of services, the State Legislature broadened the purposes of Soil Conservation Districts in the 1970’s, resulting in a name change to more accurately reflect the role of these districts within California. Resource Conservation Districts are authorized under Division 9 of the California Public Resources Code. The Nevada County RCD operates pursuant to Public Resources Code §9001 et seq. which was enacted for the following purpose: (a)(2). To provide for the organization and operation of resource conservation districts for the purposes of soil and water conservation, the control of runoff, the prevention and control of soil erosion, erosion stabilization, including, but not limited to, these purposes in open areas, agricultural areas, urban development, wildlife areas, recreational developments, watershed management, the protection of water quality, and water reclamation, the development of storage and distribution of water, and the treatment of each acre of land according to its needs. A. SERVICE REVIEW PROCESS LAFCo must conduct service reviews prior to or in conjunction with the mandated five-year schedule for review of Spheres of Influence (SOIs). The service review report must provide an analysis of the issues and written determinations for each of the following subjects: • 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 reorganization of service providers; • Evaluation of management efficiencies; and • Local accountability and governance. A collaborative approach has been used throughout the preparation of this Service Review. The input of public agencies is valuable, and opportunities were provided for the District’s involve- ment. The District was initially asked to provide data for use in the analysis. The data were Nevada County LAFCo: Resource Conservation District Municipal Service Review May 2006 – Final Report 3 1. Executive Summary reviewed; follow-up discussions were conducted where clarification and additional information were needed. The District was provided an opportunity to review the administrative draft follow- ing LAFCo’s initial review. Changes and comments received during the Public Review period have been incorporated as appropriate to prepare this Final Report. B. RESOURCE CONSERVATION SERVICES SUMMARY Resource Conservation Districts derived from Soil Conservation Districts formed in the 1930’s and 1940’s. In 1935 the federal government passed legislation establishing the Soil Conservation Service to address the impacts of drought and soil loss resulting from the “Dust Bowl” crisis in the early 1930’s. Subsequently, Soil Conservation Districts were authorized under California State law to establish locally governed agencies that would complement the federal Soil Conservation Service. Soil Conservation Districts were originally empowered to manage soil and water resources for conservation. These powers were expanded in the 1970’s to include related resources such as fish and wildlife habitat, and the name was changed to Resource Conservation Districts. The original boundaries of the districts were generally determined by agricultural land- owners who shared common concerns regarding resource issues; hence the boundaries tend to reflect geographical areas rather than political boundaries. With the expanded focus and powers, these resource areas are now considered within a regional watershed context. There are three major watersheds within the boundaries of the NCRCD: Upper Yuba, Upper Bear, and Truckee. The Nevada County Resource Conservation District works in collaboration with the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, the leading federal agency charged with conserving natural resources on private lands. The NCRCD is a public resource agency with no regulatory or enforcement authority; furthermore, the District does not generally have discretionary approval power over development projects and is not a Responsible Agency under CEQA. The District offers education and information and sponsors projects and studies that further conservation within its service area. The District has obtained grant funding and is actively involved in watershed management for the three major watersheds within its boundaries. The NCRCD provides a range of programs and services focused on establishing a balance between a high quality rural environment, a biologically diverse landscape, and a healthy economy for the community. Landowner assistance ranges from erosion control and weed eradication to pasture and fuels management, wildlife habitat improvement, and rangeland and forestry improvement. Other programs include range, forest and fuels management programs, erosion control, and water quality monitoring. The District does not own or maintain any capital infrastructure, although it has acquired a No- Till Drill that is available for rent by landowners within its service area. The District shares office space, office equipment and vehicles with the NRCS. The District works directly with a number of public agencies, including the City of Grass Valley, the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, University of California Cooperative Extension, various depart- ments of Nevada County government, the California Department of Fish and game, and the Nevada County Agricultural Commissioner. The District receives in the range of three to ten Nevada County LAFCo: Resource Conservation District Municipal Service Review May 2006 – Final Report 4 1. Executive Summary walk-in requests for information and assistance daily at its office in Grass Valley and has a waiting list for those requesting site visits. The District occasionally conducts seminars that are attended by as many as 50 people. Some programs, such as the mosquito fish give-away, have been very popular.1 The District’s public information and notification list includes over 500 people. From the earliest records on file with Nevada LAFCo for the Nevada County Soil Conservation District, the District’s boundaries included Nevada County, western Sierra County and small portions of Placer County and Yuba County. There were also parcels and areas within the boundaries that were excluded from the District. Over time, the District has updated its