LAFCO
Final Tahoe and Martis Valley Municipal Service Review (pdf)
Read the report at Local Agency Formation Commissions ↗
Draft Final
Municipal Service Review
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
Placer LAFCo
Meeting Date: August 8, 2018
Resolution No. tbd
Draft Final Municipal Service Review
North Lake Tahoe and Martis Valley
Prepared for:
Placer LAFCo
110 Maple Street
Auburn, CA 95603
Prepared by:
Meeting Date: August 8, 2018
Table of Contents
Chapter Title Page
Number
1 Executive Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1
2 Resolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . 2-1
3 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1
4 Summary of Mutual Water Companies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1
5 Regulations For Wastewater Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-1
6 Alpine Springs County Water District. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-1
7 Donner Summit Public Utility District. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-1
8 Mckinney Water District. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-1
9 North Tahoe Fire Protection District. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-1
10 North Tahoe Public Utility District. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 10-1
11 Sierra Lakes County Water District . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-1
12 Squaw Valley Public Services District . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12-1
13 Tahoe City Cemetery District . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13-1
14 Tahoe City Public Utility District . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14-1
15 Tahoe Forest Hospital District . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15-1
16 Tahoe Truckee Sanitation Agency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16-1
17 Talmont Resort Improvement District . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17-1
18 Truckee Tahoe Airport District . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18-1
19 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19-1
20 Comments Received . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20-1
21 Glossary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21-1
22 Acknowledgements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22-1
Appendices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A -1
AP.1: Enhanced Infrastructure Financing Districts
AP.2: AB54 – Mutual Water Companies
AP.3 CA Dept. of Finance New Population Projections
AP.4: Placer County Water Systems
AP.5: Demographic Report for Placer County
AP.6: Notice of Public Workshop, August 2017
i
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
Chapter 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Municipal Service Review (MSR) is consistent with the requirements of the Cortese-Knox-
Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 (Government Code Section 56000 et
seq.). This is a regional MSR focusing on eastern Placer County and analyzing thirteen service
providers including Alpine Springs County Water District, Donner Summit Public Utility District,
Mckinney Water District, North Tahoe Fire Protection District, North Tahoe Public Utility
District, Sierra Lakes County Water District, Squaw Valley Public Services District, Tahoe City
Cemetery District, Tahoe Forest Hospital District, Tahoe City Public Utility District, Tahoe
Truckee Sanitation Agency, Talmont Resort Improvement District, and the Truckee Tahoe
Airport District. A fourteenth service provider, Northstar Community Services District was
described in a separate 2014 MSR on file with Placer LAFCO.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Executive Summary 1- 1
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
1.1: PUBLIC SERVICES
The services considered in this MSR are primarily provided to residents and visitors by special
districts. The districts were originally established under a principal act, also known as enabling
legislation. Districts are formed with charters allowing them to provide one or more services,
within boundaries determined by their Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO). Some
districts provide only one service, while others provide multiple services. There are 14 such
special districts operating in eastern Placer County that are described in Municipal Service
Reviews led by Placer LAFCO and 13 of these districts are the subject of this current MSR. The
fourteenth district is Northstar CSD which is described in a 2014 MSR on file with Placer LAFCO.
Ten public services are generally provided to residents and businesses in eastern Placer County
by local government districts/agencies and sometimes by private companies and these services
are described below in alphabetical order:
Airport
Airport services considered in this review include the maintenance and operation of a
public airport. The Truckee Tahoe Airport District is described in Chapter 18.
Cemetery
Cemetery services include burials and disposal of cremated remains. The Tahoe City
Cemetery District is described in Chapter 13.
Electricity
Electricity services include the generation and distribution of electricity within the area.
This service is provided almost entirely by a private company called Liberty Utilities,
which is not monitored by Placer LAFCO. A public agency, Truckee Donner PUD,
currently provides electrical service only to properties in Truckee and eastern Nevada
County and is not included in this MSR since Nevada LAFCO is the primary LAFCO for this
agency. However, it should be noted that Truckee Donner PUD’s near-term SOI does
extend into a small portion of Placer County. NV Energy1 provides electricity only to
properties within the state of Nevada and is not covered in this MSR.
Fire Protection and Emergency Services
Fire protection and emergency services consist of a variety of different services,
including firefighting and fire prevention, emergency medical response, hospital
service, ambulance and rescue services. These services are somewhat interrelated in
nature and overlap in functional application.
Fire protection services generally serve two basic types of landscape: 1) urban and
suburban and 2) wildland. This MSR focuses on local agencies that provide fire
protection services to urban and suburban areas in the North Tahoe and Martis Valley
1 Details on NV Energy available on-line at: < https://www.nvenergy.com/company/territory.cfm>
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Executive Summary 1- 2
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
areas. Wildland
areas receive
fire
management
services from
their primary
property
owner/manager
which is often
the U.S Forest
Service with
support from
CALFIRE.
As the future
unfolds,
landscape
FIGURE 1-1: FIRE RISK
management
experts predict that summer dryness may begin earlier and last longer. Dry climate will
facilitate drying of vegetation and this may exacerbate wildfire occurrences. Cal-Adapt,
a website with analytical tools sponsored by the California Energy Commission at
http://cal-adapt.org/ graphically depicts the potential risk of large wildfires in
California as shown in Figure 1-1.
Several agencies described in this MSR provide fire protection services including Alpine
Springs County Water District, Northstar Community Services District, North Tahoe Fire
Protection District, and Squaw Valley Public Services District. Each of the district’s
service area is equal to its boundary area. In addition, fire protection services may be
provided outside of their specific boundaries via participate in mutual and automatic
aid agreements such as the California Fire & Rescue Mutual Aid System. The North
Tahoe Fire Protection District (Chapter 9), Northstar Community Services District
(separate MSR), and the Squaw Valley Public Services District (Chapter 12) each provide
fire protection services in eastern Placer County.
Emergency services are provided by paramedics working in local fire departments,
private ambulance providers, private air ambulance service operating out of the Truckee
Tahoe Airport and the Reno airport, and by the Tahoe Forest Hospital District. These
emergency service providers work together to support ensure public safety and health.
Park and Recreation Services
Parks and recreation services include the provision and maintenance of parks and
recreation services. Placer County provides such services in addition to several districts.
The recreational services provided by the United States Forest Service, the California
Department of Parks and Recreation, and the Truckee Donner Recreation and Park
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Executive Summary 1- 3
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
District are not included within this study. Additionally, the Town of Truckee, Truckee
Sanitary District, Truckee Donner Public Utility District, the Tahoe-Truckee Sanitation
Agency, Tahoe City Public Utility District, the Squaw Valley Public Services District, and
the Northstar Community Services District collaborate to support regional trails. Three
districts studied in this MSR directly provide parks and recreation service including
Alpine Springs County Water District (Chapter 6), North Tahoe PUD (Chapter 10) and
Tahoe City PUD (Chapter 15). Given this plethora of recreation service providers, this
MSR generally recommends that LAFCO and its subject districts should study whether
additional efficiencies could be gained through structural or organizational changes in
recreation service provision.
Roadway Services
Roadway services include construction, maintenance, and planning of roads, roadway
lighting, and snow removal. Placer County and the State of California primarily provide
these services. In eastern Placer County only Northstar Community Services District
(separate MSR) provides roadway services. The Talmont Resort Improvement District
provides snow removal services (Chapter 17).
Police Protection
Police services in eastern Placer County are provided by the Placer County Sheriff’s
Department and this Department is not analyzed in this MSR.
Sanitary Sewer
Sanitary sewer services include the collection, transmission and treatment of
wastewater. Information about the state and federal regulations that apply to the
provision of wastewater services within the MSR study area is contained in Chapter 5.
Eight districts/agencies provide wastewater services in eastern Placer County including
Alpine Springs CWD (Chapter 6), Donner Summit PUD (Chapter 7), Northstar CSD
(separate MSR), North Tahoe Public Utility District (Chapter 10), Sierra Lakes County
Water District (Chapter 11), Squaw Valley Public Services District (Chapter 12), Tahoe
City Public Utility District (Chapter 15), and Tahoe Truckee Sanitation Agency (Chapter
16).
Solid Waste Disposal
Solid waste includes the collection and disposal of solid refuse. Although this service is
generally performed by a private contractor under franchise to the County of Placer,
some districts (such as Northstar CSD and Squaw Valley) have the authority to provide
or regulate the service within their boundaries. The only private contractor that
operates in the North Tahoe and Martis Valley region is the Tahoe Truckee Sierra Disposal
Company. In the Serene Lakes and Donner Summit areas, Tahoe Truckee Sierra Disposal
provides garbage collection service. Placer County maintains a Regional Materials
Recovery Facility commonly referred to as the “Eastern Regional Landfill Truckee Area”,
located on Cabin Creek Road, off of Hwy 89 and north of Squaw Valley. At the Placer
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Executive Summary 1- 4
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
County facility, refuse is
sorted and recycled to meet
California’s mandatory solid
waste diversion requirements.
Water Service
Water services include the
access to, treatment of, and
distribution of water for
municipal purposes. Water
service is dependent on two
factors: 1) water supply and 2)
water quality. Water supply is
derived from two sources: 1)
surface water, including Lake
Tahoe and various streams and
2) groundwater. There are
several groundwater basin included within this MSR study area including the Tahoe
Valley Groundwater Basin (USGS, 1997), the Martis Valley Groundwater Basin (Northstar
et.al., 2013), and the Olympic Valley Groundwater Basin (Squaw Valley, 2007). These
groundwater basins have a patchy geographic distribution and some areas do not have
access to groundwater and must therefore rely
FIGURE 1-2: GROUNDWATER BASINS 1
upon surface water as a source.
The primary issue with water supply in California during the years 2012 to 2015 has been
a drought. In response to this drought, the State Water Board, Division of Drinking Water,
reviewed community public water systems to ensure each system has a reliable source
of water. As a result of this review, the Water Board issued orders to 22 community
public water systems and the orders (essentially a moratorium) prohibit new water
service connections to residences and businesses in the service area, require metering
for all customers, and establish a schedule to develop a reliable alternate source of
supply. Although there were systems to the north (Sierra County) and to the south (El
Dorado County), there were NO water systems in Nevada County or Placer County that
were subject to these orders2.
Water supply is related to the amount of precipitation a region receives and in the Tahoe
region much of this precipitation is in the form of snow. Climate experts have projected
changes in the Truckee area snow pack as shown in Figure 1-3 (next page). The
snowpack during the spring season in the Sierra Nevada is expected to be reduced
significantly creating potential challenges for water managers, ski resorts and other
snow-dependent activities.
2 The full list of water systems subject to orders from the State Water Board is available at:
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/waterrights/water_issues/programs/drought/curtailment_compliance_orders.shtml
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Executive Summary 1- 5
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
Water quality
is also an on-
going concern
for all water
service
providers in
California.
Although
surface water
supplies in the
north Tahoe
region
generally
yields very
high quality
water,
groundwater
supplies often
reflect the
FIGURE 1-3: SNOWPACK
local geologic
matrix which contains naturally occurring minerals, such as arsenic, radium, iron,
manganese, and other constituents. A 2007 U.S. Geological Service investigation of
water quality of groundwater in the Tahoe-Martis area was conducted as part of the
Priority Basin Project of Groundwater Ambient Monitoring and Assessment Program and
this study showed that groundwater in the Lake Tahoe Basin generally meets state water
quality standards; continued monitoring is warranted (Fram, et. al., 2012). Projects that
result in shifting drinking water supply from surface water supply to groundwater supply
should be cognizant of the difference in water quality of groundwater as compared to
surface water. For example, on the west shore, Tahoe City PUD had a well accessing
groundwater and serving the McKinney Quail water system. This well eventually
developed both water supply and water quality problems, including the need for
additional testing for lead and copper. The Tahoe City PUD determined that surface
water was a more reliable water source for their customers3 in this case. Another factor
that future proposals to shift supply from surface water to groundwater should consider
is the additional cost and carbon emissions associated with the energy needed to run
water pumps. Water quality in the region is regulated by the State Water Resources
Control Board and the Lahonton Regional Water Quality Control Board.
In June 2015, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) adopted the Safe
Drinking Water Plan for California. This Drinking Water Plan contains a comprehensive
description of regulations that affect the providers of drinking water and this Plan is
3 Details available on Tahoe City PUD website at: <http://waterplant.tcpud.org/faqs/>
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Executive Summary 1- 6
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
available on the SWRCB website at: <http://www.waterboards.ca.
gov/publications_forms/publications/legislative/docs/2015/sdwp.pdf>. Also in 2015,
Governor Brown signed several new laws related to the provision of water service
including the following:
• SB 555, by state Sen. Lois Wolk, D-Vacaville, requires California's urban water
departments and private water companies to audit their systems for leaky pipes.
• Assembly Bill 1164, by Assemblyman Mike Gatto, D-Los Angeles, bans cities and
counties from prohibiting drought-tolerant landscaping, including synthetic grass
and artificial turf.
• AB 1390 (Assemblyman Luis Alejo, D-Watsonville): Establishes special procedures
for adjudicating disputes over groundwater extraction rights.
Electricity and police protection services are not described in this MSR because the providers
of these services are not one of the thirteen providers analyzed in this MSR.
1.2: SERVICE PROVIDERS
This MSR addresses thirteen service providers in eastern Placer County: Alpine Springs County
Water District, Donner Summit Public Utility District, Mckinney Water District, North Tahoe Fire
Protection District, North Tahoe Public Utility District, Sierra Lakes County Water District,
Squaw Valley Public Services District, Tahoe City Cemetery District, Tahoe Forest Hospital
District, Tahoe City Public Utility District, Tahoe Truckee Sanitation Agency, Talmont Resort
Improvement District, and the Truckee Tahoe Airport District.
The districts in eastern Placer County that fall under the jurisdiction of Placer LAFCO and which
provide the above services are listed in Table 1-1, shown on the next page. In addition to the
15 districts listed in Table 1-1, it should be noted that three Districts (Truckee Donner PUD,
Truckee Sanitary District, and the Truckee Fire Protection District) provide public services
(water, electricity, wastewater collection, and fire protection) to the Truckee area, including
a small portion of unincorporated Placer County. However, since each of these districts are
within the jurisdiction of Nevada LAFCo, they are not further discussed in this MSR.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Executive Summary 1- 7
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
Table 1-1: Districts and Services in Eastern Placer County
Name of District Ai r p o r t A m b ul e n c e C e m e t a r y E m e r g e n c y M e di c
al
Fi r e F u el s M a n a g e m e
nt
H o s pi t al & M e di c
al
Li g h ti n g P a r k s R e s c u e R o a d M a i n t e n c e S n o w R e m o v al S o li d W a st e T r a il s W a s t e w a t e r W at e r
Alpine Springs County Water District X X X X X X
Donner Summit Public Utility District X X
McKinney Water District X
Northstar Community Services District X X X X X X X X X X X
North Tahoe Fire Protection District X X X
North Tahoe Public Utility District X X X
Sierra Lakes County Water District X X
Squaw Valley Public Services District X X X X X X X
Tahoe City Cemetery District X
Tahoe City Public Utility District X X X X
Tahoe Forest Hospital District X
Tahoe Truckee Sanitation Agency X
Talmont Resort Improvement District X X
Truckee Tahoe Airport District X
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Executive Summary 1- 8
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
Size of Agencies
This section presents a cross-functional analysis of the size for both population and
geography for each agency evaluated in this MSR. The following table summarizes the
population and geographic size across the agencies.
Table 1.2: Size of Agencies in North Lake Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
Permanent Size (acres) of Size (acres) of
Agency Population (per boundary SOI only**
2010 US Census)* area
Alpine Springs County Water 0
191 3,779
District
Donner Summit Public 1,198
93 8,320
Utility District
Mckinney Water District 156 266 0
North Tahoe Fire Protection 0
14,010 13,731
District.
North Tahoe Public Utility 6,567
5,486 4,112
District
Sierra Lakes County Water 1194
205 2,489
District
Squaw Valley Public Services 0
950 6,331
District
Tahoe City Cemetery 122,369
19,500 43,404
District
Tahoe Forest Hospital 196,035
33,482 390,585
District
Tahoe City Public Utility 17,403
8,524 19,840
District
Tahoe Truckee Sanitation n/a
33,184 n/a
Agency
Talmont Resort 0
300 613
Improvement District
Truckee Tahoe Airport 0
33,482 310,256
District
Source of geographic size data: Placer County GIS database as queried by Ms.
