Western County Road Maintenance

W N C R ESTERN EVADA OUNTY OAD M A AINTENANC E GENCIES • COUNTY SERVICE AREAS (10) • COMMUNITY SERVICE DIST RICTS (3) S PHERE OF I NFL UENCE P LANS PRELIMINARY ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT NEVADA LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION 950 MAIDU AVENUE NEVADA CITY, CA 95959 (530) 265-7180 2019 COUNTY SERVICE AREAS 1A, 2, 12, 13, 14, 18, 21, 22, 24, 38 BEYERS LANE COMMUNITY SERVICE DISTRICT MYSTIC MINES COMMUNITY SERVICE DISTRICT LAKE OF THE PINES RANCHOS COMMUNITY SERVICE DISTRICT SPHERE OF INFLUENCE PLANS PRELIMINARY ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT NEVADA LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION 950 MAIDU AVENUE NEVADA CITY, CA 95959 (530) 265-7180 2019 PREPARED BY: Nevada LAFCo Staff WESTERN COUNTY ROAD MAINTENANCE AGENCIES SPHERE OF INFLUENCE PLANS 2019 TABLE OF CONTENTS COMMISSION RESOLUTIONS ....................................................................................................1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................................1 1.0 INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1 1.1 LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION ..............................................................1 1.2 NEVADA LAFCO POLICIES AND CRITERIA FOR SPHERE OF INFLUENCE PLANS .......................................................................................................................1 1.3 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEWS .................................................................................3 1.4 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE UPDATE PROCESS .................................................................4 1.5 DISADVANTAGED UNINCORPORATED COMMUNITIES ................................................5 1.6 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT ..........................................................6 2.0 BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................. 2-1 2.1 DESCRIPTION AND EXISTING SETTING .................................................................. 2-1 2.2 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE .......................................................................................... 2-3 2.3 GROWTH AND POPULATION .................................................................................. 2-4 2.3.1 METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................ 2-5 2.3.2 GROWTH RATES AND PROJECTIONS .......................................................... 2-5 3.0 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW ................................................................................. 3-1 3.1 ROAD AND STREET OPERATIONS IN WESTERN NEVADA COUNTY (2005) ............. 3-1 4.0 SPHERES OF INFLUENCE AND SPHERE PLANS .................................................... 4-1 4.1 COUNTY SERVICE AREAS SPHERES OF INFLUENCE ............................................... 4-2 4.1.1 COUNTY SERVICE AREAS 1A AND 2 – CLOVER VALLEY RANCHES, ALTA SIERRA RANCHES AND BIRCH MEADOWS RANCHES ....................... 4-4 4.1.2 COUNTY SERVICE AREA 12 – ADAMSON ROAD ........................................ 4-7 4.1.3 COUNTY SERVICE AREA 13 – WOLF DRIVE ............................................ 4-10 4.1.4 COUNTY SERVICE AREA 14 – RETRAC WAY ........................................... 4-13 4.1.5 COUNTY SERVICE AREA 18 – I.W.B. NORTH .......................................... 4-15 4.1.6 COUNTY SERVICE AREA 21 – SHARON OAKS ......................................... 4-18 4.1.7 COUNTY SERVICE AREA 22 – 6B RANCH ................................................ 4-20 4.1.8 COUNTY SERVICE AREA 24 – OAK CREST ESTATES & MOUNTAIN LAKE ESTATES ........................................................................................ 4-23 4.1.9 COUNTY SERVICE AREA 38 – WILDWOOD RIDGE ESTATES .................... 4-26 4.2 BEYERS LANE COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT ................................................ 4-30 4.3 LAKE OF THE PINES RANCHOS COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT ....................... 4-33 4.4 MYSTIC MINES COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT .............................................. 4-37 5.0 ACRONYMS AND DEFINITIONS ............................................................................... 5-1 i Table of Contents LIST OF TABLES TABLE 2-1. ACREAGE AND PARCEL COUNT FOR EACH COUNTY SERVICE AREA .......................... 2-3 TABLE 2-2. ACREAGE AND PARCEL COUNTS FOR EACH COMMUNITY SERVICE DISTRICT ........... 2-3 TABLE 2-3. COUNTY GROWTH RATES BY DECADE, 1930–2010 .................................................... 2-4 TABLE 2-4. CUMULATIVE REGIONAL POPULATION GROWTH 2010–2017 .................................... 2-6 TABLE 4-1 COUNTY SERVICE AREAS .......................................................................................... 4-2 TABLE 4-2 CSA 1A GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATIONS .................................................................. 4-5 TABLE 4-3 CSA 2 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATIONS .................................................................... 4-5 TABLE 4-4 CSA 12 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATIONS ................................................................... 4-7 TABLE 4-5 CSA 13 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATIONS ................................................................ 4-10 TABLE 4-6 CSA 14 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATIONS ................................................................. 4-13 TABLE 4-7 CSA 18 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATIONS ................................................................. 4-15 TABLE 4-8 CSA 21 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATIONS ................................................................. 4-18 TABLE 4-9 CSA 22 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATIONS ................................................................. 4-20 TABLE 4-10 CSA 24 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATIONS ................................................................. 4-23 TABLE 4-11 CSA 38 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATIONS ................................................................. 4-26 TABLE 4-12 BEYERS LANE CSD GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATIONS .............................................. 4-31 TABLE 4-13 LAKE OF THE PINES RANCHOS CSD GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATIONS ..................... 4-34 TABLE 4-14 LAKE OF THE PINES RANCHOS CSD AREA OF INTEREST ......................................... 4-34 TABLE 4-15 MYSTIC MINES CSD GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATIONS ............................................. 4-38 TABLE 4-16 MYSTIC MINES CSD AREA OF INTEREST GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATIONS ............. 4-38 LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 2-1. WESTERN NEVADA COUNTY, INCLUDING ROAD MAINTENANCE COUNTY SERVICE AREAS AND COMMUNITY SERVICE DISTRICTS ................... 2-2 FIGURE 2-2. HISTORIC POPULATION GROWTH IN NEVADA COUNTY, 1860 -2010 ................ 2-4 FIGURE 2-3. POPULATION GROWTH WITHIN NEVADA COUNTY, 2010–2017 ....................... 2-5 FIGURE 4-1. COUNTY SERVICE AREAS 1A AND 2 ............................................................... 4-6 FIGURE 4-2. COUNTY SERVICE AREA 12............................................................................. 4-9 FIGURE 4-3. COUNTY SERVICE AREAS 13 & 14 ................................................................ 4-12 FIGURE 4-4. COUNTY SERVICE AREAS 18 & 21 ................................................................ 4-17 FIGURE 4-5. COUNTY SERVICE AREA 22........................................................................... 4-22 FIGURE 4-6. COUNTY SERVICE AREA 24........................................................................... 4-25 FIGURE 4-7. COUNTY SERVICE AREA 38........................................................................... 4-28 FIGURE 4-8. BEYERS LANE COMMUNITY SERVICE DISTRICT ............................................ 4-32 FIGURE 4-9. LAKE OF THE PINES RANCHOS COMMUNITY SERVICE DISTRICT ................... 4-36 FIGURE 4-10. MYSTIC MINES COMMUNITY SERVICE DISTRICT .......................................... 4-39 LIST OF APPENDICES APPENDIX A 2005 WESTERN NEVADA COUNTY ROAD AND STREET OPERATIONS AND PLANNING MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW APPENDIX B NEVADA COUNTY MASTER TAX FORMULA FOR DISTRICT ANNEXATIONS - ii - COMMISSION RESOLUTIONS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report provides sphere of influence plans for several special districts that provide road maintenance and associated services in western Nevada County: ten County Service Areas and three Community Service Districts A Municipal Service Review (MSR) covering road operations in western Nevada County was completed in 2005, which examined the manner in which services are provided by the agencies. The MSR is the source of most of the information and analysis presented in the sphere of influence plans. Information from the MSR has been updated through interviews with County staff and with district board members of the three Community Service Districts. County Service Areas are dependent special districts that enable a county to provide an enhanced level of services within discrete geographic areas. The County Service Areas (CSAs) reviewed here were established by Nevada County from 1969 through 2009 to provide road maintenance and associated services to various residential neighborhoods in the unincorporated areas. This report reviews the following CSAs: County Service Area Location CSA 1A Clover Valley & Alta Sierra Ranches CSA 2 Birch Meadow Ranches CSA 12 Adamson Road CSA 13 Wolf Drive CSA 14 Retrac Road CSA 18 I.W.B. North CSA 21 Sharon Oaks CSA 22 6B Ranch CSA 24 Oak Crest Estates CSA 38 Wildwood Ridge Estates Note that four other County Service Areas have been established to provide solid waste services. These are CSA 7 (serving eastern Nevada County, including the Town of Truckee), CSA 16 (serving the unincorporated portion of western Nevada County), CSA 32 (serving the area within the City of Grass Valley) and CSA 33 (serving the area within the City of Nevada City). These four CSAs will be reviewed in a separate report. County Service Areas are governed by the County Board of Supervisors, and thus are considered dependent districts, as defined in Section 56032.5 of the Government Code. Administration, maintenance and operations are performed by the County Public Works Department. CSAs are subject to the LAFCo process, and LAFCo is required to adopt and update spheres of influence for them. The last sphere of influence review for these CSAs was in 2009. Since that time, CSA 38 (Wildwood Ridge Estates) has been established to serve the Wildwood Ridge subdivision, located adjacent to the Lake Wildwood community. Executive Summary - Page 1 LAFCo has adopted a sphere of influence for each CSA. Based on the determinations within the MSRs and the updated information provided within this study, recommendations are to retain a coterminous sphere for each County Service Area. Executive Summary - Page 2 Community Service Districts are independent special districts that can provide a wide variety of services within their boundaries (although most CSDs provide only one or two services). In Nevada County, three Community Service Districts (CSDs) have been established for the purpose of road maintenance. Note that one other Community Service District, the Kingsbury Greens CSD is located in western Nevada County and provides wastewater service to a residential complex north of Alta Sierra. The sphere update for Kingsbury Greens CSD is addressed in a separate report. The three Community Service Districts reviewed in this report were established in the early 1980s to provide road maintenance and associated services to various residential neighborhoods in the unincorporated areas. This report reviews the following CSDs: Community Service District Location Beyers Lane CSD West of Highway 49 off McCourtney Road Lake of the Pines Ranchos CSD South of Lake of the Pines community off Combie Road Mystic Mines Road CSD West of Nevada City off Bitney Springs Road Each Community Service District maintains a set of neighborhood roadways, and provide no other services. The Lake of the Pines Ranchos CSD was authorized by LAFCo in 1986 to provide water service. The Commission continued this authority when it updated the District’s sphere in 2012 but also indicated it would reconsider whether to extend it at the next sphere update. Staff has recommended the water service authority be omitted from the District’s service portfolio. Based on the determinations within the MSR and updated information provided within this study, recommendations are to retain coterminous spheres for each of the CSDs. Executive Summary - Page 3 SUMMARY OF SPHERE OF INFLUENCE DETERMINATIONS FOR COUNTY SERVICE AREAS 1A, 2, 12, 13, 14, 18, 21, 22, 24, AND 38 The following determinations are recommended based on LAFCo’s 2005 Western County Road and Street Operations & Planning Municipal Service Review and updated information collected to prepare this Sphere of Influence study. See Section 4.1 for the discussion and analysis for these determinations. SPHERE OF INFLUENCE DETERMINATIONS 4.1: PRESENT AND PLANNED LAND USE • Most of the lands served within each of the subject CSAs are designated for rural residential use. SPHERE OF INFLUENCE DETERMINATIONS 4.2: PRESENT AND PROBABLE NEED FOR PUBLIC SERVICES AND FACILITIES • County Service Area 1A consists of 3 sub-zones and provides road maintenance service to the Clover Valley and Alta Sierra Ranches area east of the Alta Sierra community. The CSA’s boundaries include nearly 285 rural parcels, 228 of which are developed for rural residential use. • County Service Area 2 provides road maintenance service to the Birch Meadows Ranches neighborhood, located area east of the Alta Sierra community. The CSA’s boundaries include 18 parcels, 14 of which are developed for rural residential use. • County Service Area 12 provides road maintenance service to two sub-zones located northeast of Lake of the Pines off Magnolia Road. The CSA’s boundaries include 89 parcels, 78 of which are developed for rural residential use. • County Service Area 13 consists of 3 sub-zones and provides road maintenance service to an area located north of Lime Kiln Road. The CSA’s boundaries include 58 parcels, all but one of which are developed for rural residential use. • County Service Area 14 consists of 5 sub-zones and provides road maintenance service to the Retrac Road area, north of Lime Kiln Road. The CSA’s boundaries include 204 parcels, 174 of which are developed for rural residential use. • County Service Area 18 provides road maintenance service to Matthew Road, an area west of Sharon Oaks. The CSA boundaries include only eight parcels, and only two are developed for rural residential use. • County Service Area 21 provides road maintenance service to the Sharon Oaks area, located in south county off Perimeter Road. The CSA’s boundaries include 195 parcels, 81 of which are developed for rural residential use. • County Service Area 22 consists of 2 sub-zones and provides road maintenance service to an area off McCourtney Road near its intersection with Old Auburn Road. The CSA’s boundaries include 37 parcels, all but three of which are developed for rural residential use. • County Service Area 24 consists of two sub-zones and provides road maintenance service to the Mountain Lake Estates neighborhood west of Nevada City. The CSA’s boundaries include 61 parcels, of which 50 are developed for rural residential use. Executive Summary - Page 4 • County Service Area 38 consists of 2 sub-zones, however, only sub-zone 2 provides road maintenance service to the Wildwood Ridge Estates community, north of Lake Wildwood. Zone 2 of the CSA’s boundaries include113 parcels, all but 11 of which are developed for residential use. SPHERE OF INFLUENCE DETERMINATIONS 4.3: PRESENT CAPACITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND ADEQUACY OF PUBLIC SERVICES • The County maintains approximately 560 miles of roadway in its maintained roadway system, with an additional 27 miles of roadway maintained through the County Service Area system. . • County Service Area 1A maintains 11.4 miles of chip-sealed roadway. This CSA serves 285 parcels in three subzones. Annual maintenance costs are funded by parcel charges, as well as a portion of the property tax collected. • County Service Area 2 maintains 1.25 miles of graveled roadway. This CSA includes 18 parcels. Annual maintenance costs are funded by parcel charges, as well as a portion of the property tax collected. • County Service Area 12 maintains 2.94 miles of chip-sealed or graveled roadway. The CSA includes 89 parcels, and has two subzones. Annual maintenance costs are funded by parcel charges. • County Service Area 13 maintains 1.6 miles of chip-sealed roadway. The CSA includes 58 parcels, and has three subzones. Annual maintenance costs are funded by parcel charges. • County Service Area 14 maintains 3.91 miles of chip-sealed roadway. The CSA includes 204 parcels, and has four subzones. Annual maintenance costs are funded by parcel charges. • County Service Area 18 maintains 1.2 miles of chip-sealed roadway. The CSA includes 8 parcels. Annual maintenance costs are funded by parcel charges. • County Service Area 21 maintains approximately two miles of graveled roadway. The CSA includes 195 parcels. Annual maintenance costs are funded by parcel charges. • County Service Area 22 maintains nearly two miles of paved roadway (a small portion is gravel only). The CSA includes 43 parcels, and has two subzones. Annual maintenance costs are funded by parcel charges. • County Service Area 24 maintains 1 mile of paved roadway. The CSA includes 61 parcels, and has two subzones. Annual maintenance costs are funded by parcel charges. • County Service Area 38 maintains 0.68 miles of paved roadway. The CSA includes 113 parcels in and is funded by a separate parcel charge charged to 2 undeveloped parcels. SPHERE OF INFLUENCE DETERMINATIONS 4.4: SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC COMMUNITIES OF INTEREST • County Service Area 1A is located east of the Alta Sierra community. The area receives structural fire protection and emergency response services from the Nevada County Consolidated Fire District. Recreational services are provided by the Bear River Recreation District. Executive Summary - Page 5 • County Service Area 2 is located east of the Alta Sierra community. Nevada County Consolidated Fire District. Recreational services are provided by the Bear River Recreation District. • CSA 12 is located northeast of the Lake of the Pines community. The area receives structural fire protection and emergency response services from the Higgins Area Fire Protection District. Recreational services are provided by the Bear River Recreation District. • CSA 13 is located north of Lime Kiln Road west of State