boundaries so they now are coterminous with Nevada County and just the western portion of Sierra County. Other Resource Conservation Districts serve adjoining areas, with some exceptions. The NCRCD is primarily funded through a share of the 1% Nevada County property tax and grants. There is no funding from Sierra County. Landowner services provided in Sierra County are minimal, with perhaps one seminar per year and occasional requests for educational materials. The NCRCD is actively involved in watershed issues that affect both counties, however, and therefore District efforts within Sierra County do benefit Nevada County. Because the District includes territory in two counties there is a concern over representation and the potential cost associated with District elections, should there be multiple candidates for an open position. Elections would have to occur in both counties, with the District bearing the full cost. This could significantly impact the District’s financial resources. Public Resources Code §9314(b) would allow the District to request by resolution that the County Board of Supervisors in the principal county appoint district directors. The resolution would remain in effect until rescinded by the Board of Directors or by petition of the registered voters within the district. In considering possible government structure alternatives, it should be noted that there are no other agencies that could provide all the services that a Resource Conservation District is authorized to provide. Furthermore, no other RCDs were identified that could efficiently and cost-effectively serve western Sierra County without remuneration. In general, RCDs operate on limited budgets with grants offering the greatest potential for increased revenue. Any grants that are pursued by an RCD would have to be for projects or programs within its boundaries. Given the NCRCD’s level of service in Sierra County and the context of the area within the three regional watersheds, it may be more beneficial to maintain the status quo of the NCRCD rather than limit its sphere of influence or boundaries to Nevada County alone. 1 In 2005 the County Agricultural Commissioner became responsible for the mosquito fish giveaways as part of the effort to establish a county mosquito abatement service. Nevada County LAFCo: Resource Conservation District Municipal Service Review May 2006 – Final Report 5 2. SERVICE SETTING This chapter describes the service area and services provided by the Nevada County Resource Conserva- tion District (NCRCD) as well as the regulatory framework for Resource Conservation Districts within the State of California. The study area for this Municipal Service Review (MSR) is shown in Figure 2.1 at the end of the chapter. A. SERVICE AREA The NCRCD boundaries encompass Nevada County and the western half of Sierra County. The District is bounded on the south by Placer County and Tahoe RCDs; to the north by Feather River RCD and areas not currently within an RCD; and to the west by Yuba County RCD. The Sierra Valley RCD lies to the northeast and serves a portion of eastern Sierra County. The Nevada County Resource Conservation District was formed in 1943. It is a public resource agency and has no regulatory or enforcement authority, although in the past the County of Nevada has authorized the NCRCD to review all grading plans for property enrolled in the Williamson Act program, and the City of Grass Valley has asked the District to perform this service. These requests are of a staff assistance nature and not for discretionary approval. Policies of two elements in the 1996 Nevada County General Plan identify the NCRCD as con- tributing to the County’s achievement of its goals and objectives on resource issues. In the Soils Element, Policy 12.3 states that activities dealing with techniques and practices to minimize erosion should be encouraged in cooperation with the NCRCD, including the provision of educa- tional materials for the general public regarding soil erosion from construction activities. In the same element, Policy 12.5 states that the efforts of the NCRCD to educate and assist the public in order to minimize soil erosion related to private road maintenance should be encouraged. In the Agriculture Element, Policy 16.15 states that the NCRCD should be encouraged in its efforts to implement water conservation and greater water use efficiency by both agricultural and urban users. B. REGULATORY FRAMEWORK Division 9 of the Public Resources Code (§9001 et seq.) is the authorizing legislation for Resource Conservation Districts. It was enacted for the following purposes: (a) (1) To provide the means by which the state may cooperate with the United States and with resource conservation districts organized pursuant to this division in securing the adoption in this state of conservation practices, including, but not limited to, farm, range, open space, urban development, wildlife, recreation, watershed, water quality, and woodland, best adapted to save the basic resources, soil, water, and air of the state from unreasonable and economically preventable waste and destruction. Nevada County LAFCo: Resource Conservation District Municipal Service Review May 2006 – Final Report 6 2. Service Setting (2) To provide for the organization and operation of resource conservation districts for the purposes of soil and water conservation, the control of runoff, the prevention and control of soil erosion, and erosion stabilization, including, but not limited to, these purposes in open areas, agricultural areas, urban development, wildlife areas, recreational developments, watershed management, the protection of water quality and water reclamation, the development of storage and distribution of water, and the treatment of each acre of land according to its needs. The Public Resources Code (§9001 et seq.) provides the following authority to Resource Conservation Districts: (b) The districts, in addition to any other authority provided by law, may do all of the following: (1) Ensure consistency with the authorities and policies of the United States, this state, counties, cities, public districts, other resource conservation districts, persons, associations, and