Stolen, Consultant
*Note: The permanent population of a district in the North Tahoe/Martis Valley region is a
small fraction (ranging from 25% to 33%) of the total population that a district serves due to
the high number of vacation homes and hotel/lodges (temporary overnight visitors) and
daytime visitors.
**Note: SOI acreage calculation does not include the boundary area
Draft MSR, September 2016
Executive Summary 1- 9
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
The largest agency studied in terms of population and geographic size is the Tahoe Forest
Hospital District. The smallest agency studied in terms of permanent population is Donner
Summit Public Utility District. The agency with the smallest geographic extent is the
Mckinney Water District.
Website Comparison
Websites are a modern tool that serve to facilitate transparency in local government
agencies by making key pieces of information readily available in a timely manner.
Assembly Bill 1344 (Feuer) was approved by the Governor in October 2011 and requires
that every special district with a website must post its agendas on that website as well
as at a physical location 72 hours before a regular meeting and 24 hours before a
special meeting. Each of the thirteen districts studied in this MSR meets the
requirements of AB1344. The table below presents a cross-functional analysis of the
websites for the agencies studied in this MSR.
Table 1-3. Website Comparison Agencies in North Lake Tahoe and Martis Valley
MSR
Current Meeting
Current
Agenda and
Agency Website Budget/Audit on
Minutes on
Website?
Website?
Alpine Springs County Budget: No Agenda: Yes
Yes
Water District Audit: No Minutes: Yes
Donner Summit Public Budget: Yes Agenda: Yes
Yes
Utility District Audit: Yes Minutes: Yes
Mckinney Water District Budget: Yes Agenda: Yes
Yes
Audit: No Minutes: Yes
North Tahoe Fire Budget: Yes Agenda: Yes
Yes
Protection District Audit: Yes Minutes: Yes
North Tahoe Public Budget: Yes Agenda: Yes
Yes
Utility District Audit: Yes Minutes: Yes
Sierra Lakes County Budget: Yes Agenda: Yes
Yes
Water District Audit: Yes Minutes: Yes
Squaw Valley Public Budget: Yes Agenda: Yes
Yes
Services District Audit: Yes Minutes: Yes
Tahoe City Cemetery No
None No
District
Tahoe Forest Hospital Budget: Yes Agenda: Yes
Yes
District Audit: Yes Minutes: Yes
Tahoe City Public Utility Budget: Yes Agenda: Yes
Yes
District Audit: Yes Minutes: Yes
Draft MSR, September 2016
Executive Summary 1- 10
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
Tahoe Truckee Sanitation Budget: No Agenda: Yes
Yes
Agency Audit: No Minutes: No
Talmont Resort Budget: Yes Agenda: Yes
Yes
Improvement District Audit: No Minutes: Yes
Truckee Tahoe Airport Budget: Yes Agenda: Yes
Yes
District Audit: Yes Minutes: Yes
As shown in Table 1-3, eight of the thirteen districts have all five items (website,
budget, audit, agenda, and minutes) including Donner Summit Public Utility District,
North Tahoe Fire Protection District, North Tahoe Public Utility District, Sierra Lakes
County Water District, Squaw Valley Public Services District, Tahoe Forest Hospital
District, Tahoe City Public Utility District, and the Truckee Tahoe Airport District.
These seven districts have websites that meet a high standard for public transparency.
Three districts have four of the items (website, budget, agenda, and minutes)
including the Alpine Springs CWD and the Mckinney Water District, and Talmont Resort
Improvement District. These two districts do not have audited financial statements
posted on their website. The Tahoe Truckee Sanitation Agency has a website and
does post meeting agendas on its website. However, it does not post recent meeting
minutes, budgets, and audited financial statements to its website. Lastly, only one
district, the Tahoe City Cemetery District, does not have a website.
In June 2015, the Placer County Grand Jury published a “Review of Government
Websites” on their website at: http://www.placer.courts.ca.gov/grandjury/2014-
2015/Review%20of%20Government%20Websites.pdf . This document reviewed several
websites for several cities and districts including two districts from eastern Placer
County: [Northstar CSD (in 2014 MSR) and the Truckee Tahoe Airport District].
Additionally, the Grand Jury made eleven recommendations and they indicate that
nine of these recommendations should be applicable to all special districts in Placer
County. While a review and status check on each of these nine recommendations as
applicable to the thirteen districts is beyond the scope of this MSR, one
recommendation is highlighted below:
The Special District Leadership Foundation has developed a best-practices
checklist. All Special Districts/Agencies should assure that their websites, at
a minimum, meet the best- practices checklist from the Special District
Leadership Foundation available on-line at:
http://media.wix.com/ugd/e1128e_4ad2fb79879944249dfc30c4a71b8ba3.pdf
(Source: Placer County Grand Jury, 2015).
It should also be noted that the Institute for Local Government also describes best
practices for websites and their best practices are available on-line at:
http://www.ca-ilg.org/website-best-practices .
Draft MSR, September 2016
Executive Summary 1- 11
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
Since the promotion of transparency in local government agencies is within LAFCO’s
purview, it is recommended that Placer LAFCO review the best practices guidance
from the Special District Leadership Foundation and from the Institute for Local
Government and establish guidelines for websites for cities and special districts that
can assessed during future MSRs.
Collaboration Among Agencies
LAFCO is concerned with efficiency and ensuring that local districts due not waste financial,
natural or human resources. One way to increase the efficient use of limited resources is to
share and collaborate. Since there are no large cities in the region (aside from Truckee in
Nevada County) and since county government (Placer, Nevada, and El Dorado) has a limited
presence in the region, the local districts studied in this MSR represent local government and
most of these agencies work together and collaborate with each other to best serve the
interests and needs of their community. Partnerships, shared services and joint use of facilities
can be employed by local agencies to increase staffing efficiencies, facility utilization and to
reduce costs. Such collaborative efforts often involve neighboring government agencies,
nonprofits, businesses, or social service organizations. The outcome of these efforts are
improved access to services and support and this benefits the overall community. When local
agencies work together to serve shared constituencies and clients, they can continue to provide
essential services in a sustainable manner and maximize limited resources. Chapters 6-18 in
this MSR analyze each of the thirteen service providers in detail and these chapters describe
collaboration and sharing among neighboring districts. Table 1-4 presented below is a
collaboration matrix that summarizes who is collaborating with whom and how.
Please note that Northstar Community Services District and Placer County Water Agency Zone
4 were studied in a 2014 MSR focused on these two agencies. Since then, LAFCO has agreed to
allow Northstar Community Services District to assume responsibility for PCWA Zone 4 and this
is why PCWA is not listed in the collaboration matrix (Table 1-4), below.
Draft MSR, September 2016
Executive Summary 1- 12
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
Table 1-4: Collaboration Matrix
D
Name of District A S C W D S P U D M W D N C S D N T F P D N T P U D S L C W D S V P S D T C C D T C P U D T F H D T- T S A T R I D T T A D
Alpine Springs County Water
District C M
Donner Summit Public Utility
District A
McKinney Water District A
Northstar Community Services
District
North Tahoe Fire Protection
District C A MOU
North Tahoe Public Utility
District A M
Placer County Water Agency,
Zone 4
Sierra Lakes County Water
District A
Squaw Valley Public Services
District A A M
Tahoe City Cemetery District
Tahoe City Public Utility District A MOU A A M A
Tahoe Forest Hospital District
Tahoe Truckee Sanitation
Agency M M M M
Talmont Resort Improvement
District
Truckee Tahoe Airport District A
Symbols: C=contract
MOU = Memorandum of Understanding
M = Membership
A = Agreement
Draft MSR, September 2016
Executive Summary 1- 13
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
1.3: DETERMINATIONS
This Municipal Service Review (MSR) contains analysis and conclusions, known as
determinations, regarding six topic areas that are codified in the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local
Government Reorganization Act of 2000 (Government Code Section 56000 et seq.). These areas
of analysis contain the essential operational and management aspects of each service provider,
and together constitute a review of the ability of the providers to meet the service demands of
the residents within their boundaries.
The seven topic areas covered in the determinations include the following factors:
Growth and population projections for the affected area
Disadvantaged unincorporated communities
Present and planned capacity of public facilities
Financial ability of the agency to provide services
Opportunities for shared facilities
Accountability for government service needs
Any other matter relative to service delivery as required by Commission Policy
The specific determinations and the key facts that support each determination for each service
provided are discussed in Chapters 6 through 18. The areas of analysis contain the essential
operational and management aspects of each service provider and together constitute a review
of the ability of the providers to meet the service demands of the residents within their
boundaries. The services considered in this are primarily provided to residents and visitors by
special districts, collectively referred to as “agencies.” Agencies are typically operated under
the provisions of their “principal acts,” and they govern the provision of one or more public
services. Boundaries and spheres of influence are determined by their Local Agency Formation
Commission (LAFCO). Chapters 6 to 18 list the determinations for each of the 13 service
providers.
REFERENCES
Fram, M.S., and Belitz, Kenneth, 2012, Status and Understanding of Groundwater Quality in
the Tahoe-Martis, Central Sierra, and Southern Sierra Study Units, 2006–2007—
California GAMA Priority Basin Project: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations
Report 2011-5216, 222 p.
Draft MSR, September 2016
Executive Summary 1- 14
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
Chapter 2
PLACER LAFCO RESOLUTION OF
APPROVAL
Page intentionally left blank
Draft Final MSR, July 2018
Resolution 2-1
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
Page intentionally left blank
(paste here)
Draft Final MSR, July 2018
Resolution 2-2
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
Chapter 3
INTRODUCTION
This Municipal Service Review (MSR) has been prepared to provide technical and governance
information for service providers within Eastern Placer County. Thirteen service providers,
including the Alpine Springs County Water District, Donner Summit Public Utility District,
Mckinney Water District, North Tahoe Fire Protection District, North Tahoe Public Utility
District, Sierra Lakes County Water District, Squaw Valley Public Services District, Tahoe City
Cemetery District, Tahoe Forest Hospital District, Tahoe City Public Utility District, Tahoe
Truckee Sanitation Agency, Talmont Resort Improvement District, and the Truckee Tahoe
Airport District are reviewed herein. See Figure 3-1 for a map of the districts contained in this
MSR.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Introduction 3-1
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
3.1 ROLE AND RESPONSIBILITY OF LAFCO
Local Agency Formation Commissions (LAFCo’s) are independent agencies that were
established by state legislation in 1963 in each county in California to oversee changes in local
agency boundaries and organizational structures. It is LAFCo’s responsibility to:
oversee the logical, efficient, and most appropriate formation of local cities and
special districts,
provide for the logical progression of agency boundaries and efficient expansion of
municipal services,
assure the efficient provision of municipal services, and
discourage the premature conversion of agricultural and open space
lands (Government Code [GC] §§ 56100, 56301, 56425, 56430, 56378).
The Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg (CKH) Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 (CKH Act)
requires each LAFCo to prepare a MSR for its cities and special districts. MSRs are required
prior to and in conjunction with the update of a Sphere of Influence (SOI). This review is
intended to provide Placer LAFCo with the necessary and relevant information related to
thirteen service providers within the eastern County (see above), specifically regarding the
appropriateness of each service provider’s existing and proposed boundaries and SOI.
About Placer LAFCo
Although each LAFCo works to implement the CKH Act, there is flexibility in how these state
regulations are implemented so as to allow adaptation to local needs. Placer LAFCo has
adopted policies as found on Placer LAFCo’s website (http://www.placer.ca.gov/~/media/
lafco/documents/LAFCO%20Policies.pdf). LAFCo’s policies relating to MSRs are listed below:
1. POLICY: LAFCO will encourage regional Municipal Service Reviews over project-specific
reviews. Regional reviews are those that cover “logical” geographic areas defined by
such things as a general or community plan or a drainage basin, et cetera.
2. POLICY: If an agency or private party submits a request to initiate a proposal for a
Municipal Service Review to LAFCO, staff will review the proposal with the applicant
to discuss the potential parameters of the study. Following this, staff will make a
recommendation to the Commission regarding the request. The Commission may or
may not authorize the study and adopt parameters for it.
3. POLICY: If a particular party is interested in initiating a project that will require a
Municipal Service Review, they will be liable for the costs associated with doing the
study.
4. POLICY: LAFCO may choose to initiate certain studies on its own volition when there
appears to be a need to study the organization and provision of services in a specified
area.
5. POLICY: When up-dating a general or community plan the County and cities should
coordinate with LAFCO to see that a corresponding municipal services review is
completed in conjunction with the plan.
This MSR implements Policy #1 in that it is a regional MSR covering the North Tahoe and Martis
Valley area. Policy #4 is pertinent to this MSR because in this case, LAFCO chose to initiate
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Introduction 3-2
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
this MSR on its own volition because state law requires that MSRs be updated on a regular
basis.
MSR is an information tool that can be used to facilitate cooperation among agency managers
and LAFCo to achieve the efficient delivery of services. Describing existing efficiencies in
service deliveries and suggesting new opportunities to improve efficiencies is a key objective
of this MSR, consistent with LAFCo’s purposes. Since this MSR will be published on LAFCo’s
website, it also contributes to LAFCo’s principle relating to transparency of process and
information. A public hearing was conducted by LAFCo on this MSR, thereby contributing to
LAFCo’s aim of encouraging an open and engaged process.
Additional Information
Additional reference documents, such as previous MSR’s or sphere studies are available from
LAFCO’s office and website and contact information is shown below:
Placer LAFCO
Attn: Kris Berry, Executive Officer
110 Maple Street (Air Pollution Control building)
Auburn, CA 95603
Phone: 530-889-4097
http://www.placer.ca.gov/departments/lafco
3.2 PURPOSE OF THE MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
MSRs are intended to provide LAFCo with a comprehensive analysis of services provided by
each of the special districts and other service providers identified within this MSR and that
fall under the legislative authority of the LAFCo. The MSR makes determinations in each of
seven mandated areas of evaluation, providing the basis for LAFCo to review proposed
changes to a service provider’s boundaries or Spheres of Influence (SOI).
About Spheres of Influence
This municipal service review provides Placer LAFCo with the information and analysis
necessary to evaluate existing boundaries and consider spheres of influence for these service
providers. An SOI is defined in GC § 56425 as “a plan for the probable physical boundary and
service area of a local agency or municipality as determined by the Commission.” LAFCo is
required to adopt an SOI for each city and each agency in its jurisdiction. Chapter 19,
Conclusions, contains a general recommendation that LAFCo update the SOI for each district
studied in this review and Table 19-1 lists the date LAFCo approved the most recent SOI
update for each district studied in this MSR.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Introduction 3-3
NEVADA CO.
UV
89
§¨¦
80
SouthYubaRiver
Donner Lake
UV
267
T
ru
c
k
A
mericanRiver e e
R
iv
e
r
UV
28
NorthFork
UV
River 89
PLACER CO.
merican
A
ork
F
Middle
UV
89
French Meadows Reservoir
Lake Tahoe
Hell Hole Reservoir
McKinney Water District
Talmont Resort Improvement District
Northstar Community Services District
Alpine Springs County Water District
Ru
b
ico
Squaw Valley Public Services District n
R
T
S
N
a
i
.
e
h
T
r
o
a
ra
e
h o
L
C
e
a
it
k
y
F
e
i
P
r
s
e
u
C
b
P
o
l
r
i
u
c
o
n
t
U
e
ty
c
ti
t
l
W
i
i
o
ty
n
a
D
t
D
e
i
r
s
i s
t
D
r
t
i
r
i
c
i
s
c
t
t
t
rict SouthForkRubicon
River iv e r
Donner Summit Public Utility District
North Tahoe Public Utility District ± EL DORADO CO.
Truckee Tahoe Airport District
Tahoe City Cemetery District
Tahoe Truckee Sanitation Agency
Tahoe Forest Hospital District 0 2 4
Miles
Figure 3-1 REGIONAL MAP
North Lake Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
In determining the Sphere of Influence for an agency, LAFCo must consider and
prepare written determinations with respect to the following four factors
[Government Code §56425(e)]: The present and planned land uses in the area
The present and probable need for public services and facilities in the area
The present capacity of public facilities and adequacy of public services that the
agency provides
The existence of any social or economic communities of interest in the area if LAFCo
determines that they are relevant to the service provider
Additionally, agencies that provide water, wastewater, or structural fire protection services
must also consider the presence of disadvantaged unincorporated communities.