Route 49. The area receives structural fire protection and emergency services from Nevada County Consolidated Fire District, and recreational services from the Bear River Recreation District. • CSA 14 is located north of Lime Kiln Road on the west side of State Route 49. The area receives structural fire protection and emergency services from the Nevada County Consolidated Fire District. Recreational services are provided by the Bear River Recreation District. • CSA 18 is located north of Lime Kiln Road on the west side of State Route 49. The area receives structural fire protection and emergency response services from the Penn Valley Fire District. This area is split between two recreation districts, with the northern portion being located within the Western Gate Recreation District, and the southern portion being located within the Bear River Recreation District. • CSA 21 is located in the southwestern portion of the county. The area receives structural fire protection and emergency response services from the Higgins Area Fire District. Recreational services are provided by the Bear River Recreation District. • CSA 22 is located south of Grass Valley between Old Auburn and McCourtney Roads. The area receives structural fire protection and emergency response from Nevada County Consolidated Fire, and is not within the boundaries of any recreation district. • CSA 24 is located west of Nevada City, and serves the Mountain Lake Estates neighborhood. The neighborhood receives public sewer service from the County Sanitation District (via a package treatment plant), structural fire protection and emergency response services from the Nevada County Consolidated Fire District. It is not within the boundaries of any recreation district. • CSA 38 serves the Wildwood Ridge Estates planned development, immediately north of the Lake Wildwood community in western county. The area receives structural fire protection and emergency response services from the Penn Valley Fire District. Recreation services are provided by the Western Gateway Recreation District. SPHERE OF INFLUENCE DETERMINATIONS 4.5: DISADVANTAGED UNINCORPORATED COMMUNITIES • The County recognizes five areas as Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities: North San Juan, Penn Valley, Rough and Ready, Washington and Soda Springs. None of the road maintenance County Service Areas that are subject of this report are located within these recognized Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities. Executive Summary - Page 6 SUMMARY OF SPHERE OF INFLUENCE DETERMINATIONS FOR THE BEYERS LANE COMMUNITY SERVICE DISTRICT The following determinations are recommended based on the previously prepared MSRs and updated information collected as part of this Sphere of Influence study. See Section 4.2 for the discussion and analysis for these determinations. SPHERE OF INFLUENCE DETERMINATIONS 4.1: PRESENT AND PLANNED LAND USE • The District serves a rural residential neighborhood comprised of 66 parcels on over 1355 acres. The designated land uses within the district include Rural 5,10, 20 and 30. . SPHERE OF INFLUENCE DETERMINATIONS 4.2: PRESENT AND PROBABLE NEED FOR PUBLIC SERVICES AND FACILITIES • Beyers Lane CSD’s boundaries include 66 rural parcels, all but 12 of which are developed for rural residential use. SPHERE OF INFLUENCE DETERMINATIONS 4.3: PRESENT CAPACITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND ADEQUACY OF PUBLIC SERVICES • The District maintains approximately 5 miles of unpaved roadway, which provides access for 66 parcels. Annual maintenance costs are funded by an annual parcel assessment of $200. SPHERE OF INFLUENCE DETERMINATIONS 4.4: SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC COMMUNITIES OF INTEREST • The District is located in the south western portion of the county. The western portion of the district receives structural fire protection and emergency response services from Penn Valley Fire Protection District, while the eastern half is served by the Nevada County Consolidated Fire District. The area is within the Western Gateway Recreation and Park District. SPHERE OF INFLUENCE DETERMINATIONS 4.5: DISADVANTAGED UNINCORPORATED COMMUNITIES • The Beyers Lane Community Service District is not located within or adjacent to any recognized Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities. Executive Summary - Page 7 SUMMARY OF SPHERE OF INFLUENCE DETERMINATIONS FOR THE LAKE OF THE PINES RANCHOS COMMUNITY SERVICE DISTRICT The following determinations are recommended based on the previously prepared MSRs and updated information collected as part of this Sphere of Influence study. See Section 4.3 for the discussion and analysis for these determinations. SPHERE OF INFLUENCE DETERMINATIONS 4.1: PRESENT AND PLANNED LAND USE • The District serves a rural residential neighborhood comprised of 176 parcels on over 945 acres. All lands within the district are designated Rural 5 by the General Plan, although there are five parcels designated for Public use (these are owned by the County Sanitation District). SPHERE OF INFLUENCE DETERMINATIONS 4.2: PRESENT AND PROBABLE NEED FOR PUBLIC SERVICES AND FACILITIES • Lake of the Pines Ranchos CSD’s boundaries include 165 developed residential parcels, seven unimproved residential parcels, and five parcels designated for Public use. SPHERE OF INFLUENCE DETERMINATIONS 4.3: PRESENT CAPACITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND ADEQUACY OF PUBLIC SERVICES • The District maintains approximately 5 miles of mostly unpaved roadway, which provides access for the LOP Ranchos community. Annual maintenance costs are funded by an annual parcel assessment of $200. SPHERE OF INFLUENCE DETERMINATIONS 4.4: SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC COMMUNITIES OF INTEREST • The District is located in south county, adjacent to the Lake of the Pines planned development. Lands within the district receive structural fire protection and emergency response services from Higgins Area Fire Protection District, and recreation services are provided by the Bear River Recreation and Park District. SPHERE OF INFLUENCE DETERMINATIONS 4.5: DISADVANTAGED UNINCORPORATED COMMUNITIES • The Lake of the Pines Community Service District is not located within or adjacent to any recognized Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities. Executive Summary - Page 8 SUMMARY OF SPHERE OF INFLUENCE DETERMINATIONS FOR THE MYSTIC MINES COMMUNITY SERVICE DISTRICT The following determinations are recommended based on the previously prepared MSRs and updated information collected as part of this Sphere of Influence study. See Section 4.4 for the discussion and analysis for these determinations. SPHERE OF INFLUENCE DETERMINATIONS 4.1: PRESENT AND PLANNED LAND USE • The District serves a rural residential neighborhood comprised of 102 parcels on approximately 340 acres. Most parcels are designated Rural 5 by the General Plan, although there are several Rural 10 properties within the District’s boundaries. SPHERE OF INFLUENCE DETERMINATIONS 4.2: PRESENT AND PROBABLE NEED FOR PUBLIC SERVICES AND FACILITIES • Mystic Mines CSD’s boundaries include 88 developed and eleven unimproved residential properties. SPHERE OF INFLUENCE DETERMINATIONS 4.3: PRESENT CAPACITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND ADEQUACY OF PUBLIC SERVICES • The District maintains approximately 2 miles of paved roadway, which provides access for the small neighborhood. Annual maintenance costs are funded by an annual special tax of $200. SPHERE OF INFLUENCE DETERMINATIONS 4.4: SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC COMMUNITIES OF INTEREST • The District is located west of the City of Grass Valley. Lands within the district receive structural fire protection and emergency response services from Nevada County Consolidated Fire District, and recreation services are provided by the Western Gateway Recreation and Park District. SPHERE OF INFLUENCE DETERMINATIONS 4.5: DISADVANTAGED UNINCORPORATED COMMUNITIES • The Mystic Mines Community Service District is not located within or adjacent to any recognized Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities. Executive Summary - Page 9 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION Local Agency Formation Commissions (LAFCos) are independent public agencies created by the California Legislature in 1963; there is one in each county. They exercise quasi-legislative authority under Government Code Sections 56000-57550 (the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 or “CKH”). This law charges LAFCos with responsi- bility for: • Encouraging orderly growth and development, • Encouraging the logical formation and determination of local agency boundaries, • Ensuring that affected populations receive adequate, efficient and effective governmental services, and • Preventing premature conversion of open space and prime agricultural land. Their principal activities include regulating boundary changes of local agencies (cities and special districts) through annexations and detachments; approving or disapproving city incorporations; and forming, consolidating, or dissolving special districts. 1.2 NEVADA LAFCO POLICIES AND CRITERIA FOR SPHERE OF INFLUENCE PLANS LAFCO LAW: Under CKH (Section 56425), LAFCos are required to “develop and determine the sphere of influence of each local governmental agency within the county and enact policies designed to promote logical and orderly development of areas within the sphere.” A long-range planning tool, a sphere of influence (SOI) is defined by Government Code Section 56425 as “…a plan for the probable physical boundary and service area of a local agency or municipality…” According to CKH, LAFCos are required to review and update SOIs as necessary, but at least once every five years. When determining the sphere of influence, the Commission shall consider and prepare a written statement of its determinations with respect to each of the following: (1) The present and planned land uses in the area, including agricultural and open-space lands. (2) The present and probable need for public facilities and services in the area. (3) The present capacity of public facilities and adequacy of public services that the agency provides or is authorized to provide. Introduction - Page 1 (4) The existence of any social or economic communities of interest in the area if the commission determines that they are relevant to the agency. (5) For an update of a sphere of influence of a city or special district that provides public facilities or services related to sewers, municipal and industrial water, or structural fire protection, that occurs pursuant to subdivision (g) on or after July 1, 2012, the present and probable need for those public facilities and services of any disadvantaged unincorporated communities within the existing sphere of influence. NEVADA LAFCO POLICIES: Section III of Nevada LAFCo’s Policies (amended July 19, 2018) sets forth the general policies and specific requirements applicable to the Sphere of Influence Plans for all government agencies within LAFCo’s jurisdiction. 1. A Sphere of Influence Plan must include a sphere map and a phased plan for annexation of the depicted territory defining the probable boundary of the agency’s service area 20 years hence (the long-term horizon) and identifying a near-term development horizon defining the agency’s logical boundary for lands likely to be annexed prior to the next sphere review or update (typically within five years). 2. A Sphere Plan must provide documentation to support the Commission’s determinations regarding the factors stated in Government Code §56425(e): a) The present and planned land use in the area, including agricultural and open- space lands. Such documentation might include additional maps and explanatory text detailing the present land uses in the area (e.g., improved and unimproved parcels; actual commercial, industrial, and residential uses; agricultural and open space lands) and the proposed future land uses in the area. b) The present and probable need for public facilities and services in the area. The discussion should include consideration of the need for all types of major facilities and services, not just those provided by the agency. Data on existing population and projected population at build-out of the near- and long-term spheres of the agency should be included. c) The present capacity of public facilities and adequacy of public services provided by the agency. d) Any social or economic communities of interest in the area that the Commission determines are relevant to the agency. e) For an update of a sphere of influence of a city or special district that provides public facilities or services related to sewers, municipal and industrial water, or structural fire protection, that occurs pursuant to subdivision (g) on or after July Introduction - Page 2 1, 2012, the present and probable need for those public facilities and services of any disadvantaged unincorporated communities within the existing sphere of influence. 3. Special Designations: • Areas of Interest: In some cases, the Commission may designate an area beyond the sphere of influence as an “Area of Interest.” This designation is appropriate when land use decisions or other actions of one agency have potential to impact directly or indirectly on the subject agency. For example, approval of a housing project developed to urban densities outside the city limits of a city and its sphere of influence or a zone of County Sanitation District 1 may subsequently force the city or Sanitation District to extend sewer services to the area in response to sanitary system failures. • Zero and Minus Spheres: If the Commission has determined that the public service functions of an agency are either non-existent, no longer needed, or should be reallocated to some other agency of government, it may adopt a “zero” sphere of influence (encompassing no territory) for the agency, thus indicating that the agency should ultimately be dissolved. The Commission may initiate dissolution of an agency when it deems such action appropriate. The Commission may adopt a “minus” sphere (excluding territory currently within that agency’s boundaries) when it has determined that territory within the agency’s boundaries is not in need of the agency’s services or when the agency has no feasible plans to provide efficient and adequate service to the territory in question. Generally speaking, the necessary documentation is provided in one or more Municipal Service Reviews (MSRs) incorporated into the Sphere Plan. 1.3 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEWS Sphere of Influence Plans must be based upon thorough analyses of how essential services are provided in defined geographical areas. This need is satisfied by Municipal Service Reviews (MSRs), which enable the Commission to make determinations about 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 sharing of facilities; government structure options, including advantages and disadvantages of consolidation or reorganization of service providers; evaluation of management efficiencies; and local accountability and governance. The legislative authority for conducting MSRs is provided in Section 56430 of the CKH Act, which states “… in order to prepare and to update Spheres of Influence..., LAFCos are required to conduct an MSR of the municipal services provided in the County or other appropriate designated area….” These studies must be conducted prior to, or in conjunction with, the update Introduction - Page 3 of Sphere Plans. Municipal Service Reviews include written determinations that address the following legislative factors: 1. Growth and population projections for the affected area. 2. The location and characteristics of any disadvantaged unincorporated communities within or contiguous to the sphere of influence. 3. Present and planned capacity of public facilities and adequacy of public services, including infrastructure needs or deficiencies. 4. Financial ability of agencies to provide services. 5. Status of, and opportunities for, shared facilities. 6. Accountability for community service needs, including governmental structure and operational efficiencies. 7. Any other matter related to effective or efficient service delivery, as required by commission policy. These determinations, which range from infrastructure needs or deficiencies to government structure options, must be adopted by the Commission before, or concurrently with, the Sphere Plan of the subject agency. WESTERN NEVADA COUNTY ROAD AND STREET OPERATIONS MSR Nevada LAFCo prepared a Municipal Service Review of Western Nevada County Road and Street Operations and Planning in 2005, which was approved by the Commission by adoption of Resolution 05-02. The MSR examined road operation and planning services provided by the County and the Beyers Lane, Lake of the Pines Ranchos and Mystic Mines Community Service Districts, as well as the cities of Nevada City and Grass Valley. This MSR provides baseline information for the current sphere study. Additional information has been collected and various planning documents have been reviewed, including the County General Plan, land-use zoning maps, and district plans, in order to obtain the most current and accurate information available. Interviews with County staff and District officials were also conducted to gain further insight into issues. 1.4 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE UPDATE PROCESS This document addresses the sphere of influence updates for ten County Service Areas and three Community Service Districts. There are numerous factors to consider in reviewing a sphere plan, including current and anticipated land uses, facilities, and services, as well as any relevant communities of interest. Updates generally involve a comprehensive review of the entire sphere Introduction - Page 4 plan, including boundary and sphere maps and the relevant MSRs. In reviewing an agency’s sphere, the Commission is required to consider and prepare written statements addressing the five factors enumerated under California Government Code Section 56425(e) (See Section 1.2, above). Each agency has worked with LAFCo to ensure this report includes accurate and timely information regarding how and where its services are deployed. 