corporations. (2) With the consent of the owner, construct on privately or publicly owned lands any necessary works for the prevention and control of soil erosion and erosion stabilization. (3) Facilitate coordinated resource management efforts for watershed restoration and enhancement. (c) The districts shall not conserve water for power purposes or produce or distribute power for their own use or for the use of others. C. PROGRAMS AND SERVICES Each Resource Conservation District within the State of California is an autonomous special district; as such, each district is able to define its own local goals and objectives based on the issues and needs within its service area. The vision of the NCRCD is to educate and assist landowners and land managers in establishing a balance between a high quality rural environment, a biologically diverse landscape, and a healthy economy for the community. The District is actively engaged in initiatives, programs and projects that support this vision. Further, the mission of the NCRCD is complementary to that of other public agencies in the County: • NCRCD addresses fuel load, which assists local and state fire agencies; • NCRCD addresses recycling and storm water quality, which directly assists the City of Grass Valley, Nevada City and Nevada County; • NCRCD offers bat houses for mosquito control, which assists County Environmental Health, and mosquito abatement efforts by the County Agricultural Commissioner; • NCRCD is building a demonstration garden with native plantings and a gazebo at the County Administrative Center. Nevada County LAFCo: Resource Conservation District Municipal Service Review May 2006 – Final Report 7 2. Service Setting The NCRCD and Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) are highly complementary agencies, and they collaborate regularly on programs and services. The NRCS is the leading federal agency charged with conserving natural resources on private lands. The NRCS is part of the US Department of Agriculture and is the result of the initial Soil Conservation Service authorizing legislation and the broadened perspective on resource conservation that followed. The NRCS accomplishes its mission by working directly with local Resource Conservation Districts. RCDs work to ensure that local conservation issues are addressed, while the NRCS seeks to balance specific local needs within the context of a national conservation effort. The NCRCD currently offers the following programs and services: Landowner Assistance: The NCRCD/NRCS staff provides assistance to private landowners with the following: • Erosion Control • Pond Management • Weed Eradication • Fuels Management • Wildlife Habitat Improvement • Pasture Management • Orchard/Vineyard Management • Rangeland Improvement • Forestry Improvement Tree Planting Programs: The NCRCD partners with corporate sponsors and the USFS for annual tree give-aways. No-Till Drill Rental: Through grant funding, the District acquired a No-Till Drill that is available for use by local landowners for pasture management and weed eradication. In 2004 the drill contributed to approximately 81 acres of conservation. Range and Forest Management Planning: The District offers conservation planning for landowners to improve their rangeland or forested properties. It also produces educational brochures illustrating the practices of thinning, pruning and fuels reduction while conserving habitat for wildlife and plants. Educational Outreach: The District conducts an extensive educational program, providing workshops and materials for cities, schools and the general public. Fire Hazards/Fuels Management Projects: The NCRCD Forestry Committee designed a Community Shaded Fuel Break to be implemented on a voluntary basis by individual property owners. The goal is to create a 15-mile long, 1,500 to 2,500 foot wide shaded fuel break north and east of Nevada City, Grass Valley and adjacent communities. This is intended to avoid a catastrophic wildfire event, which poses the greatest watershed level threat to resources and communities. Committee participants included the NRCS, California Department of Forestry and Nevada County LAFCo: Resource Conservation District Municipal Service Review May 2006 – Final Report 8 2. Service Setting Fire Protection (CDF), Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Nevada Irrigation District (NID), Fire Safe Council of Nevada County and the US Forest Service (USFS). Erosion Control: The District provides information and assistance to landowners to minimize and reduce the effects of building roads and structures. The District coordinates an annual workshop for state, county and city planning and building departments, individual contractors and landscapers on soil erosion and environmental friendly building practices. Water Quality Monitoring: Through the Bear River Watershed Coordinator Grant, the District is coordinating water quality monitoring at approximately 25 sites along the Bear River and Wolf Creek watersheds. Volunteers assist with sampling, record keeping, and inspections. Nevada County LAFCo: Resource Conservation District Municipal Service Review May 2006 – Final Report 9 3. MATCHING INFRASTRUCTURE TO GROWTH This chapter reviews the current population served and projected growth within the NCRCD service area. It further considers the District’s ability to accommodate growth with its services and programs. A. CURRENT POPULATION Nevada County encompasses 978 square miles and had an estimated population of 98,995 people in 2005.2 An estimated 16,050 people, or 16% of the population, live in Grass Valley and Nevada City, and an estimated 15,650 live in the Town of Truckee (16%). The remaining 68% of residents live in unincorporated communities and rural areas. Sierra County encompasses 959 square miles and has an estimated population in 2005 of 3,538.3 There is only one incorporated city (Loyalton), which is in the eastern portion of the County and is home to 25% of Sierra County’s total population. The western half of the county, the area served by the NCRCD, has a number of established communities, including Downieville, Goodyears Bar, Allegheny and Forest City. Countywide, the