The intent of an SOI is to identify the most appropriate areas for an agency’s service area in
the probable future. LAFCo discourages inclusion of land in an agency’s Sphere if a need for
services provided by that agency cannot be demonstrated. Accordingly, territory included in
an agency’s Sphere is an indication that the probable need for service has been established,
and that the subject agency has been determined by LAFCo to be the most logical service
provider for the area. SOIs are also important to LAFCO because they relate to LAFCO’s
control of nine types of boundary changes as listed below:
Annexations Incorporations
Consolidations Mergers
Detachments Subsidiary Districts
Dissolutions Reorganizations
Formations
About this MSR
Ideally, an MSR will support not only LAFCo but will also provide the following benefits to the
subject agencies:
Provide a broad overview of agency operations including type and extent of services
provided
Serve as a prerequisite for a sphere of influence update
Evaluate governance options and financial information
Demonstrate accountability and transparency to LAFCo and to the public
Allow agencies to compare their operations and services with other similar agencies
This MSR is designed to provide technical and administrative information on each of the
thirteen service providers to Placer LAFCo, so that LAFCo can make informed decisions based
on the best available data for each service provider and area. Written determinations, as
required by law, are presented in Chapter 19 Conclusions of this MSR for LAFCo’s
consideration. LAFCo is ultimately the decision maker on approval or disapproval of any
determinations, policies, boundaries, and discretionary items.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Introduction 3-5
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
Also included in this MSR is a discussion of mutual water companies in eastern Placer County
(Chapter 4 Overview Mutual Water Companies). Mutual water companies are private non-
profit organizations that provide water to specific property owners. These systems represent
only four of the water systems in the area.
3.3 METHODOLOGY AND APPROACH TO THIS MSR
The CKH Act indicates that LAFCO should review and update a sphere of influence every five
years, as necessary, consistent with GC § 56425(g) and 561061. Many LAFCOs aim to update
MSRs on a similar five to ten year schedule. Placer LAFCO’s first MSR for the Tahoe and Martis
Valley region was prepared in 2004. Although the 2004 MSR provided a solid foundation for
each district and made the required determinations, its approach and format was focused on
service functions such as fire protection or water service rather than on individual districts.
This current (2018) MSR takes a different approach and provides a comprehensive and data
driven analysis focused on each individual district. The chapters for each district are
intended to be stand-alone such that a person interested in a district only needs to refer to
the district’s specific chapter rather than the entire MSR. Since fourteen years have passed
since the 2004 MSR, this new version updates all the details necessary to support LAFCO’s
determinations. A cross-function analysis that facilitates comparison of various traits of the
thirteen service providers is provided in the Executive Summary (Chapter 1) of this MSR.
For each of the thirteen service providers, an evaluation of the structure and operation and a
discussion of possible areas for streamlining, improvement, and coordination is described in
Chapters 6-18 of this MSR. Key references and information sources for this study were
gathered for each agency considered. The reference utilized in this study include published
reports; review of agency files and databases (agendas, minutes, budgets, contracts, audits,
etc.); master plans; capital improvement plans; engineering reports; EIRs; finance studies;
general plans; and state and regional agency information (permits, reviews, communications,
regulatory requirements, etc.). Additionally, the consulting team, in coordination with the
LAFCo Executive Officer, sent each agency a Request for Information, and the agencies’
responses to these requests were a key information source. Members of the consultant team
also conducted site visits and personal interviews with each agency. A bibliography is
provided at the end of each chapter so that readers can readily access the source material.
This MSR forms the basis for specific judgments, known as determinations, about each agency
that LAFCo is required to make (GC § 5425, 56430). These determinations are described in the
1 Section 56106 of CKH states that all timeframes are directive. Any provision governing the time in which
commission is to act, is deemed directory rather than mandatory
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Introduction 3-6
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
MSR Guidelines from the Office of Planning & Research (OPR) as set forth in the CKH Act, and
they fall into seven categories, as listed below:
1. Growth and population projections for the affected area
2. 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 agency to provide services
5. Status of, and opportunities for, shared facilities
6. Accountability for community service needs, including government structure and
operational efficiencies
7. Any other matter related to effective or efficient service delivery, as required by
commission policy
An MSR must include an analysis of the issues and written determination(s) for each of the
above determination categories. Within each chapter that describes a specific service
provider, there are sections corresponding to the seven determination categories required by
the CKH Act. Each of these seven determination categories is described in the chapter for
each agency. An explanation of these seven determination categories is provided below.
1. Growth and Population
Section 3.4 evaluates existing and projected population estimates for the incorporated and
unincorporated region of Placer County. The ability of each provider to accommodate growth
and demand projections is considered in each chapter.
2. Location and Characteristics of any Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities within
or Contiguous to the Sphere of Influence
Senate Bill (SB) 244, which became effective in January 2012, requires LAFCo to consider the
presence of any Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities (DUCs) when preparing a MSR
that addresses agencies that provide water, wastewater or structural fire protection services.
A DUC is a geographic area characterized as having a median household income of 80 percent
or less of the statewide median household income. Although Placer LAFCo does not yet have
specific policies related to DUCs, practices that are common throughout the state are utilized
in this MSR. Within the unincorporated North Tahoe and Martis Valley region, three DUCs
have been identified including Kings Beach, Carnelian Bay, and neighborhoods within Tahoe
City, as of 2014. Eight Districts studied in this MSR contain DUCs. See Section 3.6 for
additional details.
3. Capacity and Infrastructure
Discussed in the service provider chapter is the adequacy and quality of the services provided
by the agency, including whether sufficient infrastructure and capital are in place (or planned
for) to accommodate planned future growth and expansions.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Introduction 3-7
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
4. Financing
This section (in each service provider chapter) provides an analysis of the financial structure
and health of each service provider, including the consideration of rates and service
operations, as well as other factors affecting the financial health and stability of each
provider. Other factors considered include those that affect the financing of needed
infrastructure improvements and compliance with existing requirements relative to financial
reporting and management.
5. Shared Facilities
Opportunities for agencies to share facilities are described in the service provider chapters of
this MSR. Practices and opportunities that may help to reduce or eliminate unnecessary costs
are examined, along with cost avoidance measures that are already being utilized.
Occurrences of facilities sharing are listed and assessed for more efficient delivery of
services.
6. Government Structure and Local Accountability
Each service provider chapter contains a subsection entitled Accountability and Governance.
This subsection addresses the adequacy and appropriateness of existing boundaries and SOIs,
and evaluates the ability of each service provider to meet its demands under its existing
government structure. Also included in this subsection is an evaluation of compliance by each
provider with public meeting and records laws (Brown Act).
7. Other Matters Related to Effective or Efficient Service Delivery, as Required by LAFCo
Policy
Other matters could relate to the potential future SOI determination and/or additional effort
to review potential advantages or disadvantages of consolidation or reorganization. During the
gathering of information for the service review, LAFCo may become aware of additional
matters that will require some response or referral to another agency. A summary of
determinations regarding each of the above categories are provided in Chapter 19 Conclusions
of this document and will be considered by Placer LAFCo in assessing potential future changes
to an SOI or other reorganization.
Each of the evaluated agencies contributed data and other information. Many of the agencies
provided comments on an administrative draft version of their chapter. The Commission
conducted the first public meeting on this MSR on May 11, 2016, at the beginning of the
public review process that was duly noticed. Later, on August 29 2017, LAFCo staff held two
public workshops. The same presentation was provided at each workshop. The first workshop
was held at 2:00 - 4:00 pm at the Truckee Tahoe Airport conference room, 10356 Truckee
Airport Rd, Truckee, CA 96161. The second workshop was held 6:00 - 8:00 pm at the Tahoe
City Public Utility District Board Room, 221 Fairway Dr, Tahoe City, CA 96145.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Introduction 3-8
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
California Environmental Quality Act
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is contained in Public Resources Code §
21000, et seq. Under this law public agencies are required to evaluate the potential
environmental effects of their actions. This MSR is exempt from CEQA under a Class 6
categorical exemption. CEQA Guidelines § 15306 states that “Class 6 consists of basic data
collection, research, experimental management, and resource evaluation activities that do
not result in a serious or major disturbance to an environmental resource.”
It should be noted that when LAFCo acts to establish or update a SOI for the agencies at some
point in the future, an environmental document will need to be prepared to satisfy CEQA
requirements. The lead agency for this future document would most likely be LAFCo.
Principal LAFCO
Several of the districts in the Tahoe/Martis Valley cross county and/or state lines. In
situations where a district’s boundary area encompasses Placer County and either Nevada
County or El Dorado County, the “principal” LAFCO has jurisdiction. California Government
Code §56066 states that: “‘Principal county’ means the county having the greater portion of
the entire assessed value, as shown on the last equalized assessment roll of the county or
counties, of all taxable property within a district or districts for which a change of
organization or reorganization is proposed.” California Government Code GC §56120 indicates
that the LAFCO of the principal county has exclusive jurisdiction to regulate the boundaries of
all districts within its home county. Table 3.1, below, lists the district/agencies studied in
this MSR and indicates which of the counties is the “principal”.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Introduction 3-9
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
Table 3. 1: Principle LAFCO and Overlapped
County Boundaries
El
Placer Nevada Dorado
District Services Co Co Co
Water, Wastewater,
Alpine Springs County Principal
Parks, Fire, Solid Waste,
Water District and only
Parks
Donner Summit Public
Water, Wastewater Principal X
Utility District
McKinney Water District Water Principal X
Water, Wastewater,
Northstar Community Snow Removal, Road and Principal
Services District Trail Maintenance, and only
Street Lighting
North Tahoe Fire Protection Fire, Emergency Principal
District Medical, Specialty and only
North Tahoe Public Utility Water, Wastewater, Principal
District Park and Recreation and only
Placer County Water
Agency, Zone 4 (Zone 4 has
Water n/a
been merged with
Northstar PUD)
Sierra Lakes County Water Principal
Water, Wastewater
District and only
Water, Wastewater,
Emergency Services,
Squaw Valley Public Principal
Fire, Emergency
Services District and only
Medical, Rescue, Solid
Waste
Tahoe City Cemetery Principal
Cemetery
District and only
Tahoe City Public Utility Water, Wastewater,
Principal X
District Park and Recreation
General Hospital Care,
Tahoe Forest Hospital
Medical, Surgical, Principal X
District
Ambulance
Tahoe Truckee Sanitation
Wastewater Treatment Principal X X
Agency
Talmont Resort Principal
Snow Removal
Improvement District and only
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Introduction 3-10
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
Truckee Tahoe Airport Flight Operations,
Principal X
District Aircraft Services
4 Mutual Water Companies
and Several Private Water Water n/a
Companies
Other Districts Not Included in this MSR
El
Placer Nevada Dorado
Name of District Services Co Co Co
Tahoe Resource Conser
X Principal
vation District
Truckee Donner PUD X Principal
Truckee Sanitary District X Principal
Truckee Fire Protection
X Principal
District
Truckee Donner Rec
X Principal
and Park District
Since Placer County is the “principal” county for the districts included in this MSR, the focus
of this document is on Placer County. Placer County is one of the 14 charter counties in the
state, providing it with more flexibility and control in administration as compared to a
traditional county. The Placer County Charter is part of the County Code and it is available
on the County website at: http://www.placer.ca.gov/departments/ceo/
programs%20and%20policies/charter.
Other Public Services
In addition to the public services listed in Table 3.1 above, there are several other services
provided to residents of the unincorporated communities studied in this MSR. Traffic control
and accident investigation is typically provided by the California Highway Patrol. Cal-Fire
provides protection from wildland fires. Cable television and broadband internet services are
provided by Suddenlink and AT&T. School services are provided by the Tahoe Truckee School
District. Placer County provides a wide range of services including:
• General Government
• Law Enforcement
• Animal Protection Services
• Land-use Planning
• Building and Safety
• Code Enforcement
• Civil Engineering
• Road Maintenance, and
• Library
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Introduction 3-11
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
3.4 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
LAFCo held a public meeting on a Preliminary Draft MSR on May 11, 2016. The Draft MSR was
posted to LAFCO’s website and made available to the public on September 14, 2016.
Additionally, two public workshops were held in the Tahoe area on August 29, 2017.
Comments from the public were solicited and several comments from the public were
received as described in Chapter 20 “Comments Received”. The Commission held a public
meeting on this Draft Final MSR on August 8, 2018.
After this MSR is finalized, it will be published on the Commission’s website
(http://www.placer.ca.gov/departments/lafco), thereby making the information contained
herein available to anyone with access to an internet connection. A copy of this MSR may also
be viewed during posted office hours at LAFCo’s office located at 110 Maple Street,
Auburn, CA, 95603. In addition to this MSR, LAFCo’s office maintains files for each service
provider and copies of many of the planning documents and studies that were utilized in the
development of this MSR. These materials are also available to the public for review.
3.5 GROWTH AND POPULATION – REGIONAL
SETTING
LAFCo is required to make a determination in this MSR on growth and population. When
planning for the provision of future services and infrastructure, local agencies should have
ready access to accurate growth and population projections.
Growth and Population, Service Demands, Regional Setting
This section provides an overview of growth and population and describes the regional
setting.
Growth and Population
LAFCO is required to make a determination in this MSR on growth and population. When
planning for the provision of future services and infrastructure it is important to have ready
access to accurate growth and population projections. This MSR also identifies and considers
disadvantaged communities and growth and population data contributes to that analysis. The
consultants preparing this MSR asked service providers to provide the current population and
projected growth in five-year increments through 2030. The information provided by the
service providers is summarized in each chapter of this MSR. The following paragraphs provide
an overview of population and growth in the eastern county as a whole. The intent is to
provide contextual information which can be used to compare and consider data in
subsequent chapters on individual agencies.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Introduction 3-12
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
The study area for this MSR covers the eastern portion of three counties: Placer, El Dorado,
and Nevada. Additionally, the Town of Truckee receives services from the Tahoe Truckee
Airport District and the Tahoe Forest Hospital District and is therefore within the study area
of this MSR. The 2015 population of the three counties and the Town of Truckee is shown
below in Table 3.2.
Table 3.2: Historical/ Current Population
Year 1990 2000 2010 2015
Placer County 172,796 248,399 348,432 369,454
El Dorado County 125,995 155,702 180,682 184,917
Nevada County 78,510 92,033 98,764 98,193
Town of Truckee 11,000 13,864 16,180 16,211
(Source: California Department of Finance)
As shown in Table 3.2
above, Placer County’s
population doubled from
the year 1990 to 2015 with
an increase of 113%. El
Dorado County’s
population increased by
46% and Nevada County’s
population increased by
25% during this same
timeframe. For all three
counties, most of the
population growth
occurred on the western
side of the county in lower
elevations and closer to
major employment centers in Sacramento County. The Town of Truckee’s population
increased by 47% over the 25 years from 1990 to 2015. These high rates of population growth
are correlated with increased demand in public services.
Since this MSR is sponsored by Placer LAFCO, the population and socio-economic factors of
Placer County are analyzed in more detail in the following pages. Policies of the Placer
County General Plan aim to steer urban growth to the cities. The 2013 Placer County Housing
Element confirms these policies. While the county has grown at a rapid pace, much of this
growth has occurred within the cities located on the western side of the county.
Incorporated areas of the County grew at an Average Annual Growth Rate (AAGR) of 5.2
percent between 1990 and 2000. Unincorporated Placer County’s population grew at an AAGR
of 1.8 percent between 1990 and 2000.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Introduction 3-13
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
From 2000 to 2010,
Placer County as a
whole had a 3.4 percent
AAGR for population, a
rate more than three 400000
times California’s 300000
population AAGR of 1.0
200000
percent during this
100000
period. Most of this
0
growth occurred in the
incorporated areas of
the county where the
AAGR was 5.0 percent
between 2000 and 2010.
Growth in unincorporated areas of the county slowed to an AAGR of 0.7 percent. Overall, the
County has seen a steady increase in population as shown in Figure 3.7.
The eastern part of Placer County had 13,973 residents in 2000 and 12,802 in 2010 (IRWMP,
2014). This represents less than 4% of the County’s population. The decrease of 1,171
persons may reflect the effects of the challenging economic conditions in the early part of
the recent recession. The population in Placer County is expected to continue to grow as
shown in Figure 3-8, below.
Socio-Economic Factors
The agencies analyzed in this MSR provide infrastructure and services that support both
residents and businesses. This sub-section provides a brief overview of the major businesses
in the region and considers workforce employment as a socio-economic factor.
The ski
industry is a
major
employer in
the North
Tahoe/Martis
Valley Region.