1.5 DISADVANTAGED UNINCORPORATED COMMUNITIES LAFCos are required to identify Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities and to consider the provision of water, wastewater and structural fire protection services to these areas. The term “Disadvantaged Unincorporated Community” was broadly defined by the legislation as inhabited territory, as defined by § 56046, or as determined by commission policy, that constitutes all or a portion of a “disadvantaged community” as defined by § 79505.5 of the Water Code. The cited section of the Water Code defines “disadvantaged community” as one in which the median annual household income (MHI) is less than 80% of the statewide average. In 2016, the statewide annual MHI was $67,739; 80% of that is $54,190. As indicated by the emphasized text, LAFCos were provided a great deal of discretion in developing standards for identifying DUCs. Nevada LAFCo’s policies include defining characteristics of Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities, recognizing any that have been so identified by the County or a city, as set forth in Section II (P) (3) of the Commission’s Policies: Definition of Disadvantaged Unincorporated Community: A developed area that has been identified as a DUC by LAFCo, the County or applicable city, or one that meets all the following standards: a) Substantially developed with primarily residential uses b) Contains at least 25 parcels in close proximity to each other that do not exceed 1.5 acres in size c) Does not have reliable public water, sewer or structural fire protection service available d) Contains at least 12 registered voters e) Has a median household income level of 80% or less than the statewide median household income In addition, Nevada LAFCo has established a process for residents or property owners to request that LAFCo designate their community as a DUC. Nevada County’s General Plan has identified five Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities: Penn Valley, North San Juan, Rough and Ready, Washington and Soda Springs. None of the ten County Service Areas and none of the three Community Service Districts that are the subject Introduction - Page 5 of this report have territory within or adjacent to any of these five recognized Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities. 1.6 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT Actions taken by LAFCo require review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). In many cases, LAFCo is the responsible agency, but when LAFCo initiates the project, it is the lead agency. Because the adoption or update of a Sphere of Influence is solely the responsibility of LAFCo, LAFCo generally acts as the lead agency. Depending upon the specific circumstances (including type of service provided by the agency and whether extension of those services will have potential for environmental impacts), Sphere of Influence actions may qualify for exemption from CEQA, or may require preparation of a Negative Declaration (ND), a mitigated negative declaration (MND), or a full environmental impact report (EIR). A Sphere of Influence Plan defines the present and anticipated physical boundary and service area of a local agency and documents the present and probable need for the agency’s services within that area. LAFCo’s determination of a sphere of influence establishes which geographic areas are eligible to be annexed and then served by the subject agency, and territory cannot be annexed unless it has been included in the agency’s sphere. Thus, a sphere of influence will determine which areas may receive the agency’s services in the future, and therefore may have a potential “growth inducement” effect in these areas by helping to facilitate their future development. Because a sphere of influence does not result in the approval of any specific development and does not commit either the agency or LAFCo to actually approve of any such actual development, CEQA does not require the analysis of the specific environmental impacts of such future development; however, CEQA does require that the “growth inducing” impacts be disclosed and mitigated if possible. LAFCo’s adoption of a sphere of influence which contain no lands beyond current agency boundaries for each road maintenance County Service Area and Community Service District will not result in adverse impacts to the environment. In this case, the Commission may find the project to be exempt from the provisions of CEQA under Section 15062 (b) (3) of the State CEQA Guidelines. Introduction - Page 6 2.0 BACKGROUND 2.1 DESCRIPTION AND EXISTING SETTING The County of Nevada maintains over 560 miles of public roadway, and provides an enhanced level of maintenance to ten County Service Areas, which collectively maintain approximately 27 miles of roadway (Figure 2-1). Each CSA is funded by parcel taxes applied to the CSA’s parcels, although two CSAs (1A and 2) also receive a small portion of the property tax collected within each area. The Nevada County Public Works Department provides all administrative and operational staffing. County Service Areas are dependent districts that operate under the supervision of the County Board of Supervisors. They are established and governed under the County Service Area Law (Government Code Section 25210 et seq). CSAs provide an opportunity for the County to finance and provide needed public facilities and services to specific areas. Nevada County has established 14 County Service Areas. Four of them (CSAs 7, 16, 32 and 33) provide only solid waste services and the remaining ten provide road maintenance. None of the CSAs overlap in terms of boundaries. County Service Area 1A, located east of Alta Sierra, serves the largest number of parcels (285), while CSA 18, located along the boundary between Nevada and Yuba Counties includes only 8 parcels. Community Service Districts are independent districts that can provide a wide variety of services (if approved by LAFCo). There are four CSDs in Nevada County and three of them were established to provide road maintenance services (Beyers Lane, Mystic Mines and Lake of the Pines Ranchos). The Kingsbury Greens Community Service District provides wastewater service. Chapter 2 - Page 1 County Service Areas and Community Service Districts Western Nevada County CSA 24-01 NEVADA CSA 38-02 CITY CSD Mystic CSA 24-02 CSA 38-01 Mine GRASS VALLEY ÃÃ 20 ÃÃ 174 CSA 22-01 CSA 22-02 CSA 02-01 CSD CSA CSA 01A-02 Byers Lane 14-05 CSA 14-03 CSA 01A-01 CSA 14-02 CSA 14-04 CSA 14-01 CSA 13-01 CSA 13-03 CSA 13-02 ÃÃ 49 CSA 21 CSA 18-01 CSA 12-01 CSA 12-02 CSD LOP Ranchos Figure 2-1. Chapter 2 - Page 2 2.2 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE LAFCo has adopted a coterminous sphere for each of the ten subject County Service Areas, signifying that no annexations of new territory are anticipated. TABLE 2-1. ACREAGE AND PARCEL COUNT FOR EACH COUNTY SERVICE AREA DEVELOPED UNDEVELOPED CSA LOCATION ACREAGE PARCELS PARCELS 1A Clover Valley & Alta Sierra Ranchos 1886 228 57 2 Birch Meadows 101 14 4 12 Adamson Road 842 78 11 13 Wolf Drive 211 57 1 14 Retrac Way 1470 174 30 18 IWB North (west of Sharon Oaks) 162 2 6 21 Sharon Oaks 8109 81 114 22 6B Ranch 247 34 3 24 Oak Crest Estates & Mountain Lake Estates 336 50 11 38 Wildwood Ridge Estates 267 102 11 LAFCo has adopted a coterminous sphere for each Community Service District and no annexations of new territory are anticipated for any of them. TABLE 2-2. ACREAGE AND PARCEL COUNT FOR EACH COMMUNITY SERVICE DISTRICT DEVELOPED UNDEVELOPED DISTRICT ACREAGE PARCELS PARCELS Beyers Lane CSD 1356 54 12 Lake of the Pines Ranchos CSD 945 165 11 Mystic Mines CSD 340 89 13 Chapter 2 - Page 3 Parcels within the County Service Areas are subject to special taxes or parcel charges which provide funding for road maintenance services. The County adopts a resolution each year that authorizes each CSA’s charges. Note that CSAs 1A and 2 are also partially funded by a portion of the property tax collected within their boundaries. Each of the Community Service Districts has adopted a special tax or assessment which supports services. Note that the Lake of the Pines Community Service District also is partially funded by a portion of the property tax collected within its jurisdiction. 2.3 GROWTH AND POPULATION County population fluctuated in the decades before 1970, with population rising to 20,000 in 1880 and then dropping to half that amount in 1920, then rising again to approximately 21,000 in 1960. In the decades since 1970, there was a steady increase in population, peaking in 2010 at 98,764 (Figure 2-2). FIGURE 2-2. HISTORIC POPULATION GROWTH IN NEVADA COUNTY, 1860 -2010 Source: State of California, Department of Finance. Historical U.S. Census Populations of Counties and Incorporated Cities in California, 1850–2010. TABLE 2-3. COUNTY GROWTH RATES BY DECADE, 1930–2010 Change in Average Annual Cumulative Decade Population Growth Rate Growth Rate Population 1930-1940 8,687 82% 8.2% 19,283 1940-1950 605 3% 0.3% 19,888 1950-1960 1,023 5% 0.5% 20,911 1960-1970 5,435 26% 2.6% 26,346 1970-1980 25,299 96% 9.6% 51,645 1980-1990 26,865 52% 5.2% 78,510 1990-2000 13,523 17% 1.7% 92,033 2000-2010 6,731 7% 0.7% 98,764 Source: State of California, Department of Finance. Historical Census Populations of Counties & Cities 1850-2010 Chapter 2 - Page 4 The highest annual growth rates for the County occurred in the decades between 1930-1940 (8.2% annually) and 1970-1980 (9.6% annually). Annual growth rates through 2010 have declined somewhat but remain positive (Table 2-3). From 2010 to 2013, the County’s population declined somewhat in the wake of the national economic recession that began in 2008. However, in the years since 2013, a positive growth rate has ensued and the County’s estimated population in 2017 is slightly increased from 2010 (Figure 2-3). FIGURE 2-3. POPULATION GROWTH WITHIN NEVADA COUNTY, 2010–2017 Source: State of California, Department of Finance. Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties 2011-2017 with 2010 Benchmark. 2.3.1 METHODOLOGY Growth rates used in this study are consistent with the estimates used in the recent Nevada LAFCo Municipal Service Review for Western County Wastewater Services.: Estimates and projections are also consistent with the trends noted in the Nevada County Housing Element (2014-2019). Population projections were calculated from estimates established by the State Department of Finance. 2.3.2 GROWTH RATES AND PROJECTIONS When evaluating the County’s growth and population it is important to consider the growth rates of the three cities: Nevada City, Grass Valley and the Town of Truckee. As documented in Figure 2.4, from 2010 to 2013, the countywide population declined by 0.68 percent. Positive overall growth figures for Nevada City and Grass Valley contrast to a decrease in population for the Town of Truckee and for the unincorporated portion of the County. (Table 2-). Chapter 2 - Page 5 TABLE 2-4. CUMULATIVE REGIONAL POPULATION GROWTH 2010–2017 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Grass Valley 12,860 12,807 12,820 12,899 12,911 12,932 12,867 12,859 Nevada City 3,068 3,101 3,127 3,170 3,122 3,242 3,240 3,208 Truckee 16,180 16,056 15,828 15,588 15,571 15,624 15,779 15,904 Unincorporated 66,656 66,445 66,294 66,191 66,323 66,517 66,723 66,857 Incorporated 32,108 31,964 31,775 31,657 31,604 31,798 31,886 31,971 County Total 98,764 98,409 98,069 97,848 97,927 98,315 98,609 98,828 Source: State of California, Department of Finance. Population Estimates for Cities, Counties and State 2010–2017 with 2010 Benchmark. Although regional growth rates have been flat or in decline from 2010, since 2014 the annual growth rates have somewhat stabilized and begin to rise as local, regional and state economies continue to rebound from the national recession. For the purpose of calculating population projections, it is assumed that the County’s growth rate will average a bit under one percent annually. Chapter 2 - Page 6 3.0 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW LAFCo law (specifically, Section 56430 of the Government Code) establishes the Municipal Service Review as a source of information for spheres of influence. A Municipal Service Review (MSR) for road and street operation services provided in western Nevada County was completed under separate cover in 2005. 3.1 ROAD AND STREET OPERATIONS IN WESTERN NEVADA COUNTY (2005) The MSR reviewed road and street operations and maintenance services provided by the cities of Grass Valley and Nevada City, three Community Service Districts (Beyers Lane, Lake of the Pines Ranchos and Mystic Mines) and the nine County Service Areas then in existence (note that CSA 38 serving Wildwood Ridge was established in 2009). The MSR also discussed the overall structure of road maintenance and planning in the County. SUMMARY OF MSR DETERMINATIONS – COUNTY SERVICE AREAS Following is a summary of the determinations relevant to the County Service Areas that were published in the 2005 Municipal Service Review on Western Nevada County Road and Street Operations. Please note that the determinations have been paraphrased. Updated information relative to financial position has been incorporated into these determinations and is discussed in more details in Section 4 of this report. INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS OR DEFICIENCIES CSA #1A provides road maintenance for 11.4 miles of roadway. CSA #2 provides road maintenance for 1.25 miles of roadway. CSA #12 provides road maintenance for 2.9 miles of roadway. CSA #13 provides road maintenance for 1.6 miles of roadway. CSA #14 provides road maintenance for 3.9 miles of roadway. CSA #18 provides road maintenance for 1.2 miles of roadway. CSA #21 provides road maintenance to 2.0 miles of roadway. CSA #22 provides road maintenance for 2.1 miles of roadway. CSA #24 provides road maintenance for 1.0 miles of roadway. CSA #38 provides road maintenance for 0.7 miles of roadway. GROWTH AND POPULATION CSA #1A has a current population of 714 people and no growth is expected. CSA #2 has a current population of 44 people and no growth is expected. CSA #12 has a current population of 212 people and no growth is expected. CSA #13 has a current population of 67 people and no growth is expected. Chapter 3 - Page 1 CSA #14 population was not provided, and no growth is expected. CSA #18 has a current population of 44 people on 8 parcels and no growth is expected. CSA #21 has a current population of 484 people and no growth is expected. The CSA serves 153 unimproved parcels and 42 improved parcels. CSA #22 has a current population of 94 people and no growth is expected. CSA #24 has a current population of 74 people and no growth is expected. The CSA serves 20 undeveloped parcels and 41 developed parcels. CSA #38 serves 102 developed and 11 undeveloped parcels. FINANCING CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES Relative to all CSAs, any need for new or increased assessments will require a two-thirds majority vote of the registered voters within the district. CSA #1A increased its fund equity in FY 2002-2003 by $31,513. In FYE 2018, the fund balance for CSA 1A was projected at $330,148. CSA #2 incurred a $6,200 operating loss in FY 2003 which impacts the fund equity. In FYE 2018, the fund balance for CSA 2 was projected at $5,220. CSA #12 increased fund equity by $4,767 in FY 2002-2003. In FYE 2018, the fund balance for CSA 12 (two zones) was projected at $67, 192. CSA #13 incurred an operating loss of $6,683 in FY 2003 which impacts fund equity. In FYE 2018, the fund balance for all three zones of CSA 13 was projected at $20,826. CSA #14 provided no information. In FYE 2018, the fund balance for two of the five zones of CSA 14 was projected at $116,600. CSA #18 incurred an operating loss of $1,053 in FY 2003 which impacts fund equity. In FYE 2018, the fund balance for CSA 18 was projected at $3,468. CSA #21 incurred an operating loss of $30,122 in FY 2003 which impacts the fund equity. In FYE 2018, the fund balance for CSA 21 was projected at $23,686. CSA #22 incurred an operating loss of $4,452 in FY 2003 which impacts fund equity. In FYE 2018, the fund balance for one of the two zones of CSA 22 was projected at $45,898 not including the improvement fund, redemption fund, special reserve fund and expense fund balance of $84,569. CSA #24 incurred an operating loss of $4,376 in FY 2003 which impacts fund equity. In FYE 2018, the fund balance for CSA 24 (two zones) was projected at $118,340. CSA #38 is projected to have a fund balance of $64,821 at the end of FYE 2018. OPPORTUNITIES FOR COST AVOIDANCE Each of the CSAs is minimizing future maintenance costs through providing as much current maintenance as funding will allow. OPPORTUNITIES FOR RATE RESTRUCTURING 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. In FYE 2019, CSA 1A special tax rates for Zone 1 were $194 (unimproved) and $249 (improved); for Zone 2, $191 (unimproved) and $260 (improved) and for Zone 3, $27 (unimproved) and $35 (improved). CSA #2 does not charge a per parcel assessment. CSA #12 charges a per parcel assessment based on benefit zones; there is a rate differential between developed and undeveloped parcels. IN FYE 2019, CSA 12 parcel charges for Zone 1 Chapter 3 - Page 2 were $192 (unimproved) and $240 (improved. For Zone 2, parcel charges were $184 (unimproved) and $221 (improved). CSA #13 charges an annual assessment per parcel based on benefit zones; there is a rate differential between developed and undeveloped parcels. In FYE 2019, CSA 13 parcel charges for Zone 1 were $33 (unimproved) and $40 (improved); for Zone 2, special tax charges were $158 (unimproved) and $192 (improved); for Zone 3, special tax charges were $164 (unimproved) and $197 (improved) CSA #14 charges an annual per parcel assessment based on benefit zones; there is a rate differential between developed and undeveloped parcels. In FYE 2019, parcel charges were $104 (unimproved) and $132 (improved). CSA #18 charges a current assessment of $180 per unimproved parcel and $259 per improved parcel. In FYE 2019, parcel charges were $180 (improved) and $259 (improved). CSA #21 charges a current assessment of $49 per unimproved parcel and $78 per improved parcel. In FYE 2019, parcel charges were unchanged from the listed amounts. CSA #22 charges a current assessment based on benefit zones; there is a rate differential between developed and undeveloped parcels. In FYE 2019, parcel charges were $139 (unimproved) and $171 (improved). CSA #24 charges a current assessment based on benefit zones; there is a rate differential between developed and undeveloped parcels. In FYE 2019, parcel charges for Zone 1 were $454 (unimproved) and $497 (improved). For Zone 2, parcel charges were $364 (unimproved) and $500 (improved). CSA 38 charges in FYE 2019 were only applicable to two unimproved properties and were levied in the amounts of $1,037 and $6,962. OPPORTUNITIES FOR SHARED FACILITIES Each CSA utilizes the County Department of Public Works to provide planning and maintenance services. GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE OPTIONS Representatives from each CSA should participate in discussions with other CSAs, CSDs and PRDs regarding alternatives to provide more stable funding, including a countywide road maintenance assessment district. MANAGEMENT EFFICIENCIES Each CSA achieves management efficiencies through the use of County staff for all maintenance operations. ACCOUNTABILITY Each CSA is a dependent special district governed by the County’s Board of Supervisors and the County has procedures in place to ensure local accountability. Chapter 3 - Page 3 SUMMARY OF MSR DETERMINATIONS – BEYERS LANE COMMUNITY SERVICE DISTRICT Following is a summary of the MSR determinations relevant to the Beyers Lane Community Service District. Updated information on these determinations is included in Section 4 of this report. INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS OR DEFICIENCIES Beyers Lane CSD provides road maintenance to six miles of dirt roads. In FYE 2019, this determination is clarified to state that the CSD maintains approximately 5 miles of graded gravel roadway. GROWTH AND POPULATION Beyers Lane CSD has a current population of 156 people and no growth is expected. Current land uses within the CSD limit population to a maximum of 425 people