growth rate in Nevada County between 1990 and 2000 was 17.2%, with growth rates in the incorporated cities at 20.7% in Grass Valley, 5.1% in Nevada City, and 24.3% in Truckee. The ten-year growth rate in Sierra County was only 7.1%, primarily because of its steep topography, heavily forested areas, and rural character. B. LAND USE TRENDS The role and function of the NCRCD is closely tied to land use trends within its service area. Approximately 32% of the land in Nevada County is public. The Tahoe National Forest, oper- ated by the USFS, covers 265 square miles. The Bureau of Land Management has jurisdiction over approximately 31 square miles, and the Spenceville Wildlife and Recreation Area en- compasses approximately 17 square miles in both Nevada and Yuba Counties. The 1996 Nevada County General Plan notes that the county is transitioning from a “traditional, predominantly resource-based rural county” to one with a diverse population and economic base. Land use patterns are shifting to increased commercial, industrial and residential uses, while population levels are rising in rural areas as large ranches are subdivided to create smaller “ranchettes” and other estate properties. These trends place greater pressure on the natural resources in the region, intensifying the need for effective resource management programs. Geographic areas of concern identified in the NCRCD’s 2004-2008 Long Range Plan include the following: • Highway 49 – Wolf Creek Corridor for future development and rangeland health • Highway 20 in western Nevada County for fire and development issues • Highway 49 north of Nevada City for fire and timber/range issues 2 Source: California Department of Finance, E-4 Population Estimates 3 Ibid. Nevada County LAFCo: Resource Conservation District Municipal Service Review May 2006 – Final Report 11 3. Matching Infrastructure to Growth • Eastern County for recreation and timber and range health C. GROWTH AREAS AND PROJECTIONS The California Department of Finance projects an average annual growth rate of 2% for Nevada County through 2025. However, growth will not be consistent across the county, either geo- graphically or temporally. In general terms, growth is expected to occur throughout western Nevada County, but in the highest concentrations in and around Grass Valley and Nevada City as well as in some unincorporated communities. Growth in the eastern portion of the County is primarily limited to the area around Truckee due to topography and the Tahoe National Forest. Nevada LAFCo has developed a population model that uses a base growth rate assumption of 1.7% per year, with a high growth rate assumption of 2.0% per year. Both rates are applied to two development patterns: Infill and General Plan. The result is four growth scenarios: Expected Growth General Plan, Expected Infill, High Growth General Plan and High Growth Infill. Applying the expected growth rate of 1.7%, Grass Valley’s current population of 13,000 could reach 30,910 by 2025. Under the same scenario, Nevada City’s population might expand from its current 3,000 to 4,600. Under all four scenarios, the LAFCo model projects substantial growth in Truckee, with the addition of 7,100 to 8,100 new dwelling units, depending on the scenario. D. MATCHING INFRASTRUCTURE AND GROWTH The Nevada County Resource Conservation District does not own or maintain any capital infrastructure, and none is required in order for the District to fulfill its purpose according to the Public Resources Code. The District shares office space, office equipment and vehicles with the NRCS and owns one vehicle as well as the No-Till Drill. The District provides watershed man- agement, public and landowner education and other programs, some of which are funded through grants and donations. The District is able to structure the scale and scope of its programs to specifically address local or regional environmental issues, based on available funding. Because of the nature of the services provided, the District could potentially see an increased demand for its services as growth occurs within its service area. In the District’s 2004-2008 Long Range Plan, the following conservation needs are identified: • Soil conservation • Water conservation and quality • Human capacity • Preservation of rural atmosphere • Public education • Financial resources These needs will become more critical as growth intensifies pressure on the natural resources in the area. Expansion of services will also depend on the public’s interest in and commitment to preserving the quality and character of these resources. Because of the flexibility inherent in the District’s approach to service, the District will be able to accommodate growth within its service area to the degree funding is available. Nevada County LAFCo: Resource Conservation District Municipal Service Review May 2006 – Final Report 12 4. FINANCING, RATES AND SERVICE ECONOMIES This chapter discusses the Nevada County Resource Conservation District’s financing, rate structures and opportunities for cost avoidance and shared facilities. A. FUNDING SOURCES The Nevada County Resource Conservation District is funded through property tax revenue, grants, equipment rental fees, and interest income. The District receives a portion of the Nevada County 1% property tax, but none from Sierra County. According to the Sierra County Auditor, to the best of their knowledge, the NCRCD has never received property tax revenue from Sierra County. As property tax recipients, resource conservation districts are subject to the ERAF III tax shift for FY 2004-2005 and 2005-2006. Grant funding, which the district actively pursues, offers the greatest opportunity for the NCRCD to increase its revenue. The District has received $239,600 in grant funds since July 2003, including: Department of Conservation Watershed Coordinator grant of $232,000, PG&E grant of $5,000 to develop a public information brochure on Vegetation Management, and $2,600 from the Sierra Nevada Alliance to purchase 800 storm drain markers for Grass Valley. Such funding strengthens the District’s ability to leverage its resources and to provide meaningful programs that directly relate to resource