Other major
employers are
in the
hospitality
sector (hotels
etc.) and the
medical
sector. Table
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Introduction 3-14
0002 1002 2002 3002 4002 5002 6002 7002 8002 9002 0102 1102 2102 3102 4102
Figure 3.7 Population in Placer County
by Year
P
o
p
u
l
a
t
i
o Year
n …
Figure 3.8: Projected Future Population
in Placer County
P
P
o r 600,000
p
o
u 400,000
j
l
e 200,000
a
c
t
0 t
i 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
e
o
Year d
n
Source: CA Department of Finance
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
3.4 below, lists the major employers in eastern portion of Placer, Nevada, and El Dorado
Counties.
Table 3.4: Major Employers in North Lake Tahoe/Martis Valley
Employer Name Location Industry
Placer County
Alpine Meadows Alpine Meadows Resorts
Northstar-At-Tahoe Resort Truckee Resorts
Resort At Squaw Creek Alpine Meadows Resorts
Ritz-Carlton-Lake Tahoe Truckee Hotels & Motels
Nevada County
Boreal Mountain Resort Truckee Hotels & Motels
Clear Capital Truckee Real Estate Buyers & Brokers
Lodge At Tahoe Donner Truckee Restaurants
Safeway Truckee Grocers-Retail
Sugar Bowl Ski Area Group Norden Skiing Centers & Resorts
Tahoe Forest Hospital Truckee Hospitals
Village Lodge-Sugar Bowl Truckee Hotels & Motels
El Dorado County
Barton Memorial Hospital South Lake Tahoe Hospitals
Lake Tahoe Community College South Lake Tahoe Schools-Universities & Colleges
Academic
Marriott-Grand Residence Tahoe South Lake Tahoe Hotels & Motels
Marriott-Timber Lodge South Lake Tahoe Hotels & Motels
Safeway South Lake Tahoe Grocers-Retail
Sierra At Tahoe Resort Twin Bridges Skiing Centers & Resorts
South Lake Tahoe City Manager South Lake Tahoe City Government-Executive Offices
Source:http://www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/majorer/countymajorer.asp?CountyCode=000017
The average unemployment rate throughout the State of California in the summer of 2015 was
6.1 percent and in the summer of 2016 was 5.9 percent. Placer, Nevada, and El Dorado
Counties each had lower rates of unemployment (as compared to California) as shown in
Table 3.5 below.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Introduction 3-15
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
Table 3.5: Unemployment Rates as of July 2015
Labor Employment Unem- Unem- Year Ago Year- County
Force ployment ployment Unem- Over- Rank (in
Rate ployment Change CA) by
Rate Rate
Placer 178,900 170,100 8,700 4.90% 6.00% -1.10 11
County
Nevada 48,990 46,460 2,530 5.20% 6.20 -1.00 15
County
El Dorado 89,800 84,900 4,900 5.40% 6.90 -1.50 18
County
Source of data: http://www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/LMID/Geographic_Information_Systems_Maps.html
The data presented in Table 3.5 above remained fairly steady through the summer of 2016
with an unemployment rate of 5.0 percent in Placer County, 5.2 percent in Nevada County,
and 5.5 percent in El Dorado County.
Of Placer County’s 178,900 workers, only 69,544 both live and work in Placer County. 45,042
workers live in neighboring counties such as Sacramento County and Nevada County and drive
into Placer County for Jobs2. 46,855 Placer County residents commute out to neighboring
counties for work. Of Nevada
County’s 48,990 workers, only
29,440 both live and work in
Nevada County. 4,506 of
workers live in surrounding
counties such as Washoe County
in the state of Nevada or in
Placer County to the south, and
they commute into Nevada
County on a regular basis.
11,230 of Nevada County
residents commute to jobs
located in surrounding counties
such as Placer County or
Sacramento County. Of El
Dorado’s 89,800 workers, only
39,709 workers both live and
work in El Dorado County.
8,200 individuals live in
surrounding counties such as
2 Source: http://www.calmis.ca.gov/file/commute-maps/nevadcommute.pdf
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Introduction 3-16
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
Douglas County in Nevada and Sacramento County to the west and commute into jobs located
in El Dorado County (CA EDD, 2015).
Service Demands
The population growth estimates for each district serve as a numerical foundation to estimate
service demand. There are several services considered in this review, and each service uses
different criteria for measuring potential service demand. Projections are made based on the
most likely indicator of ability to provide service. By projecting changes to each of these
criteria over time, plans and infrastructure of each district can be better analyzed by their
ability to accommodate increased demand for services. The following table lists the demand
criteria utilized in this MSR.
Table 3.6: Service Demand Criteria
Service Demand Criteria
Water Number of water connections
Sewer Number of sewer connections
Parks Full-time resident population
Hospital Calls for service/annual patients
Airport Hangar storage space
Cemetery Service requests/full-time resident population
Roadway Services Number and type of roads maintained
Fire/Emergency Services Calls for service
Details regarding service demands for specific districts are provided in Chapters 6 through 18
of this document.
Regional Setting
Although this MSR focuses primarily on Eastern Placer County, several of the districts
encompass portions of El Dorado and/or Nevada Counties. The MSR study area includes three
primary geographic regions: North Lake Tahoe basin, Martis Valley, and the Highway 89
corridor.
The area is well connected by transportation routes, including two state highways:
• Hwy 267 runs north to south and connects Lake Tahoe area near Kings Beach (Hwy 28)
to Interstate 80 and to the northerly portion of Hwy 89.
• Hwy 89 is a north-south thoroughfare on the west side of Lake Tahoe, through Squaw
Valley, intersecting with Interstate 80 and continuing north into Sierra County.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Introduction 3-17
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
I-80 is an interstate highway which connects local area with Sacramento to west
and Reno to east. Additionally, public transit is available via an Amtrak station in Truckee
and via Truckee Transit which operates bus service connecting downtown Truckee with the
Truckee-Tahoe Airport and to recreation areas.
Martis Valley
The Martis Valley encompasses the northeast corner of Placer County, and the southeast
corner of Nevada County, from Highway 89 east to the Nevada state line. The Placer County
portion of the Martis Valley includes approximately 25,000 acres of land (39 square miles).
The major land uses in the area include residential and commercial, airport, forest lands, and
recreation areas. Major recognizable features of the Martis Valley include the Lahontan
community, the Truckee Tahoe Airport, and the Northstar at Tahoe ski resort. Population
growth in the Martis Valley is regulated through the Martis Valley Community Plan, adopted in
December 2003 by Placer County. The 2003 Community Plan updates and supersedes the
former Community Plan which had been approved in 1975. Additionally, private agreements
among four partners (Sierra Watch, Mountain Area Preservation Foundation, East West
Partners, and Northstar Resort) allows transfer of development rights to permanently protect
key areas of open space in the Martis Valley in exchange for a certain level of development on
other parcels.
North Lake Tahoe
The North Lake Tahoe area includes all land adjacent to Lake Tahoe within Placer County.
This includes portions of the northern and western shores of the Lake, stretching from the
Nevada state line on the east to the El Dorado County line on the south. As the largest alpine
lake in North America, Lake Tahoe is known for its crystal clear waters and the seasonal
display on the surrounding high mountains (LTVA, 2014). The Lake’s surface area is split
among four counties (Placer County, El Dorado County, Washoe County, and Douglas County)
and 40.96% of its surface area lies within Placer County, more than in any of the other four
counties (Wikipedia, 2014).
The North Lake Tahoe area is within the area regulated by the Tahoe Regional Planning
Agency (TRPA), with planning and development coordinated with the other shorefront areas
of Lake Tahoe. Development patterns in the area include a variety of urban uses including
residential, commercial, institutional, parks, and public uses. This is the most highly
urbanized portion of the study area. Growth rates in North Lake Tahoe are monitored by
TRPA, which aims to promote preservation of character in the area and to help preserve
water quality in Lake Tahoe.
Highway 89 Corridor
The Highway 89 Corridor includes lands on both sides of Highway 89, running from the Placer
County line on the north to Tahoe City on the south. Land uses along Highway 89 are
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Introduction 3-18
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
primarily residential, along with small scale commercial and two ski resorts (Squaw Valley and
Alpine Meadows).
In summary, the Martis Valley, North Lake Tahoe, and Highway 89 corridors serve as home to
a full-time resident population of approximately 13,000 people, with the areas immediately
surrounding Lake Tahoe accounting for approximately 60 percent of the population. The Lake
Tahoe region experiences significant seasonal influx of visitors seeking recreational
opportunities. Visitor populations can place additional burdens on service providers and
create wide variations in peak demands for particular services. While visitors are present at
most times of the year, it is in the winter months of December to March (ski season) that the
greatest number visits the region.
Plans, Policies, Studies
The study area for this MSR lies within Placer County, El Dorado County, and Nevada County.
Each County has primary authority over local land-use and development policies within its
jurisdiction and these local planning policies and zoning affect the rate and amount of
potential future development and population growth. A general summary of key planning and
policy documents is provided in the sections below.
Placer County
Placer County planning documents fall into four major categories:
• 1994 General Plan
• Community Plans
• Design Guidelines, Ordinances and Guidelines
• Proposed Updates
The North Tahoe area of Placer County is administered under the 1994 Placer County General
Plan and Zoning Ordinance. A map of the overall 1994 General Plan is available on the County
website: http://www.placer.ca.gov/~/media/cdr/Admin/GIS/PCGPMap1994.pdf. In the
Tahoe region, the 1994 General Plan is comprised of twelve (12) Community Plans as listed in
the following table:
Table 3.7: List of Placer County Community Plans
Alpine Meadows General Plan
Carnelian Bay Community Plan
Kings Beach Community Plan and Industrial Plan
Martis Valley Community Plan
North Stateline Community Plan
North Tahoe Area General Plan
Squaw Valley Area General Plan (Part 1 and Part 2 ) *
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Introduction 3-19
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
Tahoe Basin Community Plan Update (in process)
Tahoe City Area General Plan (Part 1 , Part 2 , and Part 3 )
Tahoe City Community Plan (Part 1 and Part 2 )
Tahoe Vista Community Plan
West Shore Area General Plan (Part 1 , Part 2 , Part 3 , Part 4 , Part 5 , Part 6 )
*Not included in the Tahoe Basin Plan Update
In most cases the General Plan land-use designation in each of the above community plans is
consistent with zoning. In addition to these existing plans, several plan updates are proposed
for the Tahoe region. Community input into the County planning process is facilitated by two
advisory councils in the region including:
• North Tahoe Municipal Advisory Council
• Squaw Valley Municipal Advisory Council
In the Tahoe
ZONING IN EASTERN PLACER COUNTY
Basin, Placer
County closely
coordinates
with the Tahoe
Regional
Planning Agency
(TRPA) and
many of the
Community
Plans are jointly
adopted by
both agencies,
consistent with their Memorandum of Understanding. TRPA was established in 1969 and its
purpose is to protect water quality and other natural features associated with Lake Tahoe.
The bi-state compact between California and Nevada which established TRPA was ratified by
the U.S. Congress. TRPA coordinates regional planning efforts, reviews development and
redevelopment, provides regulatory enforcement, and facilitates and manages environmental
restoration projects. TRPA’s Regional Plan Update, approved in 2012, allows local
governments some flexibility in how goals are met through the adoption of Area Plans. Details
about TRPA and its policies can be found at this website: http://www.trpa.org/about-trpa/.
Please note that TRPA and Placer County have a MOU that requires coordinated planning
among both agencies. Updates to the County General Plan (and Community Plans) are
currently proposed in the North Tahoe region as listed in Table 3.8 below.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Introduction 3-20
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
Table 3.8: Proposed Updates to General Plan in North Tahoe Region
Name of Plan Update Website that contains the details
Martis Valley West Parcel https://www.placer.ca.gov/departments/comm
Specific Plan unitydevelopment/envcoordsvcs/eir/martisvalle
ywestparcel
Tahoe Basin Community Plan https://www.placer.ca.gov/departments/comm
Update unitydevelopment/planning/tahoebasinareaplan
The proposed Tahoe Basin Community Plan update is being led by Placer County in
coordination with the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency. The proposed Plan update has several
sub-sections including:
• Greater Tahoe City Area
• North Tahoe East Plan Area
• North Tahoe West Plan Area
• West Shore Plan Area
The geographic extent of this Plan is shown in Figure 3.4, TRPA Area Plan Boundaries. Please
note that the Squaw Valley and the Alpine Meadows Community Plans are NOT included in the
Tahoe Basin Plan Update. In addition to the above plans, Placer County also has a Well
Construction Ordinance which regulates the construction of water wells throughout the
County.
El Dorado County
The General Plan for El Dorado County was developed in 1996 and was subsequently
suspended in 1999 by a court order (“Writ of Mandate”) from the Sacramento Superior Court
on CEQA grounds. The General Plan was updated and newly adopted on July 19, 2004 by the
Board of Supervisors and ratified by public referendum in March 2005. In 2006, El Dorado
County entered into a legal settlement agreement with a plaintiff group, allowing full
implementation of the 2004 General Plan.
GOAL 2.10 of the 2004 County General Plan applies to the Lake Tahoe Basin and aims “To
coordinate the County’s land use planning efforts in the Tahoe Basin with those of the Tahoe
Regional Planning Agency”. The Plan has five policies related to this goal including the
following:
• The County shall apply the standards of the Regional Plan for the Tahoe Basin and the
Code of Ordinances and other land use regulations adopted by Tahoe Regional Planning
Agency in acting on applications for proposed land uses in the Tahoe Basin (Policy
2.10.1.1).
• The County shall work with the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) and other
appropriate state and federal agencies to identify lands capable of supporting
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Introduction 3-21
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
affordable housing development without jeopardizing attainment of the Environmental
Thresholds identified by TRPA (Policy 2.10.1.2).
• The County shall work with the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency to identify and
prioritize the completion of additional Community Plans within the County’s
jurisdictional area of the Tahoe Basin (Policy 2.10.1.3).
• The County shall cooperate with TRPA in the implementation of actions recommended
in TRPA’s periodic threshold evaluation reports (Policy 2.10.1.4).
• The County may impose more stringent regulations where TRPA does not limit the
County’s authority to do so (Policy 2.10.1.5).
In addition to the above policies, the 2004 General Plan also contains several implementation
measures.
El Dorado County shares responsibility for land use regulation within the Lake Tahoe region
with the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA). In TRPA’s 2012 Regional Plan Update, it
emphasizes Plan implementation through area plans prepared by the Counties, instead of the
direct review by TRPA of most development permits. El Dorado County and TRPA are
considering potential adoption of the Updated Meyers Community Plan; however this Plan is
not within this MSR study area. It is likely that within the next several years, El Dorado
County will complete an area plan for the remaining portion of the County that is within the
Tahoe Basin.
Nevada County
The eastern portion of Nevada County encompasses the Town of Truckee, Soda Springs,
Donner Lake, Martis Valley, and Juniper Mountain in whole or part. The Nevada County
General Plan is the long-term policy guide for the physical, economic and environmental
future of the County. It is comprised of goals, objectives, policies, and implementation
measures, which are based upon assessments of current and future needs and available
resources. The Nevada County General Plan was adopted in 1996 and amended in 2008 (Safety
Element) and 2010 (Circulation/Housing Element). The 2014-2019 Housing Element was
adopted on June 24, 2014. In addition, the Safety and Noise Elements were also updated in
2014. Despite these updates, several of the County’s General Plan elements which are
pertinent to the provision of public services are over 20-years old, including the water, air
quality, open space, and recreation elements.
Town of Truckee
The Town of Truckee was incorporated in 1993 and adopted its first general plan in 1996. In
November of 2006 the Town adopted a new plan called “Town of Truckee 2025 General Plan”
The Plan’s Housing Element was updated in January 2015. Nevada LAFCO oversees the
Town’s boundaries and sphere of influence. The Towns “Planning Area Boundary” extends
over eight miles into Placer County but excludes the Lake Tahoe basin that forms TRPA’s
boundaries. Several districts studied in this MSR serve areas within the Town of Truckee
including the Tahoe Forest Hospital District and the Truckee Tahoe Airport District. The
Town’s General Plan is available on-line at:
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Introduction 3-22
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
http://www.townoftruckee.com/departments/planning-division/plans-and-regulations.