with residential and open space uses. In FYE 2019, the CSD included 54 developed residential properties and 12 undeveloped properties. No significant growth is anticipated. FINANCING CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES Beyers Lane CSD assesses property owners within its boundaries for road maintenance. Beyers Lane CSD only received $1,800 in revenue for FY 2003. Any need for new or increased assessments will require a two-thirds majority vote of the registered voters within the district. In FYE 2019, the CSD’s annual per parcel assessment is $200 (improved and unimproved). The annual budget for FYE 2018 was $12,800. OPPORTUNITIES FOR COST AVOIDANCE Beyers Lane CSD is minimizing future maintenance costs through providing as much current maintenance as funding will allow. OPPORTUNITIES FOR RATE RESTRUCTURING No rate information was provided. OPPORTUNITIES FOR SHARED FACILITIES None were noted. GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE OPTIONS 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. MANAGEMENT EFFICIENCIES Beyers Lane CSD achieves management efficiencies through the use of volunteers for management and operations. ACCOUNTABILITY 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. Chapter 3 - Page 4 SUMMARY OF MSR DETERMINATIONS – LAKE OF THE PINES RANCHOS COMMUNITY SERVICE DISTRICT Following is a summary of the MSR determinations relevant to the Lake of the Pines Ranchos Community Service District. Updated information on these determinations is included in Section 4 of this report. INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS OR DEFICIENCIES LOP Ranchos CSD provides road maintenance to 6.2 miles of roadway. GROWTH AND POPULATION LOP Ranchos CSD has a current population of 425 people on 170 parcels and no growth is expected. Current land uses within the CSD are limited to residential and open space uses. In FYE 2019, the CSD’s boundaries include 54 improved and 11 unimproved residential properties. FINANCING CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES LOP Ranchos CSD assesses property owners within its boundaries for road maintenance. LOP Ranchos CSD balanced revenue and expenses for FY 2003. Any need for new or increased assessments will require a two-thirds majority vote of the registered voters within the district. In FYE 2019, the CSD’s annual charges were $200 per improved and unimproved parcel. The total annual revenue budget for FYE 2019 was $56,186 and the CSD had a fund balance of approximately $248,000. OPPORTUNITIES FOR COST AVOIDANCE LOP Ranchos CSD is minimizing future maintenance costs through providing as much current maintenance as funding will allow. OPPORTUNITIES FOR RATE RESTRUCTURING LOP Ranchos CSD charges a current assessment of $200 per parcel. OPPORTUNITIES FOR SHARED FACILITIES None were noted. GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE OPTIONS A representative of the 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. MANAGEMENT EFFICIENCIES LOP Ranchos CSD achieves management efficiencies through the use of volunteers for management and operations. ACCOUNTABILITY LOP Ranchos CSD is an independent special district with an elected board. The CSD meets quarterly and is as locally accountable as possible to the community. Chapter 3 - Page 5 SUMMARY OF MSR DETERMINATIONS – MYSTIC MINES COMMUNITY SERVICE DISTRICT Following is a summary of the MSR determinations relevant to the Mystic Mines Community Service District. Updated information on these determinations is included in Section 4 of this report. INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS OR DEFICIENCIES Mystic Mines CSD provides road maintenance service. In FYE 2019 the CSD maintained approximately 2 miles of paved and graveled roadway. GROWTH AND POPULATION Mystic Mine CSD has a current population of 237 people on 98 parcels and no growth is expected. Current land uses within the CSD are limited to residential and open space uses. In FYE 2019, the CSD’s boundaries include 89 improved and 13 unimproved residential properties. FINANCING CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES Mystic Mines CSD assesses property owners within its boundaries for road maintenance. Any need for new or increased assessments will require a two-thirds majority vote of the registered voters within the district. In FYE, the CSD’s special tax is $200 per parcel. OPPORTUNITIES FOR COST AVOIDANCE Mystic Mines CSD is minimizing future maintenance costs through providing as much current maintenance as funding will allow. OPPORTUNITIES FOR RATE RESTRUCTURING Mystic Mines CSD charges a current assessment of $120 per parcel. In FYE, the CSD’s special tax is $200 per parcel. OPPORTUNITIES FOR SHARED FACILITIES None were noted. GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE OPTIONS A representative of the 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. MANAGEMENT EFFICIENCIES Mystic Mines CSD achieves management efficiencies through the use of volunteers for management and operations. Mystic Mine CSD has appointed a volunteer to serve as a general manager for the district. ACCOUNTABILITY Mystic Mines CSD is an independent special district with an elected board. The CSD meets quarterly and is as locally accountable as possible to the community. Chapter 3 - Page 6 4.0 SPHERES OF INFLUENCE AND SPHERE PLANS This section analyzes each agency’s ability to serve existing and future residents within its current boundaries and Sphere of Influence. While LAFCo encourages the participation and cooperation of the subject agency, LAFCo alone is responsible for adopting the Sphere of Influence and is the sole authority as to the sufficiency of the documentation and the Sphere Plan’s consistency with law and LAFCo policy. In adopting a Sphere of Influence LAFCo must consider and prepare a written statement of its determinations with respect to the following five factors as stated in Section 56425(e) of the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Act: • The present and planned land uses in the area, including agricultural open space lands. • The present capacity of public facilities and adequacy of public services that the agency provides or is authorized to provide. • The present and probable need for public facilities and services in the area. • The existence of any social or economic communities of interest in the area if the Commission determines that they are relevant to the agency. • For an update of a sphere of influence of a district that provides public facilities or services related to sewers, municipal and industrial water, or structural fire protection, the present and probable need for those public facilities and services of any disadvantaged unincorporated communities within the existing sphere of influence. When preparing to adopt or update a Sphere of Influence Plan, LAFCo reviews land uses within the subject territory, the need for the agency’s services, and the agency’s present and probable capacity for meeting service needs. The Sphere of Influence must be consistent with the determinations of the Municipal Service Reviews. Nevada LAFCo requires that the Sphere Plan include maps and explanatory text describing the probable boundary of the service area and the agency’s Sphere of Influence. Chapter 4 - Page 1 4.1 COUNTY SERVICE AREAS SPHERES OF INFLUENCE Nevada County provides enhanced road operation and maintenance services within ten County Service Areas, listed in Table 4-1 below. Note that several of the CSAs are also authorized by LAFCo to provide auxiliary services like vegetation management and street lighting; in addition, since 1979 each CSA has also been is authorized to fund solid waste services. TABLE 4-1 COUNTY SERVICE AREAS Miles Number CSA No. Location Services Maintained of Parcels Clover Valley and Alta Sierra 11.4 Road maintenance 1A 285 Ranches Chipseal Solid Waste & Landfill Maintenance 1.25 Road maintenance 2 Birch Meadow Ranches 18 Gravel Solid Waste & Landfill Maintenance 2.94 Road maintenance 12 Adamson Road 89 Chipseal Solid Waste & Landfill Maintenance 1.6 Road maintenance 13 Wolf Drive Gravel, 58 Solid Waste & Landfill Maintenance chipseal 3.91 Road maintenance 14 Retrac Way Gravel, 204 Solid Waste & Landfill Maintenance Chipseal 1.2 Road maintenance 18 IWB North (west of CSA 21) 8 Gravel Solid Waste & Landfill Maintenance Road maintenance Sewer Maintenance 2 21 Sharon Oaks Drainage 195 Gravel Police Solid Waste & Landfill Maintenance Road maintenance 2.06 22 6B Ranch Fire Facilities Maintenance 37 Paved, Gravel Solid Waste & Landfill Maintenance Road maintenance Fire Facilities Maintenance Oak Crest Estates 1 Sewer Maintenance 24 61 Mt. Lake Estates Gravel, paved Drainage Maintenance Police Protection Solid Waste & Landfill Maintenance Road maintenance 38 Wildwood Ridge Estates 0.68 Drainage maintenance 113 Common Facilities Maintenance Source: LAFCo records for each CSA formation, Nevada County GIS data and Nevada County Public Works. Chapter 4 - Page 2 Note that the County is actively working to engage the community to prepare for the ever- present threat of wildfire, including updates to the County’s Hazardous Vegetation Ordinance. Wildfire preparedness efforts relative to the County Service Areas include periodic inspections, occasional hazardous tree removals and coordination with applicable Fire Protection Districts. A discussion of each County Service Area’s characteristics, including present and planned land use and growth potential and limitations, need for service and capacity for meeting those needs follows. Note that all lands within each of the listed CSAs are subject to the County’s General Plan and zoning authority. Chapter 4 - Page 3 4.1.1 COUNTY SERVICE AREAS 1A AND 2 – CLOVER VALLEY RANCHES, ALTA SIERRA RANCHES AND BIRCH MEADOWS RANCHES County Service Areas 1A and 2 (see Figure 4.1) were each created in 1969 in order to provide a funding and performance mechanism to support roads serving Alta Sierra Ranches, Clover Valley Ranches, and Birch Meadows Ranches, new subdivisions at that time. These subdivisions created 282 lots in CSA 1A (Clover Valley and Alta Sierra Ranches) and 15 lots in CSA 2 (Birch Meadows Ranches). The roads serving these subdivisions were constructed in a manner that did not meet County standards; since the roads are internal to the subdivisions, the County agreed to the deviation on the condition that the roads were not brought into the County- maintained road system. The formation of the CSAs provided a mechanism for the users to fully fund the cost of these non-public roads. Note that these two CSAs are the only two road maintenance CSAs in Nevada County that receive a portion of the property tax revenues collected within their respective jurisdictions. The cost of maintaining the Birch Meadows roads was evidently disproportionately higher than for the other two areas; consequently, CSA 2 was established to assign those costs to the affected parcels. CSA 1A presently contains 285 parcels, 57 of which remain undeveloped; CSA 2 contains 18 parcels, 4 of which are undeveloped. The area is served by Nevada County Consolidated Fire District and is within the Nevada Irrigation District (although the parcels do not appear to be on the District’s treated or raw water systems). The properties are not within the County Sanitation District; presumably, homes are served by private septic systems. The General Plan designation for the both CSA 1A and 2 is Rural, 5-acre minimum, although approximately 28 parcels in the northern portion of CSA 1A are designated as Rural - 10-acre minimum. In 1979, the Commission approved the County’s request to extend solid waste services through these CSAs, including garbage and refuse collection and landfill operation and maintenance. Both CSAs have been assigned coterminous spheres of influence, indicating there is no expectation that a need for service from lands outside the CSAs will arise and result in a proposal for annexation. PRESENT AND PLANNED LAND USE The lands within both CSAs are designated for residential use, including Rural-5 and Rural-10 General Plan designations, as shown on Table 4-2 and 4-3 below. The Land Use Element of the General Plan was last updated in 2014 in conjunction with the update of the Housing Element. Chapter 4 - Page 4 TABLE 4-2 CSA 1A GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATIONS Developed Undeveloped General Plan Classification Parcels Acreage Parcels Acreage (GP designation in parenthesis) Rural (RUR-5) 204 1262 53 373 Rural (RUR-10) 24 230 4 21 Totals 228 1492 57 394 TABLE 4-3 CSA 2 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATIONS Developed Undeveloped General Plan Classification Parcels Acreage Parcels Acreage (GP designation in parenthesis) Rural (RUR-5) 14 81 4 20 Totals 14 81 4 20 Source: LAFCo records for each CSA formation, Nevada County GIS data and Nevada County Public Works. PRESENT AND PROBABLE NEED FOR SERVICES Neither CSA has seen significant growth since the 2009 sphere update. In 2009, there were 63 undeveloped parcels in CSA 1A; in 2018, there are 57 unimproved properties. The number of unimproved properties in CSA 2 has not changed since 2009. The need for CSA’s services will likely continue at the current level. PRESENT CAPACITY AND ADEQUACY OF PUBLIC SERVICES The County’s Public Works Department provides maintenance services for each CSA’s roadways as necessary. RELEVANT SOCIAL OR ECONOMIC COMMUNITIES OF INTEREST Both CSAs are located to the east of the Alta Sierra community. The Nevada County Consolidated Fire District provides structural fire protection and emergency response services, and recreation services are provided by the Bear River Recreation District. DISADVANTAGED UNINCORPORATED COMMUNITIES Neither CSA is located within or adjacent to any of the five areas recognized by the County of Nevada as a Disadvantaged Unincorporated Community. Chapter 4 - Page 5 County Service Areas 1A and 2 Boundaries and Coterminous Spheres F Rattle R s o n a a d ke Dra Road riv e n c is Ball C S A Gary W 0 2 Sierra ay - 0 1 Alta Drive Mount Olive Road CSA T W am ay my Eva 01A-02 Way CSA 01A-03 Dog Bar Road CSA 01A-01 Dog Bar Road Figure 4-1 Chapter 4 - Page 6 4.1.2 COUNTY SERVICE AREA 12 – ADAMSON ROAD County Service Area 12 (see Figure 4.2) was created in 1979 in order to provide road maintenance services for an area in south county off Magnolia Road, including Adamson Road, Morningside Drive, Trotter Road and Woodacre Road. The CSA was also authorized to act as a funding mechanism for the County’s provision of solid waste services. Funding is entirely provided by service charges levied on each parcel. The CSA originally included approximately 64 parcels; since that time, LAFCo has approved a detachment of one parcel (1983) and two annexations (1998 and 2006), each involving two parcels (for a total of four parcels). Note that some properties have been subdivided since being annexed. CSA 12 presently contains 89 parcels, 11 of which remain undeveloped. The area is served by Higgins Fire Protection District and is within the Nevada Irrigation District (although the parcels do not appear to be on the District’s treated or raw water systems). The properties are not within the County Sanitation District; presumably, homes are served by private septic systems. The General Plan designation for the lands within the CSA is Rural, 10-acre minimum. The CSA has been assigned coterminous spheres of influence, indicating there is no expectation that a need for service from lands outside the CSA will arise and result in a proposal for annexation. PRESENT AND PLANNED LAND USE The lands within the CSA are designated for residential use, including Rural-10 General Plan designations, as shown on Table 4-4 below. The Land Use Element of the General Plan was last updated in 2014 in conjunction with the update of the Housing Element. TABLE 4-4 CSA 12 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATIONS Developed Undeveloped General Plan Classification Parcels Acreage Parcels Acreage (GP designation in parenthesis) Rural (RUR-10) 78 672 11 170 Totals 78 672 11 170 Source: Nevada County Geographic Information Systems and Department of Public Works PRESENT AND PROBABLE NEED FOR SERVICES There has been no significant growth since the 2009 sphere update. The need for CSA’s services will likely continue at the current level. Chapter 4 - Page 7 PRESENT CAPACITY AND ADEQUACY OF PUBLIC SERVICES The County’s Public Works Department provides maintenance services for each CSA’s roadways as necessary. RELEVANT SOCIAL OR ECONOMIC COMMUNITIES OF INTEREST The CSA is located to the northeast of the Lake of the Pines community. The Higgins Fire Protection District provides structural fire protection and emergency response services, and recreation services are provided by the Bear River Recreation District. DISADVANTAGED UNINCORPORATED COMMUNITIES The CSA is not located within or adjacent to any of the five areas recognized by the County of Nevada as a Disadvantaged Unincorporated Community. Chapter 4 - Page 8 County Service Area 12 Boundaries and Coterminous Sphere d a o R ar B g o D CSA 12-01 CSA 12-02 d a o R a oli n Mag Figure 4-2 Chapter 4 - Page 9 4.1.3 COUNTY SERVICE AREA 13 – WOLF DRIVE County Service Area 12 (see Figure 4.3) was created in 1978 in order to provide road maintenance services for an area in south county off Lime Kiln Road, including Wolf Drive and Tom Ray Drive. The CSA was also authorized to act as a funding mechanism for the County’s provision of solid waste services. Funding is entirely provided by service charges levied on each parcel. The CSA originally included approximately 64 parcels; since that time, LAFCo has approved a detachment of one parcel and an annexation of two additional properties. CSA 12 presently contains 58 parcels, only one of which remains undeveloped. The area is served by Nevada County Consolidated Fire District. The area is within the Nevada Irrigation District and some of the parcels are raw water customers (none of the parcels appear to be on the District’s treated system). The properties are not within the County Sanitation District; presumably, homes are served by private septic systems. The CSA has been assigned a coterminous sphere of influence, indicating there is no expectation that a need for service from lands outside the CSA will arise and result in a proposal for annexation. PRESENT AND PLANNED LAND USE The lands within the CSA are designated for residential use, including Rural-10 General Plan designations, as shown on Table 4-5 below. The Land Use Element of the General Plan was last updated in 2014 in conjunction with the update of the Housing Element. TABLE 4-5 CSA 13 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATIONS Developed Undeveloped General Plan Classification Parcels Acreage Parcels Acreage (GP designation in parenthesis) Rural (RUR-5) 3 4.74 1 1.81 Rural (RUR-10) 54 204.52 - - Totals 57 209.26 1 1.81 Source: Nevada County Geographic Information Systems and Department of Public Works PRESENT AND PROBABLE NEED FOR SERVICES There has been no significant growth since the 2009 sphere update. The need for CSA’s services will likely continue at the current level. PRESENT CAPACITY AND ADEQUACY OF PUBLIC SERVICES The County’s Public Works Department provides maintenance services for each CSA’s roadways as necessary. Chapter 4 - Page 