conservation issues within a larger watershed context. The District is experiencing increased demand for its services due to growth in the County’s population and an increased awareness of the District’s educational programs. Service levels in response to this growth are reaching the limit of available financial resources. Furthermore, grant funding resources have declined, which may result in the loss of one staff position. Because of these trends, the District believes that current funding levels will be inadequate in the future to increase services to meet demand. B. NCRCD FINANCIAL HISTORY The following table summarizes the financial history of the Nevada County Resource Conservation District: Nevada County LAFCo: Resource Conservation District Municipal Service Review May 2006 – Final Report 13 4. Financing, Rates and Service Economies Table 4.1 Nevada County Resource Conservation District – Financial Summary FY 2003-2004 FY 2004-2005 FY 2005-2006* (Actual) (Actual) (Budget) 1% Property Tax – Nevada Revenue - $138,695 $158,127 $132,000 County Drill Rental Fees $800 $1,615 $700 Investment Income $1,450 $3,363 $0 Grant Income $291,649 $155,961 $105,278 Miscellaneous $236 $3,826 $500 Total $432,830 $322,892 $238,478 Expenses - Salaries, Wages, Benefits $112,727 $148,992 $85,090 Grant Expenditures $203,944 $23,078 $114,120 Services and Supplies $32,667 $62,636 $39,080 Depreciation $5,657 $0 $0 Total $354,995 $234,706 $238,290 Net Income $77,835 $88,186 $188 Fund Balance- end of year $183,261 $250,009 The NCRCD adopts an annual budget by August 30 each year and undergoes an annual independent financial audit. The audit completed for June 30, 2005 did not note any items of concern. All of the District’s operational funds are deposited with the County Treasurer and Tax Collector’s Office, which provides accounting services for the District. The NCRCD maintains reserves and budgets for contingencies to ensure continuity of service and address any timing differences between grant program expenditures and receipt of funding. The reserves also enable the District to pursue grants that may require some matching funds. C. RATE STRUCTURES Resource conservation districts are authorized to charge reasonable fees for services. The NCRCD provides most services and informational materials at no charge; the No-Till Drill is rented out to property owners within the County at a minimal rental fee between $100 and $300. This approach is common among resource conservation districts, as they are resource agencies with a primary purpose of disseminating information to landowners and the general public. Because the NCRCD is not receiving any property tax funds from Sierra County, the District may want to consider establishing a nominal rate structure for that area to cover the cost of materials and seminars. Nevada County LAFCo: Resource Conservation District Municipal Service Review May 2006 – Final Report 14 4. Financing, Rates and Service Economies D. COST AVOIDANCE OPPORTUNITIES AND SHARED FACILITIES The NCRCD avoids additional overhead costs by sharing office facilities with the Natural Resources Conservation Service in Grass Valley. As noted above, the two agencies collaborate on a number of projects, and their goals and objectives are highly complementary. The NCRCD also uses NRCS vehicles at times for field work. The District has so far avoided potentially significant election costs by appointment of Directors to uncontested positions on its Board. Should an election be necessary—as may occur in 2006— elections would have to be held in Sierra as well as Nevada County, with the District bearing the full cost within each county. This could significantly impact the District’s financial resources. Public Resources Code §9314(b), however, allows the District Board to present a resolution to the County Board of Supervisors in the principal county (Nevada) requesting the Board to appoint District directors. Specifically, Section 9314 (b,c) outlines the appointment process as follows: The board of supervisors shall appoint directors, after consultation with the board of supervisors of any other county which contains any part of the district, from those candidates who have filed an application with the board of supervisors, as prescribed by the board of supervisors…..It is the intent of the Legislature that the board of supervisors solicit recommendations from within the district, including public, private and non-profit entities, and appoint only applicants who are determined by the board of supervisors to have a demonstrated interest in soil and water conservation. The resolution would remain in effect until rescinded by the Board of Directors or by petition signed by 5% of the registered voters within the District. This could be a cost-savings measure for the District, alleviating the concern over potential election costs. The NCRCD regularly collaborates with other agencies and programs in order to leverage resources to meet the District’s goals and objectives. For example, the NCRCD works with the University of California Cooperative Extension and its Master Gardeners program, the City of Grass Valley on a storm drain program, and local schools for storm drains and water quality programs. The NCRCD also partners with Sierra College, which donates meeting room space for NCRCD seminars and educational events. In addition, the NCRCD assists the Nevada County Land Trust, a local non-profit organized to preserve land for natural, recreational, scenic, and other purposes, including the development of conservation easements. The NCRCD is collaborating with the Trust on developing an oak mitigation program and oak management plan within the County. The NCRCD also participates in the High Sierra Resource Conservation and Development Council, which assists communities in the counties of Sierra, Nevada, Yuba, Placer and El Dorado to strengthen the local economy, conserve natural resources, and provide a safe, secure quality of life. The NCRCD also coordinated the multi-agency effort to develop the Community Shaded Fuel Break project. The project, which received funding from USDA and CDF, and targets larger parcel owners north and east of Nevada City, Grass