Truckee River Operating Agreement
The Truckee River Operating Agreement (2008) (TROA), is a regional planning effort which
regulates, and monitors water rights within the Tahoe Region, the Truckee River Watershed,
Pyramid Lake and the Carson River. Improvement of the operational flexibility of Truckee
River reservoirs is an aim of the Agreement. TROA caps water rights in the Tahoe Region at
34,000 acre-feet annually for surface water and groundwater. Within the 34,000 acre feet,
23,000 acre-feet per year are allocated for use in California and 11,000 acre-feet per year in
Nevada.
Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA)
The Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) is a bi-state (California and Nevada) regional
environmental planning agency that is focused on restoring Lake Tahoe and supporting
existing communities near the Lake in a sustainable fashion. TRPA’s 2012 Lake Tahoe
Regional Plan contains new policies that pair land-use regulations with incentives for property
owners to increase ecosystem restoration. Environmental redevelopment of outdated
properties is encouraged in conjunction with restoration of Lake Tahoe’s environment.
Priorities of the 2012 Regional Plan include:
1. Accelerate water quality restoration
2. Help create walkable communities with alternative transportation options
3. Streamline the permitting process and integrate Area Plans with the Regional Plan
As part of TRPA’s 2012 update to the Regional Plan, “Area Plans” have been or will be
prepared in conjunction with each affected County. The geographic extent of the Area Plans
(preliminary) is shown in Figure 3.4, TRPA Area Plan Boundaries. This new system of regional
and area plans will reduce the layers of overlapping permit requirements. As part of the
process, TRPA will review and approve the area plans for conformance with its Regional Plan.
Development within each area will be reviewed annually to ensure it meets the adopted
standards. Large-scale projects and permitting in sensitive areas would need a permit directly
from TRPA.
Transportation and Sustainability Plans
Two laws (SB 375 and SB 215), passed by the CA legislature in recent years, establish a
relationship between LAFCo and regional transportation plans, including Sustainable
Community Strategies.
Senate Bill (SB) 375 (Steinberg) also known as the Sustainable Communities and Climate
Protection Act of 2008, focuses on coordinating regional planning to manage growth and land
use in a way that will reduce vehicle trips and carbon emissions. New requirements resulting
from SB 375 include directives to CARB on Regional GHG Targets, developing Sustainable
Communities Strategies, Scoping Plans, Regional Housing Needs Assessments, CEQA
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Introduction 3-23
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
streamlining, and transit priority projects. SB 375 provides that Sustainable Communities
Strategies do not regulate local land use land, and further provides that local land use plans
and policies (e.g., general plan) are not required to be consistent with either the Regional
Transportation Plan or Sustainable Communities Strategies. Rather, the strategies form a
basis for determining eligibility of transportation or residential infill projects for CEQA
streamlining incentives that cities or counties may choose to offer under SB 375. SB 375 also
requires that metropolitan planning organizations in California consider the spheres of
influence that have been adopted by the LAFCOs within its region [GC § 65080(b)(2)(F)].
Senate Bill (SB) 215 (Wiggins), acknowledges that when preparing to make boundary
decisions, LAFCOs must consider 15 specified factors, such population density, regional
housing needs, local general plans, and environmental justice. Furthermore, LAFCOs are
encouraged, but are not required, to consider regional goals and policies. By controlling the
boundaries of local governments, LAFCOs can influence the time, location, and character of
land development. SB 215 adds regional transportation plans to the list of factors that LAFCo
must consider before making boundary decisions. SB 215 was chaptered as GC § 56668 in the
year 2009.
Within the study area of this MSR, regional transportation planning is divided into two
geographical areas:
1. The Lake Tahoe Basin is under the jurisdiction of TRPA and the Tahoe Metropolitan
Planning Organization (TMPO).
2. The outlying areas such as Martis Valley, the Hwy corridors and Donner Summit rely
upon Placer County for their transportation planning.
In the Lake Tahoe Basin, three integrated regional transportation planning authorities are
active including:
1) Tahoe Regional Planning Compact (PL 96-551) planning requirements, carried out by
the TRPA3;
2) Regional Transportation Planning Agency (RTPA) for the California portion of the Lake
Tahoe Basin, and
3) The Metropolitan Planning Organization for the Tahoe Region (TMPO), as designated by
federal law.
Additionally, the Tahoe Transportation District4, the Tahoe Transportation Commission5 and
Tahoe Area Regional Transit (TART)6 each provide transportation planning and/or services in
the north Lake Tahoe area.
3 http://www.trpa.org/
4 http://www.tahoetransportation.org/
55 http://tahoempo.org/ttc.aspx?SelectedIndex=7
6 http://www.placer.ca.gov/Departments/Works/Transit/TART.aspx
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Introduction 3-24
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
TART provides comprehensive bus service on established routes along Highways 89 and 267
and serves both geographic study areas including north and east Lake Tahoe and the outlying
areas of Martis Valley, the Hwy 89 and 267 corridors and Donner Summit.
In the northern portion of the study area (Martis Valley, the Hwy 89 and 267 corridors and
Donner Summit) the Placer County Transportation Planning Agency7 provides the regional
transportation planning services.
For the Lake Tahoe Basin, the Regional Transportation Plan is the transportation element of
TRPA’s Lake Tahoe Regional Plan, approved in December 2012. Also as required by SB 375,
TRPA developed the Sustainable Communities Strategy8 in December 2012. The Strategy
emphasizes planning for walkable town centers, forecasting the distribution of development,
providing a transportation system to meet forecast demand, and protecting natural resources.
The Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), including the Sustainable Communities Strategy, is
proposed to be updated again in 2016.
Since this MSR does not include any proposed adjustments to a sphere of influence, the
provisions of SB 215 are not applicable at this time. LAFCo and associated districts and
agencies are aware of the coordination prescribed by SB 375 and SB 215. Additionally, the
sponsors of the update to the Lake Tahoe Basin Regional Transportation Plan may wish to
consider the SOI for the districts described in this MSR, consistent with the provisions of SB
375 and SB 215.
District/Agency Plans
Individual service providers may have their own individual plans that may be adopted by their
elected Board of Directors. These plans may include Urban Water Management Plans,
Strategic Plans, Capital Improvement Plans, and others.
Summary of Growth and Population
This section described general background data on existing and projected population levels to
support the determinations that the Commission will make when approving this MSR. This
information on population and growth relates to the demand for future services and
infrastructure that local agencies provide. In addition to the information provided in this
Chapter, additional details on population and housing are provided for each specific district
analyzed in Chapters 6 to 18.
7 See http://pctpa.net/ and http://www.placer.ca.gov/bos/committees-and-commissions/placer-county-transportation-
planning-agency
8 The Sustainable Community Strategy is available on-line at:
http://www.tahoempo.org/rtp_final/TAHOE%20RTP%2003%20Sust%20Commtys%20Strategy.pdf
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Introduction 3-25
Figure 3-4: Planning Areas by TRPA
North Lake Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
The Lake Tahoe and Martis Valley area is geographically separated from the western county
by the Sierra Nevada Mountains. This geographic distance has facilitated the evolution of a
unique set of historical, political, demographic, and institutional differences as compared to
the western County. One of those differences is that tourism and visitation (including
vacation home owners) play a substantial role in the demand for services from local agencies.
Additionally, the region is sensitive to seasonal variations in temperature and precipitation
with cold snowy winters supporting an economically important commercial ski industry. The
region is also sensitive to the water quality of Lake Tahoe which supports an economically
important summer resort and recreation visitor serving industry. The institutional differences
in the eastern County includes the greater role of independent districts in providing public
services. In this region, since there are no cities, the local independent district is the local
“government” that most residents relate to directly. Placer County does, however, actively
engage in land-use issues, public road improvements and maintenance, and many other
County activities.
Because of these differences, traditional indicators of economic growth such as new housing
starts, commercial square footage, and building permit counts may not be the best way to
measure or predict the demand for future public services. Instead, favorable weather
conditions, access to Reno and Truckee airports and train stations, and the economic
situation of the SF Bay area may be factors that promote visitation to Lake Tahoe and
therefore increase demand for public services. Before LAFCO prepares the next MSR for this
region in five years (i.e. 2021), it is recommended that the Commission consider which
indicators or metrics it wishes to use to assess existing and future growth for this unique
region.
3.6 DISADVANTAGED UNINCORPORATED
COMMUNITIES
Overview of Regulations and Policies for Disadvantaged
Unincorporated Communities
SB 244, which became effective in January 2012, requires LAFCo to consider the presence of
any Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities (DUCs) when preparing a MSR that addresses
agencies that provide water, wastewater or structural fire protection services. By definition,
a DUC consists of at least 10 dwelling units in a fringe, island, or legacy community with a
median household income of 80 percent or less of the statewide median household income
(MHI). This state legislation is intended to ensure that the needs of these unincorporated
communities are met when considering service extensions and/or annexations, in particular,
water, wastewater, drainage and structural fire protection services.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Introduction 3-27
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
The Wolk Bill created several definitions, in both LAFCo and planning law, including9:
1. “Community” is an inhabited area within a city or county that is comprised of no less
than 10 dwellings adjacent to or in close proximity to one another;
2. “Unincorporated fringe community” is any inhabited and unincorporated territory that
is within a city’s SOI;
3. “Unincorporated island community” is any inhabited and unincorporated territory that
is surrounded or substantially surrounded by one or more cities or by one or more
cities and a county boundary or the Pacific Ocean;
4. “Unincorporated legacy community” as a geographically isolated community that is
inhabited and has existed for at least 50 years; and
5. “Disadvantaged unincorporated community” is inhabited territory of 12 or more
registered voters that constitutes all or a portion of a community with an annual MHI
that is less than 80 percent of the statewide annual MHI.
Since the entire North Lake Tahoe and Martis Valley area is unincorporated (with the
exception of Truckee) there are no unincorporated fringe communities or unincorporated
island communities in the region. All the communities studied in this MSR are connected by
state highways and although they are rural, they are not necessarily “geographically
isolated”. However, there are small sub-areas in which residents with incomes that are less
than 80% of the statewide annual MHI reside and these can be considered as “disadvantaged
unincorporated communities” (#5).
The California Department of Water Resources (DWR) has developed a mapping tool to easily
determine the location of disadvantaged communities (DACs)10. DACs are slightly different
from DUCs. DACs are identified using the definition provided in DWR's Proposition 84 and 1E
IRWM Guidelines, dated August, 2010. The maps and geographic information system files are
derived from the US Census Bureau's American Community Survey and are compiled for the
five-year period 2006-2010. DWR has included in the maps a calculated field which indicates
the DAC status for different census geographies (Place 11, Tract, and Block Group). Since both
DACs and DUCs are determined using a threshold MHI of less than $48,706 (80 percent of the
Statewide MHI), the DWR mapping tool is helpful to LAFCo and other agencies. Within the MSR
study area, the communities of Soda Springs, Kings Beach, Carnelian Bay, and neighborhoods
within Tahoe City are recognized by the Department of Water Resources as DACs.
9 State of California, Senate Bill 244 (Wolk Bill) (October 7, 2011).
10 Details available on Department of Water Resources IRWM Grant Program, Disadvantaged Communities (DAC)
Mapping Tool. www.water.ca.gov/irwm/grants/resourceslinks.cfm.
11 The U.S. Census Bureau identifies “census designated place” as the statistical counterpart of a city in that it is a named place
with a concentration of residents, housing, and commercial activity, but is located in a county’s unincorporated territory.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Introduction 3-28
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
To address DUCs at the local level, the Wolk legislation requires cities and counties to review
and update the land use elements of their general plans to map and analyze the service needs
of DUCs within or adjacent to their SOIs. Nevada County, updated the land use element of
their general plans in 2014, in accordance with the Wolk legislation. When Placer County
updated its General Plan in May 2013, the Land Use Element considered disadvantaged
unincorporated communities using a specialized methodology that was different from that
utilized in this MSR. The County’s methodology applied a parcel density analysis where areas
with a density of at least 250 parcels per square mile were identified. The density areas were
analyzed to locate sub-areas with a median household income less than 80 percent of the
median household income of the state (2000 Census data). Census block groups with a
median income of less than $37,994 were included in the County’s analysis. Using this
specialized methodology, the County determined that there are no legacy communities within
Placer County (Placer County, 2013). As explained herein, this MSR utilizes a different
methodology and utilized the 2010 census in combination with other data to identify DUCs
located within the boundary area of eight districts including Donner Summit PUD, McKinney
Water District, North Tahoe Fire Protection District, North Tahoe Public Utility District, Tahoe
City Public Utility District, Tahoe Forest Hospital District, Tahoe-Truckee Sanitation Agency,
and the Truckee Tahoe Airport District as detailed in the following pages.
LAFCo DUC Policies
With the implementation of SB 244 in 2012, the CKH Act now requires municipal service
reviews to include written determinations with respect to the location and characteristics of
any DUC within or contiguous to a City’s SOI, and the present and planned capacity of public
facilities, adequacy of public services, including water, sewer, and structural fire protection,
within these DUCs. Placer LAFCO does not have specific policies related to the defining
characteristics of DUCs.
Socio-Economic Analysis
A closer examination of socio-economic factors in the North Lake Tahoe Region is provided in
this section focusing on three factors: self-sufficiency, housing, and poverty.
Self-Sufficiency Standard
The Self-Sufficiency Standard is a commonly used assessment based on the amount of income
it takes to meet basic needs, without public or private assistance. It is based on all major
budget items faced by a working family: housing, child care, food, health care,
transportation, taxes, etc. and allows for work-related expenses such as transportation,
taxes, and when there are young children, childcare. The Self-Sufficiency Standard varies
geographically and is calculated on a county-by-county basis. The resulting Standards are
basic needs budgets that are minimally adequate. Data on most recently completed Standard
for each state and for every county in California is available on this website:
http://www.selfsufficiencystandard .org/pubs.html. This data shows that in Placer County a
three-person family consisting of 2 adults and 1 school-aged child would need an income of
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Introduction 3-29
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
$54,441 annually to be considered self-sufficient. This number takes the following costs into
consideration: housing, child care, food, transportation, health care, miscellaneous, and
taxes.
Housing
The following data is applicable only to the unincorporated areas of Placer County in the
North Lake Tahoe Region. The data is not applicable to those portions of Nevada County or El
Dorado County that were studied in this MSR. In the North Lake Tahoe Region of Placer
County, the total number of housing units is estimated to be 12,000 dwellings. Most of these
dwelling units (8,115) are vacation homes that are vacant for most of the year. The total
number of occupied housing units is 3,885 units. Most of the housing units (9,107) are single
family detached units. 1,109 of the units are in a triplex or quadplex. 734 of the units are in
a multi-plex structure consisting of five to twenty attached units. Details are shown in Figure
3.5, below.
Figure 3.5 Housing Types, # Units in
Structure
20 or more units
1%
10 to 19 units
5 to 9 units 1%
Mobile home
4%
3%
3 or 4 units
9%
2 units
4%
1-unit, attached
2%
1-unit,
detached
76%
Source: http://factfinder.census.gov for Lake Tahoe CCD, Placer County, California
37% of the dwelling units in the region were constructed in the years 1970 to 1979. 40% of
the dwellings have three bedrooms. 29% are larger with 4-5 bedrooms. 28% are smaller with
two or fewer bedrooms.
Home prices in the region have risen slightly since the great recession and 40% of the homes
have an estimated value of ranging from $500,000 to $999,999. 10% of the homes are more
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Introduction 3-30
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
expensive with property values exceeding $1million. 50% are less expensive with value
ranging from less than $50,000 to $499,999.
Of the 3,885 permanently occupied housing units, 57.5% ( 2,232) are owner-occupied. The
remaining 1,653 units are permanently occupied by renters. Of the 2,232 permanent owner
occupied units, 1,512 of the units have a mortgage. The remaining owner occupied units
(32%) do not have a mortgage.
Families that spend more than 30 percent of their income on housing (rent/mortgage) are
considered to be burdened by high housing costs. The Census Bureau, American Community
Survey, provides annual estimates of the percentage of families paying a high percentage of
their income on rent or mortgage payments. Their database at:
http://factfinder2.census.gov was queried for the north Lake Tahoe region and the results
for the year 2013 are shown in Figure 3.6 below.