10 RELEVANT SOCIAL OR ECONOMIC COMMUNITIES OF INTEREST The CSA is located west of Highway 49 near Lime Kiln Road. The Nevada County Consolidated Fire District provides structural fire protection and emergency response services, and recreation services are provided by the Bear River Recreation District. DISADVANTAGED UNINCORPORATED COMMUNITIES The CSA is not located within or adjacent to any of the five areas recognized by the County of Nevada as a Disadvantaged Unincorporated Community. Chapter 4 - Page 11 County Service Areas 13 & 14 Boundaries and Coterminous Spheres n urd ba uo AR n ur d ba uo AR CSA 14-05 CSA 14-03 CSA 14-04 R e tra c W Ki E ln a R st L im a y o a e d CSA 14-01 ÃÃ 49 d CSA 14-02 a o CSA 13-01 n R Kil e m Li CSA 13-02 CSA 13-03 L im e K iln R o a D d Ru o a d g g a n s Figure 4-3 Chapter 4 - Page 12 4.1.4 COUNTY SERVICE AREA 14 – RETRAC WAY County Service Area 14 (see Figure 4.3) was created in 1979 in order to create a funding and performance mechanism to support maintenance of a few private roads, including Retrac Way, Creekview Drive, Hilltop Drive and Jericho Road, all located off Lime Kiln Road in the south county area. The CSA also was granted the authority to provide solid waste services (i.e., collection and landfill maintenance). The CSA presently contains 204 parcels, 30 of which remain undeveloped. The CSA is divided into five zones. The area is served by Consolidated Fire District and is within the Nevada Irrigation District (note that none of the CSA’s parcels appear to connect to the District’s treated water system, but several are raw water customers). The properties are not within the County Sanitation District; presumably, homes are served by private septic systems. Most of the properties are designated Rural-10 acre minimum by the County General Plan, although a small portion is designated Rural, 20-acre minimum. Two properties, comprising Wolf Mountain Camp, are designated Recreation. PRESENT AND PLANNED LAND USE Table 4-6 below includes parcel count and acreage for the land within the zone. TABLE 4-6 CSA 14 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATIONS Developed Undeveloped General Plan Classification Parcels Acreage Parcels Acreage (GP designation in parenthesis) Rural (RUR-5) 1 1.34 - - Rural (RUR-10) 171 1173.46 11 46.28 Rural (RUR-20) - - 19 170.29 Recreation (REC) 2 78.64 - - Totals 174 1253.44 30 216.57 Source: Nevada County Geographic Information Systems and Department of Public Works The Land Use Element of the General Plan was last updated in 2014 in conjunction with the update of the Housing Element. PRESENT AND PROBABLE NEED FOR SERVICES There has been no significant growth since the 2009 sphere update. The need for CSA’s services will likely continue at the current level. Chapter 4 - Page 13 PRESENT CAPACITY AND ADEQUACY OF PUBLIC SERVICES The County’s Public Works Department provides maintenance services for each CSA’s roadways as necessary. RELEVANT SOCIAL OR ECONOMIC COMMUNITIES OF INTEREST The CSA is located in south county on the west side of Highway 49. Structural fire protection and emergency response services are provided by Nevada County Consolidated Fire District, and recreation services are provided by the Bear River Recreation District. DISADVANTAGED UNINCORPORATED COMMUNITIES The CSA is not located within or adjacent to any of the five areas recognized by the County of Nevada as a Disadvantaged Unincorporated Community. Chapter 4 - Page 14 4.1.5 COUNTY SERVICE AREA 18 – I.W.B. NORTH County Service Area 18 (see Figure 4.4) was created in 1979 in order to create a funding and performance mechanism to support maintenance of certain private roads in an area south of Penn Valley. The historic meaning of the designation “I.W.B.” remains a mystery, at least to LAFCo staff. The CSA also was granted the authority to provide solid waste services (i.e., collection and landfill maintenance). The CSA presently contains eight parcels, six of which remain undeveloped. The area is served by Penn Valley Fire District and is within the Nevada Irrigation District (although the parcels do not appear to be on the District’s treated or raw water systems). The properties are not within the County Sanitation District; presumably, homes are served by private septic systems. The General Plan designation for the area is Rural, 40-acre minimum. PRESENT AND PLANNED LAND USE Table 4-7 below includes parcel count and acreage for the land within the zone. TABLE 4-7 CSA 18 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATIONS Developed Undeveloped General Plan Classification Parcels Acreage Parcels Acreage (GP designation in parenthesis) Rural (RUR-40) 2 36.78 6 124.82 Totals 2 36.78 6 124.82 Source: Nevada County Geographic Information Systems and Department of Public Works The Land Use Element of the General Plan was last updated in 2014 in conjunction with the update of the Housing Element. PRESENT AND PROBABLE NEED FOR SERVICES There has been no significant growth since the 2009 sphere update. The need for CSA’s services will likely continue at the current level. PRESENT CAPACITY AND ADEQUACY OF PUBLIC SERVICES The County’s Public Works Department provides maintenance services for each CSA’s roadways as necessary. Chapter 4 - Page 15 RELEVANT SOCIAL OR ECONOMIC COMMUNITIES OF INTEREST The CSA is located in south county on the boundary between Nevada and Yuba counties. Structural fire protection and emergency response services are provided by Penn Valley Fire Protection District. Half of the parcels are within the Western Gateway Recreation District, and half are within the Bear River Recreation District. DISADVANTAGED UNINCORPORATED COMMUNITIES The CSA is not located within or adjacent to any of the five areas recognized by the County of Nevada as a Disadvantaged Unincorporated Community. Chapter 4 - Page 16 McCourtney Road McC R ou o r a tn d ey CSA 21 Road meter Peri BG a r R a rd oe an d 10-81 ASC County Service Areas 18 & 21 Boundaries and Coterminous Spheres Figure 4-4 Chapter 4 - Page 17 4.1.6 COUNTY SERVICE AREA 21 – SHARON OAKS County Service Area 21 (see Figure 4.4) was created in 1979 in order to create a funding and performance mechanism for road maintenance and solid waste services to the approved Sharon Oaks subdivision. In addition, the CSA was authorized to fund police protection as well as to maintain sewers and drainage systems; to LAFCo’s knowledge, none of these latter three services has ever been provided. In 1980, adjacent portions of rights-of-way of Perimeter and McCourtney Roads were annexed to the CSA. The CSA presently contains 195 parcels, 81 of which are developed. The area is served by Higgins and Penn Valley Fire Protection Districts (181 parcels in the former and the balance in the latter) and is within the Nevada Irrigation District (none of the parcels are treated water customers, although several properties receive raw water from the district). The properties are not within the County Sanitation District; presumably, homes are served by private septic systems. The General Plan designation for the most of the properties is Rural, 20-acre minimum. PRESENT AND PLANNED LAND USE Table 4-8 below includes parcel count and acreage for the land within the zone. TABLE 4-8 CSA 21 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATIONS Developed Undeveloped General Plan Classification Parcels Acreage Parcels Acreage (GP designation in parenthesis) Rural (RUR-20) 79 2621.54 108 3825.78 Rural (RUR-40) 2 703.19 2 393.21 Special Development Area 4 564.94 Totals 81 3324.73 114 4783.93 Source: Nevada County Geographic Information Systems and Department of Public Works The Land Use Element of the General Plan was last updated in 2014 in conjunction with the update of the Housing Element. PRESENT AND PROBABLE NEED FOR SERVICES There has been no significant growth since the 2009 sphere update. The need for CSA’s services will likely continue at the current level. Chapter 4 - Page 18 PRESENT CAPACITY AND ADEQUACY OF PUBLIC SERVICES The County’s Public Works Department provides maintenance services for each CSA’s roadways as necessary. RELEVANT SOCIAL OR ECONOMIC COMMUNITIES OF INTEREST The CSA is located in south county, near the boundary between Nevada and Yuba counties. Structural fire protection and emergency response services are provided primarily by Higgins Fire Protection District, although some parcels are within the Penn Valley Fire District. Most of the parcels are within the Bear River Recreation District, although some are served by the Western Gateway Recreation District. DISADVANTAGED UNINCORPORATED COMMUNITIES The CSA is not located within or adjacent to any of the five areas recognized by the County of Nevada as a Disadvantaged Unincorporated Community. Chapter 4 - Page 19 4.1.7 COUNTY SERVICE AREA 22 – 6B RANCH County Service Area 22 (see Figure 4.5) was established in 1980 in order to create a funding and performance mechanism to support maintenance of a private road system in an area off McCourtney Road southwest of Grass Valley. The CSA also was granted the authority to provide solid waste services (i.e., collection and landfill maintenance), and it provides fire facility maintenance. The CSA presently contains 37 parcels, three of which remain undeveloped. The area is served by Nevada County Consolidated Fire District and is within the Nevada Irrigation District (none of the parcels receive treated water, although a handful are raw water customers). The properties are not within the County Sanitation District; presumably, homes are served by private septic systems. The General Plan designation for the most of the properties is Rural, 5-acre minimum. PRESENT AND PLANNED LAND USE Table 4-9 below includes parcel count and acreage for the land within the zone. TABLE 4-9 CSA 22 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATIONS Developed Undeveloped General Plan Classification Parcels Acreage Parcels Acreage (GP designation in parenthesis) Rural (RUR-5) 34 224.84 3 21.66 Totals 34 224.84 3 21.66 Source: Nevada County Geographic Information Systems and Public Works Department. The Land Use Element of the General Plan was last updated in 2014 in conjunction with the update of the Housing Element. PRESENT AND PROBABLE NEED FOR SERVICES There has been no significant growth since the 2009 sphere update. The need for CSA’s services will likely continue at the current level. PRESENT CAPACITY AND ADEQUACY OF PUBLIC SERVICES The County’s Public Works Department provides maintenance services for each CSA’s roadways as necessary. Chapter 4 - Page 20 RELEVANT SOCIAL OR ECONOMIC COMMUNITIES OF INTEREST The CSA is located south of Grass Valley. Structural fire protection and emergency response services are provided primarily by the Nevada County Consolidated Fire District. The area is not within the boundaries of a recreation district. DISADVANTAGED UNINCORPORATED COMMUNITIES The CSA is not located within or adjacent to any of the five areas recognized by the County of Nevada as a Disadvantaged Unincorporated Community. Chapter 4 - Page 21 Ti nl o y L a n e P ol ari s Dri v e Sha L n a g n ri e la d a o s R S c ot D t ri v e A u b ur n W A e lls D riv e McCourtneyRoad m o W d a y rc h e ry otti n g h a L a n e R o bi n h o Dri v e N n h o S ej Thoro L u o g o h p bred C o u rt w a p s C o K h a Littl L a n e a irF u rt lid Landon Lane D e vi n L a n e urti s a n e CL PG Justin Lane la c e ra n d Hidden Valley Road O a k s Hidden Valley Road W o lf M o u n ta in R o a d r County Service Area 22 Boundaries and Coterminous Sphere CSA 22-01 d a o R k c u T CSA 22-02 Figure 4-5 Chapter 4 - Page 22 4.1.8 COUNTY SERVICE AREA 24 – OAK CREST ESTATES & MOUNTAIN LAKE ESTATES County Service Area 24 (see Figure 4.6) was created in 1984 in order to create a funding and performance mechanism to support road and drainage maintenance and sewer treatment to Oak Crest Estates, a small residential development project located west of Nevada City. Oak Crest Estates now includes 16 parcels. In 1989, an adjacent area of 81 acres was annexed to CSA 24, for the purposes of providing road maintenance services, fire protection facilities maintenance services and solid waste services. At the same time, Mountain Lake Estates was annexed into the County Sanitation District as Zone 7 so that the Sanitation District could operate a package treatment plant serving the 52 parcels. Note that the 16 Oak Crest Estates lots are not included in the Sanitation District zone and are not connected to the wastewater treatment system. The CSA presently contains 61 parcels, 11of which remain undeveloped. The area is served by Nevada County Consolidated Fire District and is within the Nevada Irrigation District (none of the parcels appear to be on the District’s treated water system although several receive raw water service). PRESENT AND PLANNED LAND USE Table 4-10 below includes parcel count and acreage for the land within the zone. TABLE 4-10 CSA 24 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATIONS Developed Undeveloped General Plan Classification Parcels Acreage Parcels Acreage (GP designation in parenthesis) Rural (RUR-5) 50 255.28 10 74.54 Public (PUB) 1 6.10 Totals 50 255.28 11 80.64 Source: Nevada County Geographic Information Systems and Public Works Department. The Land Use Element of the General Plan was last updated in 2014 in conjunction with the update of the Housing Element. PRESENT AND PROBABLE NEED FOR SERVICES There has been no significant growth since the 2009 sphere update. The need for CSA’s services will likely continue at the current level. Chapter 4 - Page 23 PRESENT CAPACITY AND ADEQUACY OF PUBLIC SERVICES The County’s Public Works Department provides maintenance services for each CSA’s roadways as necessary. RELEVANT SOCIAL OR ECONOMIC COMMUNITIES OF INTEREST The CSA is located west of Nevada City off Newtown Road. Structural fire protection and emergency response services are provided by Nevada County Consolidated Fire District. The area is not within any recreation district. DISADVANTAGED UNINCORPORATED COMMUNITIES The CSA is not located within or adjacent to any of the five areas recognized by the County of Nevada as a Disadvantaged Unincorporated Community. Chapter 4 - Page 24 County Service Area 24 Boundaries and Coterminous Sphere a st Vi e ev nt Dri o M DiscoveryWay L ittle s e n o J d a o R ra B NewtownRoad D e e r C re e k L a n e CSA 24-01 M indy Lane CSA 24-02 LogansRunCourt L D an o e uglas D L a n e o u g la s Chapter 4 - Page 25 Figure 4-6 4.1.9 COUNTY SERVICE AREA 38 – WILDWOOD RIDGE County Service Area 38 (see Figure 4.7) was established in 2009 in order to create a funding and performance mechanism to support drainage system operation and maintenance, road and roadway maintenance (including fire access and evacuation points) and maintenance of common facilities to the Wildwood Estates development, a four-phase 364 lot planned development. When the CSA was created, the first phase of the development had been completed and a homeowners’ association had been established to fund and perform the maintenance of common facilities and roadways. Nevertheless, Phase 1 was included within the boundaries of the new CSA in order to provide an alternative in the event the homeowners’ association opted to have the County provide maintenance services. The Phase 1 homeowners are not subject to the CSA parcel charges. The CSA presently contains 113 parcels, 102 of which are developed. The two parcels which are subject to the CSA’s charges are undeveloped. The area is served by Penn Valley Fire Protection District and is within the Nevada Irrigation District, with most of the developed parcels appearing to be connected to the District’s treated water system. PRESENT AND PLANNED LAND USE Table 4-11 below includes parcel count and acreage for the land within the zone. TABLE 4-11 CSA 38 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATIONS Developed Undeveloped General Plan Classification Parcels Acreage Parcels Acreage (GP designation in parenthesis) Planned Development (PD) 102 38.86 11 228.39 Totals 102 38.86 11 228.39 Source: Nevada County Geographic Information Systems and Public Works Department. The Land Use Element of the General Plan was last updated in 2014 in conjunction with the update of the Housing Element. PRESENT AND PROBABLE NEED FOR SERVICES There has been no significant growth since the formation of the CSA in 2009. At present, the CSA maintains Gold Country Drive as well as associated roadside drainage facilities. As the newer phases of the Wildwood Ridge project become active, the CSA will be responsible for maintenance of drainage facilities, detention ponds, access roads, vegetation control and water quality monitoring. Chapter 4 - Page 26 PRESENT CAPACITY AND ADEQUACY OF PUBLIC SERVICES The County’s Public Works Department provides maintenance services for each CSA’s roadways as necessary. RELEVANT SOCIAL OR ECONOMIC COMMUNITIES OF INTEREST The CSA is located north of the Lake Wildwood community. Structural fire protection and emergency response services are provided by the Penn Valley Fire Protection District, and the Western Gateway Recreation District provides recreation services to the area. DISADVANTAGED UNINCORPORATED COMMUNITIES The CSA is not located within or adjacent to any of the five areas recognized by the County of Nevada as a Disadvantaged Unincorporated Community. Chapter 4 - Page 27 Born Joh R n oad Sundance Court Wrangell Court JohnBornRoad Fair Oaks Drive L a RR PleasantValleyRoad D riv e k e W ild w o o d C o u rt N u tm e g V V is a t l a ley Way o ck R iv o e a r d W C il o d u w r o t od a Mi c C o urt Dri v e Pin S e il D ve ri r ve Ri R ve o r ck RoadC O ou a r k t knoll G ol d C o u ntr y Dri v e C P o y u r Q r it t e F o xt ail Pepp D e ri r v w e ood u Ca o u rt rtz Huckleberry Drive CG e S u o u rt o ld urt Lod C es o t u o r n t g a rb u s h C o u rt Or e C o D o c k si d e C o urt WildflowerDrive Str a w b err y Cir cl e e J n a i s m p L o o P ar k e H L i a ll u L re oo l p stcl or e Cir F wlark M F o la o t n R e o y a d Mead C o ourt W B a u y n tin g Cha D p r a iv rr e al L ak e L s a i M d n e e arble Court E D ch ri o ve B lu C e h a p a rra l C irc le o o p e L v o D S w all o w C R o ur C t a o v u e r n S t W w a a y llow Hu mm D i r n iv g e bird W C a C o u rt x o w u K in g b ird r in t g C Q ou u r H a t u il m m D i r n iv g e bird r u n d a n o e R r rD i County Service Area 38 Boundaries and Coterminous Sphere HW e igild hw tso D riv o d CSA 38-01 e CSA 38-02 e v Dri k c o ml e H p o o L e T hi stl L o o p n G i g e r Lake Wildwood ark P or e st Cir cl e F Explorer Drive v e Figure 4-7 Chapter 4 - Page 28 4.2 BEYERS LANE COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT Beyers Lane Community Services District (see Figure 4.8) was established in 1982 to provide a funding and performance mechanism to maintain Beyers Lane and subsidiary roads west of McCourtney Road in southern Nevada County. The District was initiated by the residents’ petitioning the Commission; LAFCo’s records suggest the area had already been developed prior to the District’s formation. The original formation proposal indicated services would be funded by an assessment of $100 per parcel; in 2019, the assessment stands at $200 per improved or unimproved parcel. The District maintains approximately five