Valley and adjacent communities. Other Nevada County LAFCo: Resource Conservation District Municipal Service Review May 2006 – Final Report 15 4. Financing, Rates and Service Economies agencies involved included BLM, USFS, CDF, Fire Safe Council, NRCS, homeowners associations, and the County. One opportunity that could yield both cost and efficiency benefits would be to house the County Agricultural Commissioner, NRCS, UC Cooperative Extension and the NCRCD in one location. This core group addresses various aspects of resource conservation issues. The land use trends and patterns of development noted in Section 3 generally raise resource issues that cannot be fully addressed by a single agency. Property owners often visit several offices to seek guidance from the various resource agencies within the County. Housing these agencies within one building could generate additional synergy and cooperation that would benefit taxpayers as well as the agencies. Nevada County LAFCo: Resource Conservation District Municipal Service Review May 2006 – Final Report 16 5. MANAGEMENT, GOVERNANCE AND LOCAL ACCOUNTABILITY This section considers overall managerial practices of the District and addresses the government structure options that might improve resource conservation services in Nevada and Sierra Counties; it also reviews how the District invites and encourages public participation in District governance. A. MANAGEMENT EFFICIENCIES The Nevada County Resource Conservation District operates under the oversight and guidance of a Board of Directors that includes five voting members and two non-voting Associate Directors. The Directors are elected at large by voters within the District or appointed by the County Board of Supervisors if the open seats are uncontested. The Associate Directors constitute an experi- enced pool from which to select future Directors in the event of a vacancy. The NCRCD has one general manager, one full-time staff person, and one grant-funded full-time staff person whose position will end in approximately 16 months. One staff member is assigned full-time to the Bear River Watershed grant project. As required by Public Resource Code Division 9, the NCRCD has adopted a Long-Range Plan that includes goals and an implemen- tation plan through 2008. Division 9 requires that RCDs develop a strategic plan that identifies “all resource issues within the district for local, state, and federal resource conservation plan- ning.” The plan must cover a five-year period and include a framework for setting annual priorities (through adoption of Annual Plans) as outlined in the Long-Range Plan. In addition, the plan must also provide for conveying ideas contained in the plan to the public and other public agencies. Lastly, the plan must include a basis for evaluating progress made toward goals and objectives outlined in the plan. The NCRCD’s Long-Range Plan meets these requirements, en- suring that the NCRCD has established goals and remains focused on its core mission. One area where efficiency could be improved is in NCRCD financial interactions with Nevada County. The current system for making deposits is very time-consuming, requiring NCRCD staff to sit at a computer at the County Administrative Center to manually code and enter each deposit. The effort and time required discourage prompt deposits. In addition, paychecks from the County’s payroll processing system arrive at the District unsealed, allowing staff to view one another’s payroll information. This has caused some staff tension. These issues could be addres- sed through service evaluation and training provided by the County to the special districts and agencies it serves. A system for direct deposit of paychecks to employees’ banks is expected to become available from the County Auditor’s Office in 2006, providing a means of alleviating the concern regarding confidentiality of payroll information. Nevada County LAFCo: Resource Conservation District Municipal Service Review May 2006 – Final Report 17 5: Management, Governance and Local Accountability B. GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE OPTIONS Resource Conservation Districts are authorized under Public Resource Code §9000 et seq. Alternatives to the current government structure for the Nevada County Resource Conservation District are limited. No other public agency could provide the same services as the District, and there are no areas within Nevada County that are not served. The western portion of Sierra County appears to have been included within the NCRCD’s boundaries from the earliest records on file with Nevada LAFCo. Three government structure options were identified for the Nevada County Resource Conservation District: 1. Maintain the status quo This option would allow the NCRCD to continue providing services and programs without making any changes to its boundaries or sphere of influence. The primary advantage of this option would be program continuity, thought it would also have potential for increasing revenue through grants that are only available to RCDs and related agencies. The NCRCD is currently providing programs that are beneficial to the regional watersheds and their residents. Because of the breadth of services RCDs are authorized to provide through their enabling legislation, there is no one agency that could offer all of the programs currently provided by the NCRCD. The NCRCD is actively working for the benefit of both Nevada and Sierra Counties and has successfully pursued grant funding to leverage its resources. As an RCD, it is able to offer a broad range of conservation-related programs to residents and landowners within its boundaries. These types of programs typically generate strong interest and support from stakeholders who donate valuable volunteer time for the benefit of the region. The disadvantage would be continued funding inequity, with Sierra County contributing no property tax revenue. The funding issue could be mitigated, however, through the use of a rate structure implementing a nominal fee for services and information provided to Sierra County residents. In the larger picture, the benefits to Nevada County watersheds from the minimal amount of service provided within Sierra County may outweigh the funding inequity. Changing the status of the NCRCD Board of Directors from elective to appointive would be an option, short of detaching the Sierra County portion of District territory, to avoid incurring bi-county election costs. 