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
As shown in the above graph, of the permanent residents, 55% of renter households and 61%
of mortgage paying households have housing costs that exceed 30% of their income and are
therefore considered financially burdened by housing costs. The determination that a
household which spends 30% or more of income on housing is financially burdened is based
upon a historical practices of the federal HUD and practices of private mortgage lenders (US
Census Bureau, 2008). When analyzing national trends, Schwartz and Wilson found that
California has the highest percentage of mortgaged homeowners with housing cost burden, as
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Introduction 3-31
sdlohesuoH
fo
#
Figure 3.6: GROSS
RENT/MORTGAGE AS A
PERCENTAGE OF HOUSEHOLD
INCOME
Renters
Mortgage holders
Percentage of Household Income Paid in north Lake Tahoe,
2013
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
compared to other
states. Younger (under
25) householders and
older householders (over
65) have a higher share
of housing-cost burden
than other age groups
(US Census Bureau,
2008).
Poverty
By considering data on
financial hardship, such
as food stamp usage
rates and poverty (in
this case by zip code)
one can gain a greater understanding of where there may be opportunities for community
investments and services. Table 3.9 below contains data from the American Community
Survey on food stamp usage and poverty rates for each of the zip code areas located within
the study area for this MSR. The food stamp program is now called Supplemental Nutrition
Assistance Program (SNAP). The 5th column of the table displays information about population
poverty status. Poverty status is determined for each household using federal thresholds
established annually by the Census Bureau in accordance with the Federal Office of
Management and Budget. Poverty thresholds vary by family size and composition. It should
be noted that the margin of error for the data presented in the table below from the
American Community Survey is quite high and ranges from 1.65 to 57.14 percent (U.S. Census
Bureau, 2013).
Table 3.9: Analysis of Financial Hardship by Zip Code
Zip codes Community Total # Percent of Total Percent of
Households Households Permanent Total
in Zip Code Receiving Population Population
Food in Poverty
Stamps
95728 Soda Springs 262 0 495 0
96140 Carnelian Bay 484 0 1,116 4.48
96141 Homewood 367 0.82 759 2.64
96142 Tahoma 283 9.19 666 15.02
96145 Tahoe City 1,262 3.49 2,975 7.8
96146 Olympic Valley 318 0 853 10.32
96148 Tahoe Vista near 264 782 5.63
3.79
Hwy 267
96160 Truckee (near data not available
Airport)
96161 Truckee 7,087 4.67 18,104 9.39
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Introduction 3-32
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
96162 Nordon data not available
95604 Neighborhood 21 0 44 0
between Tahoe Vista
and Carnelian Bay
95724 Sugar Bowl data not available
Data source: http://maps.communitycommons.org/viewer/
The highest rate of poverty and food stamp usage is in the unincorporated area of Tahoma,
which has a poverty rate of 15 percent, as shown in Table 3.9, above. Interestingly, the
federal data shown in the above table indicates that the community of Soda Springs has zero
percent food stamp usage and poverty; however state data described elsewhere in this MSR
indicates Soda Springs can be classified as an unincorporated disadvantaged community.
Based on the above data, Placer LAFCO may wish to encourage investments and efficiencies in
public services in the communities of Tahoe City, Olympic Valley, Tahoe Vista, and Tahoma.
Tahoma is partially in El Dorado County and El Dorado LAFCO may wish to encourage
investments in this community. Similarly, Nevada LAFCo may wish to encourage investments
in Truckee and Soda Springs. Grants that are available for disadvantaged unincorporated
communities are described in the next paragraph. It is important to note that in eastern
Placer County, DUC’s tend to be spatially distributed as small geographic pockets. Each of
the communities described in this MSR as a DUC has adequate fire protection, water, and
wastewater services.
Grants for Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities
Cap and Trade Funds: AB 32 (Global Warming Solutions Act of 1996) requires the reduction
of greenhouse gas emissions back down to 1990 levels by 2020 within California. AB 32
required the California Air Resources Board to administer this program. Facilities subject to
the cap must obtain permits (called allowances) to emit these GHG. These allowances are
auctioned by the state, and businesses can then sell or trade them. California’s cap-and-trade
program was launched in November 2012 and has generated hundreds of millions of dollars in
revenue. SB 535, signed into law in September 2012, requires that 25 percent of the cap-and-
trade funds go to projects that will benefit disadvantaged areas and that at least 10 percent
must be allocated to projects actually located in disadvantaged communities. The law defines
“disadvantaged communities” as those that are disproportionately affected by pollution and
suffering from high concentrations of unemployment, low levels of homeownership, high rent
burden, and low levels of educational attainment. Based on this methodology it appears that
DUCs in Placer County do not qualify for cap and trade funds; however, the California Air
Resources Board has maps for evaluating benefits to disadvantaged communities and has
additional information about potential funding opportunities. See their website at:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/capandtrade/auctionproceeds/535investments.htm for more
information.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Introduction 3-33
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
Safe Drinking Water State Revolving Fund: The California Department of Public Health
administers the Safe Drinking Water State Revolving Fund which provides low interest loans to
fund water infrastructure projects and public water system planning. Disadvantaged
communities that are unable to afford loans for water systems may be eligible for these
grants. Projects that solve public health and significant compliance issues are emphasized by
the grant funders.
State Water Resources Control Board Revolving Fund Program: The U.S. Clean Water Act
(amended in 1987) established the Clean Water State Revolving Fund program. Through this
program, low interest financing agreements for water quality projects may be provided to
state and local governments. $200 and $300 million is offered to eligible projects each year
across the country.
Proposition 1, Water Quality, Supply, and Infrastructure: This water bond measure was
approved by California voters on November 4, 2014. Proposition 1, known as the Water
Quality, Supply, and Infrastructure Improvement Act of 2014 authorized $1.4 billion for
water-quality projects, as part of Integrated Regional Water Management Implementation and
Planning efforts in each hydrologic region of the State. The $1.4 billion in funding includes
$260 million for drinking water in disadvantaged communities.
Community Development Block Grant Funds: This program began in 1974, and is
administered by the federal Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The Community
Development Block Grant Funds program provides annual grants on a formula basis to allow
communities address a wide range of unique community development needs. In Placer County
the Community Development Resource Agency administers the CDBGF program.
Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund: California’s Greenhouse Gas Reduction Grant and Loan
Program contributes towards capital investments in recycling manufacturing facilities and
composting/digestion infrastructure. CalRecycle adminsters this program whose aim is to
reduced greenhouse gas emissions and to realize economic benefits in disadvantaged
communities. Ideally, material can be diverted from landfills and utilized to produce
beneficial products such as compost or bio-digesters. Grants may also be used to expand
infrastructure for manufacturing products with recycled content fiber, plastic, or glass.
Details are available on the CalRecycle website at:
http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/Climate/GrantsLoans/.
Districts with DUC’s
Eight of the thirteen service providers analyzed in this MSR serve unincorporated
disadvantaged communities including Donner Summit PUD, McKinney Water District, North
Tahoe Fire Protection District, North Tahoe Public Utility District, Tahoe City Public Utility
District, Tahoe Forest Hospital District, Tahoe-Truckee Sanitation Agency, and the Truckee
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Introduction 3-34
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
Tahoe Airport District. Details regarding DUCs within these districts are provided in the
paragraphs below.
DONNER SUMMIT PUD
The Donner Summit PUD boundaries, its SOI, and adjacent areas all contain DUC’s. The
median household income (MHI) for the 95728 zip code is $42,57412 , which is lower than 80
percent of the statewide MHI. Additionally, the Department of Water Resources DAC
Mapping Tool is shows that the Soda Springs area meets the definition of a DAC (and DUC). It
should be noted that the portion of the PUD’s boundaries that lies within Nevada County
seems to contain most of the DUC area. The residences and business that are within the
District’s boundaries do receive adequate water, wastewater, and fire protection
services as detailed in this MSR. Please see Chapter 7 for details on this District.
MCKINNEY WATER DISTRICT
A small portion of McKinney Water District‘s service area that lies in El Dorado County has
been identified by the CA Department of Water Resources as a Disadvantaged Unincorporated
Community13. This identification was made based upon data from the US Census ACS 2009-
2013 showing census tracts identified as disadvantaged communities (less than 80% of the
State's median household income) or severely disadvantaged communities (less than 60% of
the State's median household income) (DWR, 2015). Please see Chapter 8 for details on
this District.
NORTH TAHOE FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT
Within the North Tahoe Fire Protection District, Kings Beach and neighborhoods within Tahoe
City are classified as DUCs (CDWR, 2014). There is some data that suggests that Carnelian Bay
could potentially be a DUC; however additional research would be needed before making a
final determination. As described in this MSR, the communities do receive water, wastewater,
and fire protection services. No public health and safety issues have been identified. Please
see Chapter 9 for details on this District.
NORTH TAHOE PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT
Within the North Tahoe Public Utility District, Kings Beach is classified as a DUC (CDWR,
2014). As described in this MSR, the community does receive water, wastewater, and fire
protection services. No public health and safety issues have been identified. Please see
Chapter 10 for details on this District.
12 2010 census data via American Fact Finder website at:
<http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=CF>.
13 DUC’s are mapped at: https://gis.water.ca.gov/app/boundaries/
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Introduction 3-35
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
TAHOE CITY PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT
The Tahoe City Public Utility District serves portions of both Placer County and El Dorado
County. Within its Placer County service area, there are no identified DUCs (CDWR, 2014).
Within its El Dorado County service area (i.e. the southern portion of Tahoma and the Meek’s
Bay area), DWR does classify this area as a “Disadvantaged Community Tract” meaning it
meets the DUC criteria (CDWR, 2015). As described in this MSR, the communities do receive
water, wastewater, and fire protection services. No public health and safety issues have
been identified. Please see Chapter 14 for details on this District.
TAHOE FOREST HOSPITAL DISTRICT
Within the boundaries of the Tahoe Forest Hospital District (TFHD) the communities of Kings
Beach, some neighborhoods within Tahoe City and Soda Springs meet the State’s standard for
DUCs (i.e. income is less than 80 percent of the state median family income) (DWR, 2016).
This MSR describes how the core services (water, sewer, and structural fire protection
services) are adequately provided to disadvantaged communities within eastern Placer
County. TFHD is not responsible for assuring that these services are adequately provided to
disadvantaged communities. No health and safety issues have been identified within the
DUCs. The hospital services that TFHD provides are available to those that reside and work
within the DUCs. Please see Chapter 15 for details on this District.
TAHOE-TRUCKEE SANITATION AGENCY
Within the Tahoe-Truckee Sanitation Agency’s service area (North Tahoe PUD and Tahoe City
PUD), Kings Beach and some neighborhoods within Tahoe City meet the states standard for
DUCs of 80 percent of the state median family income. Additionally, limited data indicates
that Carnelian Bay could potentially meet DUC criteria; however additional research would be
needed prior to making a final determination. As described in this MSR, the communities do
receive water, wastewater, and fire protection services. Please see Chapter 16 for details
on this District.
TRUCKEE TAHOE AIRPORT DISTRICT
Within the boundaries of the Truckee Tahoe Airport District (TTAD), Kings Beach,some
neighborhoods within Tahoe City, and Soda Springs meet the states standard for DUCs of less
than 80 percent of the state median family income. Additionally, limited data indicates that
Carnelian Bay could potentially meet DUC criteria; however additional research would be
needed prior to making a final determination. This MSR describes how the core services
water, sewer, and structural fire protection services are adequately provided to
disadvantaged communities within eastern Placer County. TTAD is not responsible for assuring
that these services are adequately provided to disadvantaged communities. TTAD is
reviewing the feasibility of providing EMS Heliports in the Kings Beach Tahoe Vista area which
will provide additional services to DUCs. The District currently has an education partnership
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Introduction 3-36
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
with the Boys and Girls Club in Kings Beach to provide education programs centered on
Aviation STEM initiatives. Please see Chapter 18 for details on this District.
3.7 REFERENCES
Beebe, Craig and Wheeler, Stephen M. 2012. Gold Country: The Politics Of Landscape In
Exurban El Dorado County, California. Journal of Political Ecology Vol.19. 16-pages.
Available on-line at: <http://jpe.library.arizona.edu/volume_19/beebe.pdf>.
Accessed October 3, 2015.
California Special Districts Association, Proposition 218 Guide for Special Districts, 2013.
California, State of. Department of Finance. E-4 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties,
and the State, 2011-2014, with 2010 Census Benchmark. Sacramento: California, State
of., May 2014. Excel spreadsheet distributed via website. December 2014.
<www.dof.ca.gov/research/demographic/reports/estimates/e-4/2011-20>.
California, State of. Department of Water Resources (DWR) IRWM Grant Program,
Disadvantaged Communities (DAC) Mapping Tool.
<www.water.ca.gov/irwm/grants/resourceslinks.cfm>.
California, State of. Senate Bill 244 (Wolk Bill), October 7, 2011.
County of El Dorado Community Development Agency Long Range Planning Division. June
2014. 2013 General Plan Annual Progress Report Strategic Planning For Our Future.
78-pages. Available on-line at: <file:///C:/Users/Kateri/Downloads/
2013%20General%20Plan%20Annual%20Progress%20Report%20Final%206-24-14.pdf>.
County of Nevada. General Plan Land Use Element, adopted January 28, 2014.
County of Placer. August 16, 1994. Placer County General Plan Update, Countywide General
Plan Policy Document. Prepared by Crawford, Multari & Starr, et. al. Available on-
line at: <http://www.placer.ca.gov/departments/communitydevelopment/
planning/documentlibrary/commplans>. Accessed October 15, 2015.
Department of Water Resources. IRWM Grant Program, Disadvantaged Communities (DAC)
Mapping Tool. Available on-line at: <www.water.ca.gov/irwm/grants/
resourceslinks.cfm>.
Northstar Community Services District, Placer County Water Agency, and Truckee Donner
Public Utility District. April 2013. Martis Valley Groundwater Management Plan.
Authored by Brown and Caldwell and Balance Hydrologics, Inc. 193-pages. Available
on-line at: <https://www.pcwa.net/files/docs/enviro/MartisValleyGMPFinal
07.22.2013.pdf>. Accessed 3Sept2015.
Placer County. General Plan. A Countywide General Plan Policy Document. Section 1 Land
Use. May 21, 2013. 14 pages. Available on-line at:
<file:///C:/Users/Kateri/Downloads/LandUse.pdf>
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Introduction 3-37
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
Squaw Valley Public Service District. May 2007 as revised on June 1, 2007. Olympic Valley
Groundwater Management Plan. Authored by Hydra Metrics LLC. 97-pages. Available
on-line at: <http://www.water.ca.gov/groundwater/docs/GWMP/NL-
4_OlympicValley_GWMP_2007.pdf>. Accessed 29July2015.
State of California, Department of Finance, E-4 Historical Population Estimates for City,
County and the State, 1991-2000, with 1990 and 2000 Census Counts. Sacramento,
California, August 2007. Available on-line at:
http://www.dof.ca.gov/research/demographic/reports/estimates/e-4/1991-2000/.
State of California, Department of Finance, E-4 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties, and
the State, 2001-2010, with 2000 & 2010 Census Counts. Sacramento, California,
November 2012. Available on-line at: <http://www.dof.ca.gov/research/demographic
reports/estimates/e-4/2001-10/view.php> .
State of California. Employment Development Department. Labor Market Information.
Available on-line at: < http://www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/>. Accessed
September 2015.
State of California. Senate Bill 244 (Wolk Bill), October 7, 2011.
State Water Resources Control Board. 2010 Integrated Report (Clean Water Act Section 303(d)
List / 305(b) Report).
State Water Resources Control Board. Nonpoint Source Pollution (NPS) Control Program.
Available on-line at: <www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/nps>.
U.S. Census Bureau. 2010. Retrieved January 25, 2016, from
http://www.census.gov/2010census/.
US Census Bureau. Who Can Afford To Live in a Home?: A look at data from the 2006
American Community Survey. 2008. Written by Mary Schwartz and Ellen Wilson. 13
pages. Available on-line at: <http://www.census.gov/housing/census/publications/
who-can-afford.pdf>. Accessed 1August2015.
US Census Bureau. American Community Survey: 2009-13. Community Commons Mapping
Tool- http://maps.communitycommons.org/viewer/. Accessed 3August2015.
U.S. Geological Survey and Thodal, Carl, E. 1997. Water-Resources Investigations Report 97-
4072. Hydrogeology of Lake Tahoe Basin, California and Nevada, and Results of a
ground Water Quality Monitoring Network, Water Years 1990-92. 58 pages. Carson
City, Nevada. Available on line at: <http://pubs.usgs.gov/wri/1997/4072/report.pdf>.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Introduction 3-38
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
Chapter 4
MUTUAL WATER COMPANIES
The State Legislature has recently directed LAFCOs to consider the role and provision of
private water services within their respective counties as it relates to supporting growth and
development. The Legislature’s direction is contained in Assembly Bill 54 - Mutual Water
Companies. Additional legislation affecting mutual water companies which has recently been
signed by the Governor includes Assembly Bill 2443, Assembly Bill 1077, Assembly Bill 656,
Assembly Bill 240, and Senate Bill 88.