miles of public gravel roadway, including Beyers Road, Fairless Lane, Burnette Place, Coleman Lane, Castle Court, Vandevere Road, Barbara Court and Misty Dawn Lane. There are 66 parcels within the District, all but 12 of which are developed. The eastern half of the area is served by Nevada County Consolidated Fire District; the western portion is served by Penn Valley Fire Protection District. The entire area is within Nevada Irrigation District (several of the larger properties are raw water customers but none receive treated water), as well as Western Gateway Recreation and Park District. No public sewer service is available; presumably, homes are equipped with private septic systems. In 2011, County staff met with residents of the District to discuss options for the County to provide road maintenance services via a Permanent Road Division in order to reduce the administrative requirements associated with running a small independent special district. To date, the District has not opted to pursue reorganization. The District currently has a full board of directors. It contracts with a local Certified Public Accounting firm for bi-annual audits. The District doesn’t have a formally adopted set of bylaws at this time, but is working to remedy this situation. Road maintenance and road improvement services are considered active services for this CSD. PRESENT AND PLANNED LAND USE The land use designation is primarily Rural. Table 4-14 below identifies the County General Plan land use designations. Chapter 4 - Page 29 TABLE 4-12 BEYERS LANE CSD GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATIONS Developed Undeveloped General Plan Classification Parcels Acreage Parcels Acreage (GP designation in parenthesis) Rural 5 (RUR-5) 9 160.99 - - Rural 10 (RUR-10) 2 20.08 2 161.18 Rural 20 (RUR-20) 29 623.27 5 76.75 Rural 30 (RUR-30) 14 170.83 5 142.65 Totals 54 975.17 12 380.58 Source: Nevada County Geographic Information Systems. PRESENT AND PROBABLE NEED FOR SERVICES There has been no significant growth since the 2012 sphere update. The need for CSD’s services will likely continue at the current level. PRESENT CAPACITY AND ADEQUACY OF PUBLIC SERVICES The CSD relies on board members and volunteer homeowners for maintenance of the roadways. Maintenance is provided on an ‘as-needed’ basis. RELEVANT SOCIAL OR ECONOMIC COMMUNITIES OF INTEREST The CSD is located west of Highway 49 off McCourtney Road in south county. Structural fire protection and emergency response services are provided by Penn Valley Fire Protection District (western portion of the CSD) and the Nevada County Consolidated Fire District (eastern portion). Recreation services are provided by the Western Gateway Recreation District. DISADVANTAGED UNINCORPORATED COMMUNITIES The CSD is not located within or adjacent to any of the five areas recognized by the County of Nevada as a Disadvantaged Unincorporated Community. Chapter 4 - Page 30 Beyers Lane Community Service District Boundaries and Coterminous Sphere R e tra c W a y CSD Byers Lane CSA 14-05 d a o R y e n urt CSA 14-04 o C c M CSA 14-02 L im e K iln R o a d d McCourtneyRoad R o a er et m eri D P u g WolfRoad g a n s R o a d Figure 4-8 Chapter 4 - Page 31 4.3 LAKE OF THE PINES RANCHOS COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT Lake of the Pines Ranchos CSD (see Figure 4.9) was established in 1982 to provide road improvements and maintenance services to a rural residential neighborhood south of Lake of the Pines. The original application indicates the independent district was formed to provide services that had previously been provided by County Service Area 3. The CSD formation was initiated by petition of the residents. County Service Area 3 was dissolved in 1983, and the LOP Ranchos CSD has inherited a small portion of the 1% AV (assessed valuation) property tax collected within its boundaries. These revenues are supplemented by an assessment levied on all properties in the District. As of 2019, the annual assessment amount is $200 per parcel; this rate is charged for both improved and unimproved parcels. The District maintains approximately 6.2 miles of paved roadways, including Rodeo Flat Road, Timber Ridge Drive, Riata Way, Ridgetop Court, Scooterbug Lane, China Hollow Road, Table Meadow Road, and Ramada Way. In 2008, the District contracted with local engineering firm Holdrege and Kull to prepare a Pavement Evaluation Study to assess the condition of the district’s roadways and to determine current and future infrastructure requirements. The study’s recommendations included a 20-year proposed maintenance and repair schedule and cost projections. The District has used the study to guide repairs, although some of the deficiencies cited by the study are beyond its current budget. The District generally hires local contractors for maintenance and repair projects. Major maintenance projects are ‘batched’ to occur as sufficient funding has been accumulated, and the next set of projects will likely occur in the summer of 2019. The District does an impressive job of communicating with its residents. Its website is up to date and well maintained. It provides access to important District documents and notices, including agendas, minutes, financial information (e.g., budgets and audits), notifications, and information about the Board of Directors. The District sends an annual “State of the Ranchos” letter to residents to keep them apprised of its financial status, work schedule, and various neighborhood issues. In 1986, the District applied to LAFCo for authority to also provide water service, and the request was approved. During the 2009 sphere of influence update, as requested by the CSD, LAFCo authorized continuation of the water service authority with the proviso that the authority should be reconsidered at the time of the next sphere update. As of 2019, the Nevada Irrigation District has completed the second phase of extending treated water lines around the Table Meadows loop and has already completed treated water down Rodeo Flat Road and Scooter Bug Road. NID staff indicates that if the landowners are interested in a separate irrigation water system and needed a backup entity for obtaining financing, NID Chapter 4 - Page 32 would work with them. In conclusion, as of 2019, the Lake of the Pines Ranchos Community Service District has never provided water service and has no specific plans to do so. Other public services provided within the area include fire protection and emergency response from Higgins Fire Protection District and recreation services from Bear River Recreation and Park District. The entire area is within the Nevada Irrigation District, and many of the parcels in the northern portion receive treated water from NID. Several other properties are raw water customers. The territory is adjacent to the Lake of the Pines zone of the County Sanitation District (which provides sewer collection and treatment). Although the LOP treatment plant is located within the boundary of the CSD (on Riata Way), no homes in the CSD are connected to the sewer system (instead, the homes in the CSD utilize private septic systems). The Commission has adopted a coterminous sphere for the CSD, although areas to the east and west have been designated by LAFCo as an “Area of Interest,” acknowledging that development and other projects in this area could impact the District’s roadways. Road maintenance and improvement services are considered active services for this CSD. PRESENT AND PLANNED LAND USE The land use designation is primarily Rural. Tables 4-13 and 4-14 below identifies the County General Plan land use designations. TABLE 4-13 LAKE OF THE PINES RANCHOS CSD GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATIONS Developed Undeveloped General Plan Classification Parcels Acreage Parcels Acreage (GP designation in parenthesis) Rural 5 (RUR-5) 165 888.09 7 36.42 Public (PUB) - - 4 20.91 Totals 165 888.09 11 57.33 TABLE 4-14 LAKE OF THE PINES RANCHOS CSD AREA OF INTEREST Developed Undeveloped General Plan Classification Parcels Acreage Parcels Acreage (GP designation in parenthesis) Rural 5 (RUR-5) 11 147.16 7 148.51 Planned Development (PD) 2 49.18 3 175.55 Public (PUB) - - 4 46.17 Totals 13 196.34 14 370.23 Source: Nevada County Geographic Information Systems. Chapter 4 - Page 33 PRESENT AND PROBABLE NEED FOR SERVICES There has been no significant growth since the 2012 sphere update. The need for CSD’s services will likely continue at the current level. PRESENT CAPACITY AND ADEQUACY OF PUBLIC SERVICES The CSD engages local contractors for maintenance of the roadways. Maintenance is provided as needed, and the District has a pavement management study prepared several years ago which also provides guidance. RELEVANT SOCIAL OR ECONOMIC COMMUNITIES OF INTEREST The CSD is located south of the Lake of the Pines community and east of Highway 49 in south county. Structural fire protection and emergency response services are provided by Higgins Fire Protection District. Recreation services are provided by Bear River Recreation District. DISADVANTAGED UNINCORPORATED COMMUNITIES The CSD is not located within or adjacent to any of the five areas recognized by the County of Nevada as a Disadvantaged Unincorporated Community. Chapter 4 - Page 34 D u g g a n s R o a d W o lf R o a ÃÃ d 49 C om bie R oad daoR floW Lake of the Pines Ranchos Community Service District Boundaries and Coterminous Sphere LimeKiln Road CSA 12-01 CSA 12-02 Road Magnolia CSD LOP Ranchos Robles CSD LOP Drive Pla L c a e ke vie w Ranchos (Area of Interest) Figure 4-9 Chapter 4 - Page 35 4.4 MYSTIC MINES COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT Mystic Mine Road Community Services District (see Figure 4.10) was created in 1981 in order to provide a funding and performance mechanism for maintenance of Mystic Mine Road, located northwest of Grass Valley off Bitney Springs Road. The CSD boundaries include approximately 100 parcels, most of which are developed for residential use. Homes are accessed from Mystic Mine Road by a variety of smaller roadways. Approximately 2 miles of roadway, both paved and graveled are maintained by the District. The District is funded by an annual per-parcel special tax of $200, which applies to both improved and unimproved parcels. This tax was approved by the District’s voters in 2016. The District’s annual budget in FYE 2019 was $19,200. The District schedules two or three maintenance jobs a year, and does brush clearing and tree trimming once or twice annually. Local contractors are generally used, and are selected pursuant to a bid system. The formation of the District was initiated by petition of the registered voters; the residential neighborhood had already been largely developed when the CSD was formed. Services are limited to road improvement and maintenance, according to the Commission’s conditions of approval. There have been no annexations since formation. The area is served by Nevada County Consolidated Fire District and is within the Nevada Irrigation District (a few of the parcels appear to be on the District’s raw water system, but none receive treated water). The properties are not within the County Sanitation District; presumably, homes are served by private septic systems. The territory is within the Western Gateway Recreation and Park District. The County’s General Plan designates this area as Rural 5-acre and 10-acre minimum. The five-member District board had no vacancies at the time of this report. The District Board has adopted policies and bylaws, as are required by Community Service District law. The District does not presently have a master plan for long-term maintenance of its roadways and undertakes maintenance on an as-needed basis. The Commission has adopted a coterminous sphere of influence for the District. Adjacent parcels that are accessed by Pierite Way have been designated as an “Area of Interest.” Road maintenance and improvement services are considered active services for this CSD. PRESENT AND PLANNED LAND USE The land use designation is primarily Rural. Tables 4-15 and 4-16 below identifies the County General Plan land use designations. Chapter 4 - Page 36 TABLE 4-15 MYSTIC MINES CSD GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATIONS Developed Undeveloped General Plan Classification Parcels Acreage Parcels Acreage (GP designation in parenthesis) Rural 5 (RUR-5) 78 2547.03 9 21.67 Rural 10 (RUR-10) 11 48.72 4 15.70 Totals 165 888.09 11 57.33 TABLE 4-16 MYSTIC MINES CSD AREA OF INTEREST GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATIONS Developed Undeveloped General Plan Classification Parcels Acreage Parcels Acreage (GP designation in parenthesis) Rural 5 (RUR-5) 30 93.39 4 11.73 Totals 30 93.39 4 11.73 Source: Nevada County Geographic Information Systems. PRESENT AND PROBABLE NEED FOR SERVICES There has been no significant growth since the 2012 sphere update. The need for CSD’s services will likely continue at the current level. PRESENT CAPACITY AND ADEQUACY OF PUBLIC SERVICES The CSD undertakes several maintenance projects each year, and also does some vegetation management. The District engages local contractors for major maintenance projects. RELEVANT SOCIAL OR ECONOMIC COMMUNITIES OF INTEREST The CSD is located off Bitney Springs road. Structural fire protection and emergency response services are provided by Nevada County Consolidated Fire District, and recreation services are provided by Western Gateway Recreation District. DISADVANTAGED UNINCORPORATED COMMUNITIES The CSD is not located within or adjacent to any of the five areas recognized by the County of Nevada as a Disadvantaged Unincorporated Community. Chapter 4 - Page 37 asters R K id e g n e tu R c o k a y d M Hill Place M Em ine pr C es o s urt Hopeful d HillRoad wnRoa wto e N LoneLobo LoxieLane Trail D T o r L ai it l tle H R a o y a d d en AndreLane Bitney Sprin g s R o a W d Bon P a o n n z d a e N W r S o o a a s r z t y a h ara W N c o L a r a t y h n e Pi erit e R o a d M L y o s st S t i T c e r Q a A r i M l u l v le a i y i i c l n e T e r a C D he o i r s n m t D r m r i P i c v S la e u h t c a e n dy i M y sti c t O y M Mi n e R o a d a M y k s i n t e i c R o P a la d c e F o w le r L a e n W o a o h W La P n a r y G e h o u o r s l o c h R W a y o a d uk o Y Y n u k o n M a c ki n a a c W y C o urt L a n e in te rg re G e n o C o u l rt de M y s tic nE C e a a n n a o L e gle W et h i Way Sleep M C y in o e H n C M W o e o y L l u s a s a l r C t o i z t t c y o o w y u g A r W a t D c L o r a a e u n y s g e las Lanya L M an y e stic Mines CSD L a H illm L a n e P e q u o DavisLane Area of Interest n eo o t r SS y a W h c a o c e g a tS Je R ro o R m a a d e nch Road RoughAndReadyHighway a z a ra c L a n e o u th k c o R d H ar d a o R R a n d ol p h L a n e Br o w n St o n e Str e et S kyl D i n r e i v e B Briarwood Lane R o a d lu e C re e R anch R oad Haas Court South Ponderosa Way k Mystic Mines Community Service District Boundaries and Coterminous Sphere of Influence Approved by Nevada County Local Agency Formation Commission Resolution 19-13 ... March 21, 2019 Map prepard by LAFCo staff using information provided by County GIS February 2025 5.0 ACRONYMS AND DEFINITIONS ADWF Average Dry Weather Flow AOI Area of Interest Caltrans California Department of Transportation CAL FIRE California Department of Forestry – Fire Division CDD Community Development Department CDO Cease and Desist Order CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CKH Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 CIP Capital Improvement Plan DOF State Department of Finance D.U. Dwelling Unit EDU Equivalent Dwelling Unit FPD Fire Protection District FY Fiscal Year FYE Fiscal Year Ending GIS Geographical Information System GV Grass Valley GVFD Grass Valley Fire Department GVPRD Grass Valley Parks and Recreation Division GVPD Grass Valley Police Department HCS Housing and Community Services JOA Joint Operating Agreement JPA Joint Powers Authority LAFCo Local Agency Formation Commission LOS Level of Service LRA Local Response Area MGD Million Gallons Per Day MH Mobile Home MOU Memorandum of Understanding MSR Municipal Service Review NCCFD Nevada County Consolidated Fire Department NCFD Nevada City Fire Department NCTC Nevada County Transportation Commission NID Nevada Irrigation District NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System OHFPD Ophir Hill Fire Protection District OS Open Space OSO Open Space Opportunity PVFPD Penn Valley Fire Protection District RES Residential Chapter 5 - Page 1 RTP Regional Transportation Plan RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board SDA Special Development Area SOI Sphere of Influence SRA State Response Area STEP Septic Tank Effluent Pumping TC Town Center UMD Urban Medium Density UV Ultraviolet WMI Waste Management, Inc. WWTP Wastewater Treatment Plant Chapter 5 - Page 2 Appendices FINAL REPORT 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 31, 2005 Table of Contents TTAABBLLEE OOFF CCOONNTTEENNTTSS LAFCo RESOLUTION........................................................................................................................................i I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...............................................................................................1 A. SERVICE REVIEW PROCESS................................................................................................................1 B. ROAD AND STREET MAINTENANCE SERVICES...................................................................................2 II. SERVICE SETTING.........................................................................................................5 A. REGIONAL SETTING AND REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS...................................................................