2. Detach the area within Sierra County from the Nevada County Resource Conservation District This option would detach the area within Sierra County from the NCRCD, ending eligibility for NCRCD services for the residents and landowners within that area. The benefit of this change would be that NCRCD would only serve Nevada County, where its property tax funding is derived. On the other hand, this option would limit the District’s ability to pursue some grants. In general, RCDs operate on limited budgets with grants offering the greatest potential for increased revenue. Any grants pursued by Nevada County LAFCo: Resource Conservation District Municipal Service Review May 2006 – Final Report 18 5: Management, Governance and Local Accountability an RCD would have to be for projects or programs within that RCD’s boundaries, and the regional watersheds extend beyond Nevada County’s boundaries. Furthermore, the NRCS is not limited to the boundaries of an RCD, but NRCS programs could be limited if there were no RCD to implement them in western Sierra County. No other RCDs were identified that could efficiently and cost-effectively serve western Sierra County without remuneration. Given the NCRCD’s minimal level of service in Sierra County and the context of the area within the three regional watersheds, it may be more beneficial to maintain the status quo of the NCRCD rather than amend its sphere of influence or boundaries to include Nevada County alone. 3. Detach the area within Sierra County from the Nevada County Resource Conservation District and approve an out-of-agency agreement to serve western Sierra County With this option, the area in Sierra County would be detached from the NCRCD, but the NCRCD would request Sierra County LAFCo to approve an out-of-agency agreement allowing it to provide services in that area. There is some discussion at the State level of broadening Government Code §56133 to make this type of option available; the viability of this option is thus contingent upon amendment of the statute. This alternative would not address the funding issue, and it would remain up to the District to determine how services in western Sierra County would be compensated. It would, however, address the representation and election cost issue if the District chose not to adopt a resolution requesting the Nevada County Board of Supervisors to appoint directors. During their review of this report, the NCRCD Board of Directors voted to continue serving western Sierra County. C. LOCAL ACCOUNTABILITY The Nevada County Resource Conservation District is governed by a Board of Directors, with members elected at large or appointed by the County Board of Supervisors through a public process. Nevada County Resource Conservation District Date formed: December 13, 1943 Statutory Authorization: Public Resources Code §9000 et seq. – Resource Conservation District Law Board Meetings: Second Tuesday of every month, 6 pm at 113 Presley Way, Suite 1, Grass Valley, CA 95945 Nevada County LAFCo: Resource Conservation District Municipal Service Review May 2006 – Final Report 19 5: Management, Governance and Local Accountability Board of Directors Title Term Expiration Compensation David Vertin Chairman 12/08 None Ken Roberts Vice President 12/08 None David Gallino Director 12/06 None Robert Ingram Director 12/08 None Jon Shilling Director 12/06 None Carol Hollingsworth Associate -- None Keith Crabtree Associate -- None Nevada Resource Conservation District board meetings are held at the District’s offices at 113 Presley Way, Grass Valley. Meeting notices, agendas and supporting documentation are posted at least 72 hours in advance at the RCD office, faxed to Sierra County and the media. The District publishes an annual newsletter and has a website that contains information on the District’s activities (www.ncrcd.org ). Nevada County LAFCo: Resource Conservation District Municipal Service Review May 2006 – Final Report 20 6. DISTRICT PROFILE Nevada County Resource Conservation District Contact: Lesa Osterholm, Manager Mailing Address: 113 Presley Way, Suite 1, Grass Valley, CA 95945 Site Address: same Phone Number: (530) 272-3417 x107 Fax Number: (530) 477-8055 Email/Website lesa.osterholm@ca.nacdnet.net Types of Services: Resource conservation, soil erosion, watershed management Population Served: 100,200 Size of Service Area (sq miles): 1,435 sq miles Staff and Facilities Staff: FTE 3 Financial Information Fund Balance Budget FY 2005-2006 Revenues Expenses (June 30, 2005) $238,478 $238,290 $250,009 Nevada County LAFCo: Resource Conservation District Municipal Service Review May 2006 – Final Report 21 7. DETERMINATIONS – NEVADA COUNTY RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT – 1) Population and Growth The Nevada County portion of Nevada County Resource Conservation District—which includes approximately 98% of the service population—will experience substantial population growth (at a maximum average annual rate of 2%) over the next 25 years. This, together with increasing development of land in the District, will generate increasing demand for conservation services. 2) Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies The Nevada County Resource Conservation District does not own or maintain any infrastructure and has no identifiable infrastructure needs or deficiencies at present. 3) Financing Constraints and Opportunities The Nevada County Resource Conservation District has successfully pursued grant funding to expand its programs and projects; it also employs effective budgeting and fiscal management practices to ensure continuity of service and address any timing differences between grant program expenditures and receipt of funding. The District’s financial resources have been adequate to meet the operational and capital needs of the District; however, increased service demands due to growth in population and increased awareness of the District’s educational programs are reaching the limit of available resources. Grant funding resources have declined, which may result in the loss of one staff position. Because of these trends, the District does not believe that current funding levels will be adequate in the future to meet increasing demands. Options for obtaining compensation for services provided to Sierra County residents, whether through imposition of fees for programs and materials or efforts to secure a share of property tax revenue, should be explored. 