Table of Contents
4.1: Overview Mutual Water Companies................................................................. 4-2
4.2: New Legislation ......................................................................................... 4-3
4.3: Profiles Of Mutual Water Companies In Study Area .............................................. 4-7
4.4: Former Mutual Water Companies .................................................................. 4-11
4.5: MWCs Located Outside Study Area ................................................................ 4-11
4.6: For-Profit Water Utility Companies ................................................................ 4-12
4.7: References ............................................................................................. 4-21
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 4, Mutual Water Companies 4-1
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
4.1: OVERVIEW MUTUAL WATER COMPANIES
The North Lake Tahoe and Martis Valley area has a number of mutual water companies,
private water companies, small shared water systems, and private wells that provide water
service in lieu of a public agency. Regulatory oversight for these systems varies depending on
the type of entity and the number of connections served. The California Public Utilities
Commission (CPUC) oversees private water companies including rates, service area, and levels
of service. A list of all the major water systems that operate in Placer County is provided in
Appendix #2, Placer County Water Systems. Table 4.1 below lists the private water companies
operating in the MSR Study Area.
Table 4.1: List of Private Water Companies in North Tahoe/Martis
Valley/Soda Springs Study Area
Name of Company Mutual Water For-Profit Water
Company Company
Agate Bay Water Co X
Fulton Water Co X
Glenridge Water Co X
Lakeview Water Co X
Madden Creek Water X
Rainbow Mutual Water Co X
Skyland/Nielsen Water Co X
Squaw Valley Mutual Water Co X
Tahoe Cedars Water Co X
Tahoe Park Water Co X
Tahoe Swiss Village Utility X
Ward Well Water Co X
This chapter focuses on mutual water companies. Both mutual water companies and
companies owned by homeowner associations are exempt from CPUC regulation if they serve
only their stockholders or members. Mutuals are private not-for-profit organizations and they
provide water service to their customers from groundwater and surface water resources and
they are affected by the same concerns for water quality, supply reliability, and costs as the
public water providers. Shares in a mutual water company are appurtenant to specified lands.
The California Corporations Code addresses the governance and organization of mutuals. The
California Health and Safety Code addresses the public health operations of mutuals. The
State Drinking Water Division helps to enforce the Health and Safety Code and it monitors two
of the mutuals in this study (SVMWC and WWWC). Although many County Environmental
Health Departments have water quality standards with which mutual water companies must
generally comply, none of the three mutuals in this study are regulated by Placer County
Environmental Health (PCEH, 2015); rather they are governed by state code. No other public
agency oversees the operations of mutual water companies; hence the legislature has
recently enacted laws granting LAFCo some oversight.
Draft MSR, September 2016
Chapter 4 Mutual Water Companies 4-2
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
4.2: NEW LEGISLATION
The State Legislature has approved six new laws that apply to mutual water companies and
these new laws are summarized in this section as listed below:
• Assembly Bill 2443 (Rendon). 2014
• Assembly Bill 1077 (Holden). 2015
• Assembly Bill 656 (Garcia). 2015
• Assembly Bill 240 (Rendon). 2013
• Senate Bill 88 (Introduced by Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review). 2015.
• Assembly Bill 54 (Solorio). 2011
Readers are encouraged to read the new laws in full and this summary contains links to the
full text for your convenience.
Assembly Bill 2443
Assembly Bill 2443 was signed by Gov. Jerry Brown in October of 2014 and it amends
California’s Water Service Duplication Statute to allow cities the opportunity to provide
recycled water service within the service area of private water companies, under some
circumstances. The full text of AB 2443 is available at: http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov
/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140AB2443.
AB 1077
AB 1077 was introduced by Assembly member Chris Holden (D-Pasadena) to enhance open
meeting requirements on mutual water companies. This law was signed by Governor Brown
on October 9, 2015. AB 1077 strengthens the Mutual Water Company Open Meeting Act by
requiring all shareholders to be guaranteed, at a minimum, the right to teleconference into
any meeting and prohibiting the water company's board from meeting exclusively in executive
session. The full text of AB 1077 is available at: <https://leginfo.legislature.ca.
gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160AB1077>.
Assembly Bill 656
AB 656 is a bill introduced by Assemblywoman Cristina Garcia (58th AD) and signed into law by
Governor Brown on September 3, 2015 to allow two or more mutual water companies and one
or more public agencies, to enter into a joint powers agreement to provide lower cost
insurance while also generating funds for technical assistance. AB 656 also is a vehicle to
assist mutual water companies in applying for infrastructure and water quality improvement
funding through water bond funds. This bill has passed both the Assembly and Senate. It was
presented to the Governor for signature on 8/27/15. The full text of AB 656 is available at:
<http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160AB656>.
Draft MSR, September 2016
Chapter 4 Mutual Water Companies 4-3
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
Assembly Bill 240
Assembly Bill 240 was approved by the California Assembly and Senate and signed by Governor
Brown on October 8, 2013. It is effective as of January 1, 2014 and codified in the California
Corporations Code. The full text of AB240 is available at: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov
/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140AB240. This law establishes several new
requirements for mutual water companies including:
• Mutual Water Company Open Meeting Act: Many of the requirements for open
meetings and records that were previously applicable to homeowner associations
under the Davis-Stirling Act are now applicable to mutual water companies, including
posting of meeting notices in advance of meetings. This applies only to mutual water
companies that operate a public water system serving 15 or more customer
connections. See §§ Corporations
Code 14305-14307 for more
details.
• Budget: The board of a mutual
must adopt an annual budget
prior to the start of each fiscal
year. The board must contract
with a certified public accountant
or public accountant to conduct
an annual review of the financial
records and reports of the
company, subject to generally
accepted accounting standards.
• New Powers Regarding
Assessments, Rates and Charges:
This allows mutuals to address the
financial impact of having a
member become delinquent.
Corporations Code § 14304 now
allows a mutual water company to
include a provision in its articles or bylaws allowing the company to record a notice of
lien against the real property of a member to secure the collection of rates, charges
and assessments owed to the company by the member based on provision of water
service to the property.
• Expands Board Member Training Requirement: AB54 established a one-time
requirement for board members of mutual water companies to complete a two-hour
training on their duties as directors and the regulations applicable to mutuals. AB 240
expands this training requirement to occur at least once every six years. Directors who
completed their training in 2012 will not need to repeat the training until 2018;
however new directors will need to complete the training within six months of taking
office.
Draft MSR, September 2016
Chapter 4 Mutual Water Companies 4-4
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
• Transparent Records: Mutual water companies must now make specific documents,
including agendas, minutes, budget, and water quality records available to
shareholders and customers.
Senate Bill 88
Senate Bill 88 was approved by the California Assembly and Senate and signed by Governor
Brown in June 2015. It becomes effective as of January 1, 2016. It is codified in portions of
the California Health and Safety Code, Public Resources Code, and Water Code. The full text
of SB88 is available at: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/15-16/bill/sen/sb_0051-
0100/sb_88_bill_20150619_enrolled.html. This law establishes several new requirements that
may be applicable mutual water companies including:
• new reporting requirements mandate that all diverters submit their monthly diversion
records each year. During dry water years, submittal of diversion records on a monthly
basis may also be required. This new water measurement law affects water right
holders and diverters who divert more than 10 acre-feet of water per year.
• amendments to Section 377 of the Water Code, allowing civil liability of up to $10,000
for violations of water conservation programs or a State emergency regulation.
• Provision to public water suppliers the power to impose civil fines of up to $10,000 for
violations of water conservation programs,
• Suspension of environmental review for certain water recycling and drought-related
projects.
• Authorization to the State Water Resources Control Board to require consolidation of
water systems in disadvantaged communities in unincorporated areas or served by
mutual water companies with a chronic lack of adequate, safe, and reliable drinking
water.
The State Water Resources Control Board is holding public informational meetings on the
implementation of the new emergency regulations contained in SB 88 throughout California in
November and December 2015.
Assembly Bill 54
The California Legislature has recently enacted a series of amendments to various statutes to
establish formal reporting relationships between LAFCOs and mutual water companies.
Specifically, California State Assembly Bill 54 is intended to improve accountability to the
public of mutual water companies. This Bill was approved and signed into law in 2011 and
became effective January 1, 2012. It is codified in California Governance Code and
Corporations Code.
The Legislation requires these entities to:
• File maps of their service areas with LAFCOs
• Provide service information to LAFCOs when LAFCO prepares MSRs
• Maintain a financial reserve fund as specified by AB54.
• Comply with the California Safe Drinking Water Act
Draft MSR, September 2016
Chapter 4 Mutual Water Companies 4-5
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
• Provide training to board members regarding the duties of board members, the duty to
avoid contractual conflicts of interest and fiduciary duties, the duty to comply with
the federal Safe Drinking Water Act, and regarding the long-term management of a
public water system.
Furthermore, a mutual water company is prohibited from expanding its boundaries without
approval from the appropriate local agency formation commission. LAFCOs are also now
encouraged to expand the scope of the municipal service review process to consider local
mutual water companies. AB54 in its entirety is provided in Appendix 3 and is also available
on the following website: <http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/
billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201120120AB54>.
AB 54 Provisions Directly Relating to LAFCO
1. Each mutual water company, except small companies with fewer than 15 customers,
must submit their service area maps to LAFCO by December 31, 2012 (§ 14301.1a of
the Corporations Code).
2. Each mutual water company must respond to information requests by LAFCO during
preparation of municipal service reviews and sphere of influence update (§ 14301.1b
of Corporations Code).
3. LAFCO is specifically authorized to annex a mutual’s service area to a city or special
district, while maintaining the constitutional requirements of just compensation for
the taking of any private property (§ 56375r of the Government Code).
4. When preparing or updating municipal service reviews and spheres of influence of
cities and special districts that provide water service, LAFCO may report on whether
nearby mutuals are complying with the Safe Drinking Water Act (§ 56430c and d of
Government Code).
Consistent with the legislative intent of AB 54, this report identifies and provides basic
background information concerning existing mutual water companies operating in this MSR
study region. It is recommended that LAFCO utilize the information contained herein to
complete the following tasks:
• Contact each mutual water company (in-progress as of October 2015).
• Request that each mutual water company provide LAFCO with a map of its service
area (in-progress as of October 2015).
• Request additional information as deemed appropriate by LAFCO.
• Encourage each mutual water company to undergo board training required under AB54
• Continue to study the compliance of mutual water companies with the Safe Drinking
Water Act and issue a report of findings.
• Post information about mutual water companies on the LAFCO website.
• Establish formal lines of communication going forward.
Due to a lack of information, it is premature to make a determination at this time regarding
compliance of each mutual water company with the Safe Drinking Water Act and therefore
the recommendations listed above suggest continuing study to issue a subsequent report.
Draft MSR, September 2016
Chapter 4 Mutual Water Companies 4-6
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
4.3: PROFILES OF MUTUAL WATER COMPANIES IN
STUDY AREA
Basic service information for each local mutual water company in alphabetical order is
provided in the succeeding section. The three mutual water companies that operate in the
North Lake Tahoe and Martis Valley area are listed in Table 4.2, below.
Table 4.2: List of Mutual Water Companies in North Lake Tahoe and Martis Valley
Business Name Website Community
Rainbow Mutual Water Company None Neighborhood near Emigrant
Gap and Rainbow Lodge.
Squaw Valley Mutual Water Co. http://www.svmwc.com/ Alpine Meadows and Squaw
Valley
Ward Well Water Company None Tahoe City
These three mutual water companies are described in more detail in the following
paragraphs.
Rainbow Mutual Water Company
Mailing Address: 1 Emerson Street, San Francisco, Ca 94118
Alternative Address: 335 Maple Ave, Cotati, CA, 94931
Telephone: (530) 268-3329
Contact: Theresa A. Cole
E-mail: not available
Website: None
Number of Shareholders: Approximately 24
Water System Number: Not listed in state database
Corporation Number: C0574954
Rainbow Mutual Water Company is a non-profit company formed on 07/10/1969 to provide
water service to 24 property owners located in the vicinity of Emigrant Gap and the Rainbow
Lodge. The water supply is naturally occurring springs located on a private parcel (APN 066-
120-035) and is located in a rural, forested setting consisting of mostly granite outcroppings.
The most notable geographic features in the neighborhood are the Rainbow Lodge and the
south fork of the Yuba River.
In 1999, the Rainbow Mutual Water Company was declassified as a public water system since
they met the exclusion to the requirements of a public water system pursuant to the
California Health and Safety Code Section 116280 (PCEH, 2015). Therefore, this water system
is not regulated as a public water system and neither Placer County Environmental Health
Draft MSR, September 2016
Chapter 4 Mutual Water Companies 4-7
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
Department nor the State Water Board Drinking Water Division maintains data for this
system1.
In 2007, the Rainbow Mutual Water Company entered into a water supply agreement with
Rainbow Holding Company, Ltd. (Placer County, 2008) to share the water supplied by the
springs. Since then the Rainbow Holding Company has suspended its corporate status with the
Secretary of State’s office.
The sufficiency of water supply and water pressure to provide fire flows has not been
assessed by LAFCO.
Squaw Valley Mutual Water Company
Mailing Address: 248 Tiger Tail Road, Olympic Valley, CA 96146
Telephone: (530) 583-3674
Contact: Daniel Collin, Office Manager
E-mail: info@svmwc.com
Website: http://www.svmwc.com/
Number of Shareholders: 281
Water System Number: CA3110019
Corporation Number: C0244372
The Squaw Valley Mutual Water Company was founded by the land developers of the north
side of Squaw Valley (close to Shirley Canyon) in 1950. Membership in the SVMWC is
comprised of the land owners of parcels in this specific neighborhood along Sandy Way and
Lanny Lane (Township 16 North, Range 16 East).
There are 282 parcels in the Squaw Valley MWC service area. The Squaw Valley MWC provides
service to 263 water connections which has an estimated population of 500 persons. The
remaining 20 lots are vacant; eight of those lots are either scheduled to be developed or have
construction in progress (SVMWC, 2015). There are no commercial hook-ups. This water
system is classified as a “Community” system which utilizes ground water from the Olympic
Valley Groundwater Basin as its only water source (Tahoe-Sierra IRWM, 2014). The
groundwater is accessed via two wells, both located on the valley floor. A third well (eastern
well) is not currently operating due to water quality issues. The Company’s website is quite
detailed and it provides information on water pumping rates, fees for service, and Consumer
Confidence Reports (per the Safe Drinking Water Act). Detailed information on the Company’s
water service infrastructure, including the distribution pipes, is available in a 2008 Water
Master Plan prepared by Auerbach Engineering Corporation, also available on the
Squaw Valley MWC website.
1 Drinking Water Division database is at: <https://sdwis.waterboards.ca.gov/PDWW/JSP/SearchDispatch?
number=&name=&county=PLACER&WaterSystemType=All&SourceWaterType=All&PointOfContactType=None&be
gin_date=9%2F25%2F2009&end_date=9%2F25%2F2015&action=Search+For+Water+Systems>.
Draft MSR, September 2016
Chapter 4 Mutual Water Companies 4-8
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
The sufficiency of water supply and water pressure to provide fire flows has not been
assessed by LAFCO.
In 2001, customers of the Squaw Valley Mutual Water Company rejected a proposed merger
with the Squaw Valley Public Service District by eight votes (116-108)2. More recently, the
Squaw Valley Mutual Water Company has been participating in the public review process for
the proposed Village at Squaw Valley Specific Plan and associated EIR3.
Ward Well Water Company
Mailing Address: P.O. BOX 7553 Tahoe City, California 96145
Alternative Address: 1960 Twin Peaks Drive, Tahoe City, CA 96145
Alternative Address: 245 Pineland Dr., Olympic Valley CA, 96146
Telephone: (530) 581-2231
Contact: Kevin Finley, Vice President
Alternative contact: Vincent Bruno, 530-581-2231
E-mail: Brunolandscapes@gmail.com
Website: None
Number of Shareholders: Not applicable
Water System Number: CA3110031
Corporation Number: C0219109
Ward Well Water Company was formed as a non-profit company on 07/29/1947 to provide
water service to a neighborhood on the west shore known as Sunnyside. Groundwater is the
only water supply and it is accessed via three active wells (SWRCB, 2015). The Company has
224 water connections serving an estimated permanent population of 375 persons plus a
visitor population of an additional 300 persons. This water system is classified as a
“Community” system which utilizes surface water as its water source (Tahoe-Sierra IRWM,
2014).