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...............................................................................................................19 C. JURISDICTIONAL EXPENDITURES.....................................................................................................21 D. TRENDS AND IDENTIFIED NEEDS......................................................................................................23 V. GOVERNANCE...............................................................................................................27 A. GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE OPTIONS...............................................................................................27 B. MANAGEMENT EFFICIENCIES...........................................................................................................27 C. LOCAL ACCOUNTABILITY................................................................................................................28 VI. AGENCY PROFILES.....................................................................................................32 CITY OF GRASS VALLEY................................................................................................................................32 CITY OF NEVADA CITY..................................................................................................................................32 NEVADA COUNTY..........................................................................................................................................33 COUNTY SERVICE AREA #1A*.......................................................................................................................33 COUNTY SERVICE AREA #2, BIRCH MEADOWS..............................................................................................34 COUNTY SERVICE AREA #12*.......................................................................................................................34 COUNTY SERVICE AREA #13*........................................................................................................................35 COUNTY SERVICE AREA #14..........................................................................................................................36 COUNTY SERVICE AREA #18, IWB NORTH....................................................................................................37 COUNTY SERVICE AREA #21, SHARON OAKS................................................................................................37 COUNTY SERVICE AREA #22*........................................................................................................................38 COUNTY SERVICE AREA #24*........................................................................................................................39 BEYERS LANE COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT...........................................................................................40 MYSTIC MINE COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT...........................................................................................40 LAKE OF THE PINES RANCHOS COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT..................................................................41 PERMANENT ROAD DIVISIONS - COMBINED...................................................................................................42 VII. DETERMINATIONS......................................................................................................43 CITY OF GRASS VALLEY................................................................................................................................43 CITY OF NEVADA CITY..................................................................................................................................44 COUNTY SERVICE AREA #1A.........................................................................................................................45 COUNTY SERVICE AREA #2 – BIRCH MEADOWS............................................................................................46 COUNTY SERVICE AREA #12..........................................................................................................................47 COUNTY SERVICE AREA #13..........................................................................................................................48 COUNTY SERVICE AREA #14..........................................................................................................................49 COUNTY SERVICE AREA #18 – IWB NORTH..................................................................................................50 COUNTY SERVICE AREA #21 – SHARON OAKS...............................................................................................51 COUNTY SERVICE AREA #22..........................................................................................................................52 Final Report January 31, 2005 Table of Contents COUNTY SERVICE AREA #24..........................................................................................................................53 BEYERS LANE COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT...........................................................................................54 MYSTIC MINE COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT...........................................................................................55 LAKE OF THE PINES RANCHOS COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT..................................................................56 APPENDICES Appendix A: Measure F Appendix B: Comments and Responses Appendix C: California Constitution Article 19 – Motor Vehicle Revenues (Amended per Proposition 42) Appendix D: Proposition 1a Final Report January 31, 2005 LAFCo Resolution Page i Final Report January 31, 2005 LAFCo Resolution Page ii Final Report January 31, 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. A. SERVICE REVIEW PROCESS LAFCo must conduct service reviews prior to or in conjunction with the mandated five-year schedule for updating Spheres of Influence (SOIs). The service review report must include an analysis of the issues and written determinations 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. A service review questionnaire was prepared and distributed to the agencies and follow-up interviews with staff were conducted. A copy of the preliminary report and findings was forwarded to Nevada LAFCo staff and affected agencies. Changes and comments were incorporated into the public review draft report. 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. Final Report January 31, 2005 I. Executive Summary Page 2 B. ROAD AND STREET MAINTENANCE SERVICES 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. 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 Final Report January 31, 2005 I. Executive Summary Page 3 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 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. Final Report January 31, 2005 I. Executive Summary Page 4 It appears likely from this review that the County in particular will not be able to maintain roads in a satis- factory condition in the future with the level of funding currently available. Costs are increasing at a rate that is disproportionate to the rate of any revenue increases. If maintenance is deferred as a result, the real value of current funding decreases in terms of its sufficiency to maintain desired levels of service and road quality conditions. With no change in these conditions, at some point agencies may be forced to re- duce service levels or increase funding, perhaps through an additional revenue source. One option that is in use in the Town of Truckee and other jurisdictions facing similar constraints is a local tax, 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. It is not possible to offer a definitive opinion on how this might impact Nevada County or to what extent the revenue might alleviate the funding constraints. The concept of a new revenue source and its ramifica- tions is most appropriately addressed by a group of stakeholders representing a broad range of interests across the county, both public and private. The County, Nevada City, Grass Valley and LAFCo might consider appointing a community group to take a focused look at the issue. 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 infrastruc- ture can shorten response times. Final Report January 31, 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. A. REGIONAL SETTING AND REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS 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. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (CALTRANS) 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. NEVADA COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION (NCTC) 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. NEVADA COUNTY 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 Road Divisions (PRDs). A permanent road division is a geographic area formed pursuant to California Final Report January 31, 2005 II. Service Setting Page 6 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 covers approximately 67 miles of roadway. Brushing will be the primary means of vegetation control. Final Report January 31, 2005 II. Service Setting Page 7 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 Department of Corrections 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. CITY OF GRASS VALLEY 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. CITY OF NEVADA CITY 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. COUNTY SERVICE AREAS (CSAS) 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. 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 Final Report January 31, 2005 II. Service Setting Page 8 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 COMMUNITY SERVICE DISTRICTS (CSDS) 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. PERMANENT ROAD DIVISIONS (PRDS) 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 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. Final Report January 31, 2005 II. Service Setting Page 9 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 sub- ject to LAFCo review. OTHER AGENCIES 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 Report January 31, 2005 II. Service Setting Page 10 Final Report January 31, 2005 II. Service Setting Page 11 Final Report January 31, 2005 II. Service Setting Page 12 Final Report January 31, 2005 II. Service Setting Page 13 Final Report January 31, 2005 III. Matching Infrastructure to Growth Page 14 IIIIII.. MMAATTCCHHIINNGG IINNFFRRAASSTTRRUUCCTTUURREE TTOO GGRROOWWTTHH A. INFRASTRUCTURE 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. B. GROWTH AREAS AND PROJECTIONS 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 Report January 31, 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. C. MATCHING INFRASTRUCTURE AND GROWTH 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 Transit Services Commission, 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. Grass Valley also has developed a Pavement Management Final Report January 31, 2005 III. Matching Infrastructure to Growth Page 16 System, which includes an inventory of the City’s entire street network; a determination of the condition of all segments within the street system; quantification of maintenance and rehabilitation needs; and a five-year maintenance program and associated budgets based on critical priorities and cost-avoidance op- portunities. The report, prepared in 2000, identified $4.8 million in needs over the five-year planning pe- riod. 75% of all road segments received a condition rating of 51 or higher on a scale of 100. 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 Report January 31, 2005 IV. Financing and Economics of Scale Page 17 IIVV.. FFIINNAANNCCIINNGG AANNDD EECCOONNOOMMIICCSS OOFF SSEERRVVIICCEE A. FUNDING FOR ROAD MAINTENANCE – GENERAL 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 3/2003 2 http://www.transportationca.com Final Report January 31, 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, is intended to provide an additional source of funding; however, the State has been using this funding for other purposes to alleviate its critical financial condition. In the Legislative Analyst’s report entitled 2005-06: Overview of the Governor’s Budget, it is reported that, “The budget proposes to suspend the Proposition 42 transfer of sales taxes on gasoline from the General Fund to transportation funds. The budget also proposes to retain Public Transportation Account (PTA) ‘spillover’ funds in the General Fund in 2005-06.”4 The long-term prognosis is that funding for road maintenance and improvements will con- tinue to diminish as the State maintains control over a significant portion of revenues intended for local agencies. In addition to transportation-specific funding, the level of funding appropriated for road maintenance is also a function of the financial constraints of a municipality’s General Fund in any given year. In No- vember 2004, California voters approved Proposition 1a, which establishes constitutional protection for local property tax revenues in the future. The aggregate amount of city, county, special district and rede- velopment property tax revenues collected within each county are protected as follows: • Future property taxes cannot be shifted by the Legislature to the County’s mandated Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund or schools, or be used to support state-mandated programs, or for any other purpose. • Each local government’s property tax revenues are protected at current levels, unless reallocated by a 2/3 vote of the Legislature. No reallocations may occur until FY 08-09. Suspension of this constitutional protection can only occur if the Governor declares a “significant finan- cial hardship”. The Legislature must approve it by a 2/3 vote on a bill that is separate from the State’s budget bill. If a suspension is enacted, several requirements will be placed on how local revenues are treated. This constitutional amendment is expected provide a significant benefit to local governments through increased financial stability and greater control over local revenues.5 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- 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) The text of California Constitution Article 19 – Motor Vehicle Revenues, amended by Proposition 42, is included in Appendix C. 4 California Legislative Analyst’s Office. www.lao.ca.gov 5 The text of Proposition 1a is included in Appendix D. Final Report January 31, 2005 IV. Financing and Economics of Scale Page 19 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. Voter approval of Truckee’s special tax followed a lengthy period of stakeholder input, planning and evaluation of various options and implementation approaches. The Town Road Committee, comprised of public and private stakeholders, was formed in January 1997 and met weekly through June 1997. Their work continued up through the election as the group provided essential community outreach and voter education assistance. A similar effort in 1995 offered an information base in which to start. The data was augmented by the Pavement Condition Index that had been developed by Truckee’s Public Works De- partment. The Committee reviewed existing data and formed a subcommittee with road construction pro- fessionals to consider standards for road construction and trenches. The Committee reviewed a number of funding mechanisms and developed recommendations for which roads should be considered under each scenario. The Committee synthesized its analysis into a series of options for the Town Council to con- sider, and then further narrowed the options down to two recommendations. The approved tax provides funding for road maintenance on designated “backbone” roads. Because it is a sales tax, revenue is gen- erated from residents and visitors, both of which benefit from the improved roadway conditions.6 B. JURISDICTIONAL FUNDING 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. 6 A review of the process and options can be found in the Town of Truckee June 5, 1997 Staff Report, Agenda Item 8.1 – Road Committee Recommendations/Options. Final Report January 31, 2005 IV. Financing and Economics of Scale Page 20 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 Report January 31, 2005 IV. Financing and Economics of Scale Page 21 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 (including sales tax) ASSESSMENTS All Yes Property Owners Majority FEES Property Related Yes Either property owners or Majority of property own- voters ers or 2/3 voters C. JURISDICTIONAL EXPENDITURES 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 Report January 31, 2005 IV. Financing and Economics of Scale Page 22 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 Report January 31, 2005 IV. Financing and Economics of Scale Page 23 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. D. TRENDS AND IDENTIFIED NEEDS 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 County noted that it expects the paving cycle to trend back to a 20 year cycle in the next fiscal year through the use of reserves and available funding. 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 programs commonly used to optimize mainte- nance expenditures over the lifetime of a pavement surface. Grass Valley noted in its 2000 Pavement Management System report that there was a need to develop new and expanded revenue sources to fund the plan, given the present deficiency in funding at the time the report was prepared. 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 Report January 31, 2005 IV. Financing and Economics of Scale Page 24 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 Report January 31, 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 25 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 Final Report January 31, 2005 IV. Financing and Economics of Scale Page 26 users would need to support the tax increase. Improvements in the County road system provide comple- 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 Report January 31, 2005 V. Governance Page 27 VV.. GGOOVVEERRNNAANNCCEE A. GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE OPTIONS 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. B. MANAGEMENT EFFICIENCIES 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 Report January 31, 2005 V. Governance Page 28 C. LOCAL ACCOUNTABILITY NEVADA COUNTY 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 Vice-Chair 2008 $37,186 Sue Horne District 2 Supervisor 2008 $37,186 John Spencer District 3 Supervisor 2006 $37,186 Robin Sutherland District 4 Supervisor 2006 $39,046 Ted Owens District 5 Chair 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 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 Report January 31, 2005 V. Governance Page 29 CITY OF GRASS VALLEY 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. CITY OF NEVADA CITY 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 gives the public notice of their meetings through district posting and newspapers. The City does not maintain a website. Final Report January 31, 2005 V. Governance Page 30 BEYERS LANE CSD 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. MYSTIC MINE CSD 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 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. Final Report January 31, 2005 V. Governance Page 31 LAKE OF THE PINES RANCHOS CSD 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 Leonard 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. DISCUSSION 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 Report January 31, 2005 VI. Agency Profiles Page 32 VVII.. AAGGEENNCCYY PPRROOFFIILLEESS CITY OF GRASS VALLEY 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 FINANCIAL INFORMATION Budget: (FY 2002-2003) Revenues: Expenses: Fund Equity: $ 1,298,587 $ 740,563 $518,232 Sources of Funding: See text CITY OF NEVADA CITY 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 FINANCIAL INFORMATION Budget: (FY 2002-2003) Revenues: Expenses: Fund Equity: $ NP $369,203 $ NP Sources of Funding: See text NP – not provided Final Report January 31, 2005 VI. Agency Profiles Page 33 NEVADA COUNTY 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 FINANCIAL INFORMATION 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 COUNTY SERVICE AREA #1A* 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 FINANCIAL INFORMATION 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 Report January 31, 2005 VI. Agency Profiles Page 34 COUNTY SERVICE AREA #2, BIRCH MEADOWS 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 FINANCIAL INFORMATION