4) Cost Avoidance Opportunities Sharing of facilities and vehicles with the Natural Resources Conservation Service, along with limitation of staff size and utilization of volunteers and NRCS Conservationists, enables the District to control its costs to a large degree. The NCRCD has avoided election costs by having the County Board of Supervisors appoint District Directors through a public process when elections are uncontested. The District should consider requesting by resolution that the Nevada County Board of Supervisors appoint its directors regularly, thus eliminating the risk of incurring substantial financial burdens to conduct bi-county elections. 5) Management Efficiencies The Nevada County Resource Conservation District achieves efficient management through consistent attention to its goals, objectives and action items as set forth in its Long-Range Plan. Nevada County LAFCo: Resource Conservation District Municipal Service Review May 2006 – Final Report 22 7. Determinations The Annual Report also enables the Board of Directors and the public to monitor progress on goals and objectives. 6) Shared Facilities The Nevada County Resource Conservation District shares facilities with the Natural Resources Conservation Service in addition to collaborating with a number of agencies (including the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, the Nevada County Land Trust, and the University of California Cooperative Extension, among others) on regional programs. The Dis- trict should explore opportunities to work with the Truckee Land Trust as well. Additional benefits to agencies and the public might be realized through bringing the County Agricultural Commissioner and UC Cooperative Extension into the same facility as NCRCD and NRCS. This possibility should be explored if opportunity offers. 7) Rate Restructuring The Nevada County Resource Conservation District does not charge fees for its services, other than nominal fees to cover the cost of the No-Till Drill rental. This is consistent with the practice of other RCDs; establishing new or different fees would appear unnecessary unless and until the present funding sources became insufficient to support the District’s essential programs and activities. If consideration of new or increased fees became necessary, the possibility of counter- productive effect upon participation in the District’s programs must also be carefully weighed. 8) Government Structure Options The Nevada County Resource Conservation District provides programs and services for the benefit of Nevada County, western Sierra County, and the three regional watersheds within its territory. It is not clear that any change in the present structure of the District involving detachment of Sierra County would yield benefits outweighing disadvantages. And it is apparent that inclusion of the Sierra County territory now encompassed by the District has benefits to Nevada County as well. Maintenance of the status quo seems, currently at least, to be the best course. 9) Local Accountability and Governance Appointment of Nevada County Resource Conservation District Directors occurs through a public process, as would election should directorships become competitive. District meetings are open and accessible to the public, and public notices are provided by several means, including posting, direct mail, and media. Nevada County LAFCo: Resource Conservation District Municipal Service Review May 2006 – Final Report 23 APPENDIX Nevada County LAFCo: Resource Conservation District Municipal Service Review May 2006 – Final Report 24 Appendix A APPENDIX A – COMMENTS AND RESPONSES >>> "Osterholm, Lesa - Grass Valley, CA" <Lesa.Osterholm@ca.nacdnet.net> 3/7/2006 2:17 PM >>> Hi SR! I am not sure how you would like me to respond to the Service Review for the Nevada Co RCD, but our Board has reviewed the document and decided by a motion to respond and has the following comments: 1. They thought the Service Review was very well done and well written and complimented Carolyn Schaefer. 2. They voted to continue serving Sierra County as we do currently and not to re-district even in light of potential double election costs. Response: The report has been updated to reflect this comment. 3. They also voted to respond to the comment on the RCD current funding, pg 15 B and one other place, I believe but can’t find it at the moment. “The District’s financial resources are adequate to continue service provisions for the foreseeable future.” The RCD Board wanted to comment that there is increasing demands on our services with the growing population and the increased awareness of our educational programs. In addition, the grant funding revenue sources are in decline, therefore potentially reducing the current staffing level of three to only two people to service the entire county and western Sierra county. They do not feel the current funding levels will meet the increasing demands. Response: The report has been updated to reflect this comment. 4. Lastly, although the RCD did operate the mosquito fish giveaways to the public for several years, the Nevada County Agricultural Commissioner’s office took over the responsibility in 2005 in hopes of establishing a county mosquito abatement service. Response: The report has been updated to reflect this change. Let me know if you need any further information. Thank you, Lesa Lesa Osterholm, Bear River Watershed Coordinator and Manager, Nevada County Resource Conservation District 113 Presley Way, Suite One Grass Valley, CA 95945 (530)272-3417 x107 lesa.osterholm@ca.nacdnet.net Nevada County LAFCo: Resource Conservation District Municipal Service Review May 2006 – Final Report 25