Budget: (FY 2002-2003) Revenues: Expenses: Fund Equity: $1,800 $8,000 $6,200 Sources of Funding: Per parcel assessment $0 COUNTY SERVICE AREA #12* 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 FINANCIAL INFORMATION 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 Report January 31, 2005 VI. Agency Profiles Page 35 COUNTY SERVICE AREA #13* 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) FINANCIAL INFORMATION 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 Report January 31, 2005 VI. Agency Profiles Page 36 COUNTY SERVICE AREA #14 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 FINANCIAL INFORMATION 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 Report January 31, 2005 VI. Agency Profiles Page 37 COUNTY SERVICE AREA #18, IWB NORTH 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 FINANCIAL INFORMATION 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 COUNTY SERVICE AREA #21, SHARON OAKS 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 FINANCIAL INFORMATION 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 Report January 31, 2005 VI. Agency Profiles Page 38 COUNTY SERVICE AREA #22* 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) FINANCIAL INFORMATION 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 Report January 31, 2005 VI. Agency Profiles Page 39 COUNTY SERVICE AREA #24* 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) FINANCIAL INFORMATION 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 Report January 31, 2005 VI. Agency Profiles Page 40 BEYERS LANE COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT 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 FINANCIAL INFORMATION Budget: (FY 2002-2003) Revenues: Expenses: Fund Equity: $1,800 $NP $NP Sources of Funding: NP MYSTIC MINE COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT 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 FINANCIAL INFORMATION Budget: (FY 2002-2003) Revenues: Expenses: Fund Equity: $11,520 $ NP $ NP Sources of Funding: Per parcel assessment $120 (98 parcels) Final Report January 31, 2005 VI. Agency Profiles Page 41 LAKE OF THE PINES RANCHOS COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT 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 FINANCIAL INFORMATION Budget: (FY 2002-2003) Revenues: Expenses: Fund Equity: $138,484 $138,484 $NP Sources of Funding: $200 annual per parcel tax (170 parcels) Final Report January 31, 2005 VI. Agency Profiles Page 42 PERMANENT ROAD DIVISIONS - COMBINED 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) FINANCIAL INFORMATION Budget: (FY 2002-2003) Revenues:* Expenses:* Fund Equity:* $NP $NP $NP Final Report January 31, 2005 VII. Determinations Page 43 VVIIII.. DDEETTEERRMMIINNAATTIIOONNSS CITY OF GRASS VALLEY • 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 Report January 31, 2005 VII. Determinations Page 44 CITY OF NEVADA CITY • 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 Report January 31, 2005 VII. Determinations Page 45 COUNTY SERVICE AREA #1A • 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 Report January 31, 2005 VII. Determinations Page 46 COUNTY SERVICE AREA #2 – BIRCH MEADOWS • 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 Report January 31, 2005 VII. Determinations Page 47 COUNTY SERVICE AREA #12 • 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 Report January 31, 2005 VII. Determinations Page 48 COUNTY SERVICE AREA #13 • 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 Report January 31, 2005 VII. Determinations Page 49 COUNTY SERVICE AREA #14 • 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 Report January 31, 2005 VII. Determinations Page 50 COUNTY SERVICE AREA #18 – IWB NORTH • 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 Report January 31, 2005 VII. Determinations Page 51 COUNTY SERVICE AREA #21 – SHARON OAKS • 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 Report January 31, 2005 VII. Determinations Page 52 COUNTY SERVICE AREA #22 • 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 Report January 31, 2005 VII. Determinations Page 53 COUNTY SERVICE AREA #24 • 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 Report January 31, 2005 VII. Determinations Page 54 BEYERS LANE COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT • 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 Report January 31, 2005 VII. Determinations Page 55 MYSTIC MINE COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT • 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 Report January 31, 2005 VII. Determinations Page 56 LAKE OF THE PINES RANCHOS COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT • 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 Report January 31, 2005 Appendices AAPPPPEENNDDIIXX AA MMEEAASSUURREE FF Final Report January 31, 2005 Appendices Final Report January 31, 2005 Appendices AAPPPPEENNDDIIXX BB CCOOMMMMEENNTTSS AANNDD RREESSPPOONNSSEESS Final Report January 31, 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 Report January 31, 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 Report January 31, 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 Report January 31, 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 Report January 31, 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 Report January 31, 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 Report January 31, 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 Report January 31, 2005 Appendices AAPPPPEENNDDIIXX CC CCAALLIIFFOORRNNIIAA CCOONNSSTTIITTUUTTIIOONN AARRTTIICCLLEE 1199 –– MMOOTTOORR VVEEHHIICCLLEE RREEVVEENNUUEESS ((AAMMEENNDDEEDD PPEERR PPRROOPPOOSSIITTIIOONN 4422)) Final Report January 31, 2005 Appendices CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION ARTICLE 19 MOTOR VEHICLE REVENUES SECTION 1. Revenues from taxes imposed by the State on motor vehicle fuels for use in motor vehicles upon public streets and highways, over and above the costs of collection and any refunds authorized by law, shall be used for the following purposes: (a) The research, planning, construction, improvement, maintenance, and operation of public streets and highways (and their related public facilities for nonmotorized traffic), including the mitigation of their environmental effects, the payment for property taken or damaged for such purposes, and the administra- tive costs necessarily incurred in the foregoing purposes. (b) The research, planning, construction, and improvement of exclusive public mass transit guideways (and their related fixed facilities), including the mitigation of their environmental effects, the payment for property taken or damaged for such purposes, the administrative costs necessarily incurred in the forego- ing purposes, and the maintenance of the structures and the immediate right-of-way for the public mass transit guideways, but excluding the maintenance and operating costs for mass transit power systems and mass transit passenger facilities, vehicles, equipment, and services. SEC. 2. Revenues from fees and taxes imposed by the State upon vehicles or their use or operation, over and above the costs of collection and any refunds authorized by law, shall be used for the following pur- poses: (a) The state administration and enforcement of laws regulating the use, operation, or registration of vehicles used upon the public streets and highways of this State, including the enforcement of traffic and vehicle laws by state agencies and the mitigation of the environmental effects of motor vehicle operation due to air and sound emissions. (b) The purposes specified in Section 1 of this article. SEC. 3. The Legislature shall provide for the allocation of the revenues to be used for the purposes speci- fied in Section 1 of this article in a manner which ensures the continuance of existing statutory allocation formulas for cities, counties, and areas of the State, until it determines that another basis for an equitable, geographical, and jurisdictional distribution exists; provided that, until such determination is made, any use of such revenues for purposes specified in subdivision (b) of Section 1 of this article by or in a city, county, or area of the State shall be included within the existing statutory allocations to, or for expendi- ture in, that city, county, or area. Any future statutory revisions shall provide for the allocation of these revenues, together with other similar revenues, in a manner which gives equal consideration to the trans- portation needs of all areas of the State and all segments of the population consistent with the orderly achievement of the adopted local, regional, and statewide goals for ground transportation in local general plans, regional transportation plans, and the California Transportation Plan. SEC. 4. Revenues allocated pursuant to Section 3 may not be expended for the purposes specified in subdivision (b) of Section 1, except for research and planning, until such use is approved by a majority of the votes cast on the proposition authorizing such use of such revenues in an election held throughout the county or counties, or a specified area of a county or counties, within which the revenues are to be ex- pended. The Legislature may authorize the revenues approved for allocation or expenditure under this section to be pledged or used for the payment of principal and interest on voter-approved bonds issued for the purposes specified in subdivision (b) of Section 1. SEC. 5. The Legislature may authorize up to 25 percent of the revenues available for expenditure by any city or county, or by the State, for the purposes specified in subdivision (a) of Section 1 of this article to be pledged or used for the payment of principal and interest on voter-approved bonds issued for such pur- poses. Final Report January 31, 2005 Appendices SEC. 6. The tax revenues designated under this article may be loaned to the General Fund only if one of the following conditions is imposed: (a) That any amount loaned is to be repaid in full to the fund from which it was borrowed during the same fiscal year in which the loan was made, except that repayment may be delayed until a date not more than 30 days after the date of enactment of the budget bill for the subsequent fiscal year. (b) That any amount loaned is to be repaid in full to the fund from which it was borrowed within three fiscal years from the date on which the loan was made and one of the following has occurred: (1) The Governor has proclaimed a state of emergency and declares that the emergency will result in a significant negative fiscal impact to the General Fund. (2) The aggregate amount of General Fund revenues for the current fiscal year, as projected by the Gov- ernor in a report to the Legislature in May of the current fiscal year, is less than the aggregate amount of General Fund revenues for the previous fiscal year, adjusted for the change in the cost of living and the change in population, as specified in the budget submitted by the Governor pursuant to Section 12 of Article IV in the current fiscal year. (c) Nothing in this section prohibits the Legislature from authorizing, by statute, loans to local transpor- tation agencies, cities, counties, or cities and counties, from funds that are subject to this article, for the purposes authorized under this article. Any loan authorized as described by this subdivision shall be re- paid, with interest at the rate paid on money in the Pooled Money Investment Account, or any successor to that account, during the period of time that the money is loaned, to the fund from which it was bor- rowed, not later than four years after the date on which the loan was made. SEC. 7. This article shall not affect or apply to fees or taxes imposed pursuant to the Sales and Use Tax Law or the Vehicle License Fee Law, and all amendments and additions now or hereafter made to such statutes. SEC. 8. Notwithstanding Sections 1 and 2 of this article, any real property acquired by the expenditure of the designated tax revenues by an entity other than the State for the purposes authorized in those sections, but no longer required for such purposes, may be used for local public park and recreational purposes. SEC. 9. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Constitution, the Legislature, by statute, with respect to surplus state property acquired by the expenditure of tax revenues designated in Sections 1 and 2 and located in the coastal zone, may authorize the transfer of such property, for a consideration at least equal to the acquisition cost paid by the State to acquire the property, to the Department of Parks and Recrea- tion for state park purposes, or to the Department of Fish and Game for the protection and preservation of fish and wildlife habitat, or to the Wildife Conservation Board for purposes of the Wildlife Conservation Law of 1947, or to the State Coastal Conservancy for the preservation of agricultural lands. As used in this section, "coastal zone" means "coastal zone" as defined by Section 30103 of the Public Resources Code as such zone is described on January 1, 1977. CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION ARTICLE 19A LOANS FROM THE PUBLIC TRANPORTATION ACCOUNT OR LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUNDS SECTION 1. The funds in the Public Transportation Account in the State Transportation Fund, or any successor to that account, may be loaned to the General Fund only if one of the following conditions is imposed: (a) That any amount loaned is to be repaid in full to the account during the same fiscal year in which the loan was made, except that repayment may be delayed until a date not more than 30 days after the date of enactment of the budget bill for the subsequent fiscal year. Final Report January 31, 2005 Appendices (b) That any amount loaned is to be repaid in full to the account within three fiscal years from the date on which the loan was made and one of the following has occurred: (1) The Governor has proclaimed a state of emergency and declares that the emergency will result in a significant negative fiscal impact to the General Fund. (2) The aggregate amount of General Fund revenues for the current fiscal year, as projected by the Gov- ernor in a report to the Legislature in May of the current fiscal year, is less than the aggregate amount of General Fund revenues for the previous fiscal year, as specified in the budget submitted by the Governor pursuant to Section 12 of Article IV in the current fiscal year. SEC. 2. (a) As used in this section, a "local transportation fund" is a fund created under Section 29530 of the Government Code, or any successor to that statute. (b) All local transportation funds are hereby designated trust funds. (c) A local transportation fund that has been created pursuant to law may not be abolished. (d) Money in a local transportation fund shall be allocated only for the purposes authorized under Arti- cle 11 (commencing with Section 29530) of Chapter 2 of Division 3 of Title 3 of the Government Code and Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 99200) of Part 11 of Division 10 of the Public Utilities Code, as those provisions existed on October 1, 1997. Neither the county nor the Legislature may authorize the expenditure of money in a local transportation fund for purposes other than those specified in this subdi- vision. CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION ARTICLE 19B MOTOR VEHICLE FUEL SALES TAX REVENUES AND TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT FUNDING SECTION 1. (a) For the 2003-04 fiscal year and each fiscal year thereafter, all moneys that are collected during the fiscal year from taxes under the Sales and Use Tax Law (Part 1 (commencing with Section 6001) of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code), or any successor to that law, upon the sale, stor- age, use, or other consumption in this State of motor vehicle fuel, and that are deposited in the General Fund of the State pursuant to that law, shall be transferred to the Transportation Investment Fund, which is hereby created in the State Treasury. (b) (1) For the 2003-04 to 2007-08 fiscal years, inclusive, moneys in the Transportation Investment Fund shall be allocated, upon appropriation by the Legislature, in accordance with Section 7104 of the Revenue and Taxation Code as that section read on the operative date of this article. (2) For the 2008-09 fiscal year and each fiscal year thereafter, moneys in the Transportation Investment Fund shall be allocated solely for the following purposes: (A) Public transit and mass transportation. (B) Transportation capital improvement projects, subject to the laws governing the State Transportation Improvement Program, or any successor to that program. (C) Street and highway maintenance, rehabilitation, reconstruction, or storm damage repair conducted by cities, including a city and county. (D) Street and highway maintenance, rehabilitation, reconstruction, or storm damage repair conducted by counties, including a city and county. (c) For the 2008-09 fiscal year and each fiscal year thereafter, moneys in the Transportation Investment Fund shall be allocated, upon appropriation by the Legislature, as follows: (A) Twenty percent of the moneys for the purposes set forth in subparagraph (A) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (b). (B) Forty percent of the moneys for the purposes set forth in subparagraph (B) of paragraph (2) of sub- division (b). (C) Twenty percent of the moneys for the purposes set forth in subparagraph (C) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (b). Final Report January 31, 2005 Appendices (D) Twenty percent of the moneys for the purpose set forth in subparagraph (D) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (b). (d) The transfer of revenues from the General Fund of the State to the Transportation Investment Fund pursuant to subdivision (a) may be suspended, in whole or in part, for a fiscal year if both of the following conditions are met: (1) The Governor has issued a proclamation that declares that the transfer of revenues pursuant to sub- division (a) will result in a significant negative fiscal impact on the range of functions of government funded by the General Fund of the State. (2) The Legislature enacts by statute, pursuant to a bill passed in each house of the Legislature by roll- call vote entered in the journal, two-thirds of the membership concurring, a suspension for that fiscal year of the transfer of revenues pursuant to subdivision (a), provided that the bill does not contain any other unrelated provision. (e) The Legislature may enact a statute that modifies the percentage shares set forth in subdivision (c) by a bill passed in each house of the Legislature by rollcall vote entered in the journal, two-thirds of the membership concurring, provided that the bill does not contain any other unrelated provision and that the moneys described in subdivision (a) are expended solely for the purposes set forth in paragraph (2) of subdivision (b). Final Report January 31, 2005 Appendices AAPPPPEENNDDIIXX DD PPRROOPPOOSSIITTIIOONN 11AA Final Report January 31, 2005 Appendices Final Report January 31, 2005 Appendices Final Report January 31, 2005 Appendices Final Report January 31, 2005 Appendix B Nevada County Resolution 06-162 Master Tax Formula for District Annexations