In July 2010, the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) approved a memorandum of
understanding (MOU) with Ward Well Water Company which lays out specific operation and
maintenance activities which are exempt from the TRPA code (TRPA, 2010c).
Ward Well Water Company is regulated by the California Department of Public Health and the
State Water Resources Control Board, Division of Drinking Water. Drinking water quality in
the Lake Tahoe region is generally very good. The Ward Well Water Company regularly
monitors water quality and reports the information to state regulators. An on-line water
quality database4 reports that during the years 2004 to 2009, water from
Ward Well Water Company met all state and federal water quality standards. However, five
2 Source: <http://www.tahoedailytribune.com/article/20010628/REGION/106285669>.
3 See EIR comment letter at:
<http://www.placer.ca.gov/~/media/cdr/ECS/EIR/VSVSP/Comments%20on%20DEIR/comment_SVMWC.pdf>.
4 EWG water quality database at: <http://www.ewg.org/tap-water/whatsinyourwater/CA/Ward-Well-Water-
Company/3110031/>.
Draft MSR, September 2016
Chapter 4 Mutual Water Companies 4-9
!! !! !! !! !! !! ! ! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! ! ! ! !!! ! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! ! !!!!!! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! ! ! !! !! !!
!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!! !! !! !!!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! ! !! ! !! !! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! !! !! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !!!! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!
! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!! !! !! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!! ! ! ! !!!!! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!! !!!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! !!!!! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !!!!!!!!
! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!! ! ! ! ! !! !!! ! ! ! !!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! !!!!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !! ! ! ! !!!! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!! ! ! !!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!!!!!!!! !! ! !!! !! !!!!! !! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!! ! ! !
! ! ! !!!! !! !!!
!
!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!!!
!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! C ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! O ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! U ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! R ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! C ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! H ! ! ! ! ! ! E ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! V ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! E ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! L ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! R ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! D ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! R ! ! ! I ! ! V ! ! ! W ! ! E ! ! A ! ! R ! ! ! ! R ! ! ! ! D R ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! D ! C ! ! ! ! ! R ! ! ! ! ! ! E ! ! E ! ! ! ! ! K ! ! ! ! ! B ! ! ! ! ! ! ! L ! ! ! ! V ! ! ! ! ! D ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! S ! ! ! ! ! ! I ! L ! ! V ! ! ! ! ! E ! ! ! ! R ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! T ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! I ! ! M ! ! ! T ! ! P W ! ! ! A ! T S S ! ! D ! O ! ! ! ! U N ! ! ! R R ! ! ! G D ! ! ! ! ! ! A ! ! ! ! R ! ! ! ! ! P ! ! ! I ! N ! !! ! M ! ! E ! ! !! ! ! ! T ! ! R ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! W ! ! ! F ! ! D ! ! W ! A ! ! ! O A ! T S ! ¬« U ! ! ! H ! S ! N 8 O ! ! O E T ! ! ! 9 ! ! A N ! ! W ! I ! ! ! N ! ! R A ! D ! ! Y ! ! A ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! V ! ! ! ! E ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! FA ! I ! R D ! HO R L YL ! ! W ! ! A ! ! ! ! Y ! ! ! D ! ! ! R ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! G 1 ! ! R 1 ! ! O 3 ! ! T V ! ! E H ! ! ! S ! R ! T ! ! ! ! ! D ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! R ! ! ! ! ! ! ! O ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! A ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! D ! ! ! ! ! ! P ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! O ! ! ! ! 4 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! L !! ! ! ! ! 9 ! ! ! ! ! A ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! M ! ! ! T ! ! ! R W ! ! ! A ! ! ! ! T ! ! ! S ! ! ! I O ! ! ! S N ! ! ! ! ! R ! ! ! ! ! ! ! D R ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! D ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! O ! ! ! ! M ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! L T ! ! D ! ! ! E W D ! ! C ! G ! ! A O E ! ! U ! W T ! N ! O S ! T O ! ! ! ! Y RD O D ! ! S ! D N ! R ! H ! ! I R ! V ! ! ! D T ! ! A ! ! ! L G ! A ! ! ! I ! ! R A ! ! ! I ! ! H ! R ! ! ! ! ! ! D K ! ! ! ¬« ! ! ! ! ! O 2 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 8 E ! ! ! ! E ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! C S ! ! ! ! A ! A ! ! ! R ! ! ! ! ! ! N ! ! H ! E ! ! ! L ! ! ! I ! ! A A ! ! ! ! R ! ! ! ! G A ! ! ! R !!! D A ! ! N R ! I ! ! TE ! ! R ! D ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! R ! E ! G ! E ! N ! ! C ! ! ! Y ! ! ! ! ! ! ! W ! ! ! ! ! A ! ! ! Y ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ¬«267 N ! ! ! O ! ! R ! ! T ! H ! ! ! A ! ! ! ! V ! ! ! ! ! E ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! DEER ST G ! S ! ! ! ! ! K R P ! ! ! ! ! ! I E I ! ! ! ! F N ! ! F ! C ! ! C ! ! ! R G K ! E ! E ! L S K ! ! ! ! ! ! ! E ! ! ! V ! D ! ! ! ! ! R ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! I ! ! D ! A E ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! V ! W ! ! ! ! E ! ! ! ! ! R ! ! D ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! T ! S ! BE ! R A EV ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! BLACKWOODCANYONRD !!! ! !!!! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !!!! ! ! ! ! !!!!!! ROAD3 B 8 ARKERPASSRD !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! GRAND EV A AO V TNE E MARCAS !! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! !!! !!!!! ! !!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! GROUSEDR CASCADEDR !!!!!!!!!! !!! MCKINNEYRUBICONSPRINGSRD !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!!! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !!! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !!! !! !!!! !!!!! ! ! ! !!! ! !!!!!! !! !!!!! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!! ! !!!!!!!! !!!!!
! ! ! ! !
N ¬« 267 AYAB VE NLAKEBLVD
W LAKEBLVD MCKINNEYDR
AINROFILAC ADAVEN TroutCreek W e Donner Creek st Junip erCreek W estForkGrayCreek Cold Creek EastMartisCreek Klondike Meadow JuniperCreek M onte C arlo Creek Creek aM rtis Cabin Creek W tse BrushCreek MiddleMartisCreek North Tahoe RockyWash Pub D l i i s c t r U ic ti t lity Creek rGiff DeepCreek NORTH TAHOE PUD C ai ar len n Pole Creek DeerCreek WatsonCreek C ! anyon ! A W g a a te te r C B o ay W F a u t l e to r n C o P N u o b D rt l i h i s c t T r U a ic t h i t l o it e y Silver Creek N P D u o is b r t t l r h i i c c T t U a t h il o it e y Fulton Water Co River BurtonCreek DollarCreek SquawCreek ee kcurT North Tahoe Public Utility Lakeview District Water Co ! BearCreek ! Creek Tahoe City Five Lakes TAHOE CITY T P a u h b o li e c C U i t t i y lity P D u is b t l r i i c c t Utility PUD District Washoe Heights Mututal Water Co Talmont Resort Improvement District ! ! Tahoe Park Water Co Grouse Canyon WardCreek W W a a r te d r W C e o ll Legend Timberland
Water Co Water Districts Skyland/Nielsen Agate Bay Water Co BearPenCreek Water Co F La u k lt e o v n i e W w a W te a r t C e o r Co WillowCreek Creek Tahoe Pines/Tahoe Swiss M M Di a c s K d tr d i i n c e t n n e C y r E e s e t k a t W es a W ter ater Blackwood Village Water Co N D o is r t t r h ic T t ahoe Public Utility NorthForkBlackwoodCreek Skyland/Nielsen Water Co keerC T T a a h h o o e e C C e ity d a P r u s b W lic a t U e t r i l C ity o wderho nr MaddenCreek M C a r d e d e e k n D Ta is h t o ri e c t Park Water Co Po Water Tahoe Pines/Tahoe Swiss Village Water Co Tahoe City Barker Creek HomewoodCanyonPublic D U is ti t l r it ic y t Tahoe Cedars T D T a i i m s lm t b ri o e c n r t l t a R nd e s W or a t t e Im r p C r o ovement Water Co Ward Well Water Co McKinney Estates ! Washoe Heights Mutual Water Water District ! Co Wastewater Districts Creek North Tahoe PUD North Miller GeneralCreek Tahoe City PUD McKinneyCreek T P a u h b o li e c C U i t t i y lity » TRPA Bou M nd i a le ry s PLACERCO District ELDORADOCO 0 0.5 1 MillerCreek Data Source: County of Placer Transit Regional Planning Agency Dyett & Bhatia, 2013 R ubicon R vier N Co o u te n : t y S e W rv a i t c e e r p D ro is v t i r d ic e t r , s a i n n d M N a o r r ti t s h s V ta a r ll e a y re o n r o D t o sh n Meeko n s C w r e ee r k n S o u n m t m hi i s t m su a c p h .L on a ely Gsulc hthe Serene Lakes Water District, Alpine April 2015 Figure 7-1 PLACER COUNTY Tahoe Basin COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT RESOURCE AGENCY Water & Wastewater GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM DIVISION
Area Plan Districts
Document Path: C:\Users\conesi\Documents\ArcGIS\Packages\Figure 7-1 Water and Wastewater Infrastructure\v101\Figure 7-1 Water and WastewaterInfrastructure.mxd
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
pollutants were detected in water samples and three of these (alpha particles, radium-226,
and radium 228) exceeded health guidelines (EWG, 2008). The alpha particles and radium are
likely naturally occurring in granite and other rock and soil/substrate in the Tahoe region;
however continued monitoring is warranted. An EPA violation was also recorded for Initial Tap
Sampling for Lead and Copper from August to December 2005. The sufficiency of water
supply and water pressure to provide fire flows has not been assessed by LAFCO.
4.4: FORMER MUTUAL WATER COMPANIES
Over the past years, several mutual water companies have experienced difficulty providing
affordable or efficient water services and have been acquired by neighboring districts. To
assist LAFCO in keeping track of these changes, Table 4.3 lists former mutual water
companies.
Table 4.3: Former Mutual Water Companies
Name of Former Mutual Water Company Status
Big Bend Mutual Water Company Annexed by Donner Summit PUD
Lakeview Water Company Acquired by TCPUD in 2010 per judicial order
from Placer County Judge Margaret Wells5.
Lake Forest Utility Company Acquired by TCPUD in 2011 per judicial order
Tamarack Mutual Water System In the 1990’s, this private water system
requested that TCPUD purchase them and
assume service responsibilities (TCPUD,
2014).
Tahoma Meadows Mutual Water Company At the request of the customers/owners of
this mutual water company, TCPUD acquired
the water system and integrated it with the
PUD in the summer of 2013.
Washoe Heights Mutual Water Company Insufficient data
4.5: MWC LOCATED OUTSIDE STUDY AREA
Several other mutual water companies are located in Placer County, but outside the study
area for this MSR. A partial list of these mutual water companies is presented below in order
to help LAFCO track.
• Dutch Flat Mutual Water Company
• Emigrant Gap Mutual Water Company
• Folsom Lake Mutual Water Company
• Golden Hills Mutual Water Company
• Nyack Mutual Water Company
• Rosecrest Mutual
5 Data source: <http://www.tahoedailytribune.com/news/8764626-113/tcpud-forest-lake-company>.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 4, Mutual Water Companies 4-11
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
• Weimar Water Company
• Winding Way Water Company
Additional Information on Mutual Water Companies
Many mutual water companies are members of the California Association of Mutual Water
Companies and their website at: http://calmutuals.org/ contains more information.
4.6: FOR-PROFIT WATER UTILITY COMPANIES
Nine water companies which are owned by a single owner or by investors and which are
structured as for-profit companies operate in the Lake Tahoe/Martis Valley region. They are
not mutual water companies since mutual water companies are non-profit and are owned by
all the property owners served. Therefore, these privately owned water/utility companies
are not subject to the new regulations enacted per Assembly Bill 54, Assembly Bill 656,
Assembly Bill 240, and Assembly Bill 2443. These private water companies include:
• Agate Bay Water Company
• Fulton Water Company
• Glenridge Water Company
• Lake View Water Company
• Madden Creek Water Company
• Rainbow Springs Public Water System
• Tahoe Cedars Water Company
• Tahoe Park Water Company
• Tahoe Swiss Village Utility
• Timberland Water Company
Contact information and other details about each for-profit private water company is listed
below for information purposes.
Agate Bay Company
Mailing Address: 5424 Treeside Drive, Carmichael, CA 95608
Telephone: 530-546-3337
Contact: Steve Glazer, General Manager
E-mail: data not available
Website: http://www.agatebaywatercompany.com/
Number of Shareholders: data not available
Water System Number: 3110012
CPUC Number: WTC 85
Corporation Number: C0431410
The Agate Bay Water Company was formed as a private for-profit company on 04/18/1962 to
provide water to the Dollar Point neighborhood on the north shore of Lake Tahoe near
Carnelian Bay. The Company has 580 active water connections serving a year round
population of 250 and a maximum total (including visitors) population of approximately 2,500
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 4 Mutual Water Companies 4-12
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
persons. This is classified as a “Community” water system and its water source is surface
water (Tahoe-Sierra IRWM, 2014) consisting of a fresh water spring and surface water from
Lake Tahoe.
Mountain Springs Water Company was the predecessor of Agate Bay Water Company and its
water supply permit was initially issued in 1955. Subsequently rights were conveyed to the
Agate Bay Water Company which received its first formal permit from the CA Dept. of Public
Health in 1973 as amended on August 6, 2001. The Company operates intake facilities, water
mains and lines and a distribution system. The distribution system contains two pressure
zones, referred to as the Lake Zone and the Spring Zone. Each Zone has its own gravity
storage tank. Company infrastructure is described in more detail in the Placer County
General Plan, Appendix A: Large Water Systems available on-line at:
<http://relicensing.pcwa.net/documents/Library/PCWA-L-019.pdf>.
Drinking water quality in the Lake Tahoe region is generally very good. The Agate Bay Water
Company regularly monitors water quality and reports the information to state regulators. An
on-line water quality database6 reports that during the years 2004 to 2007, water from Agate
Bay Company met all state and federal water quality standards. However, nine pollutants
were detected in water samples and four of these (alpha particle, radium-226, radium 228,
and lead) exceeded health guidelines (EWG, 2007). Although the alpha particles and radium
are likely naturally occurring in granite and other rock and soil/substrate in the Tahoe region,
continued monitoring is warranted. The Consumer Confidence Report for this Company is
available on the CPUC website7. In June, July, October, and December of 2012 the company
failed total coliform water quality standards and was issued Citation 01-02-10[C]006 (CDPH,
2013). Additionally, the State Water Board issued an order to the Agate Bay Water company
for non-compliance with the Total Coliform maximum contaminant level in March 2013 as
detailed on the Water Board website at: <http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/drinking_water/
programs/documents/ddwem/dwp%20enforcement%20actions/Placer/2013/01-02-13R-001-
3110012-22.pdf>.
A memorandum of understanding between TRPA and the Company allows the Company to
conduct routine maintenance of water facilities under a TRPA exemption as detailed here:
<http://www.trpa.org/wp-content/uploads/Appendix-RR_Agate-Bay-Water-Company.pdf>.
Fulton Water Company
Mailing Address: 515 Nightingale Rd, Carnelian Bay, CA 96140
Alternative address: P.O. Box 1709, Carnelian Bay, CA 96140
Telephone: (530) 583-3644
Contact: Craig A. Fox
E-mail: fultonwater@yahoo.com
Website: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Fulton-Water-Co/164368503581755
6 EWG water quality database at: <http://www.ewg.org/tap-water/whatsinyourwater2/CA/agate-bay-water-
company/3110012/>.
7 <http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/PUC/Water/Consumer_Confidence_Reports.htm>.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 4 Mutual Water Companies 4-13
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
Number of Shareholders: data not available
Water System Number: CA3110015
CPUC Number: WTC 88
Corporation Number: C0409124
Fulton Water Company was formed as a private for-profit company in February 1961 to serve
a residential neighborhood called Carnelian Bay located east of Tahoe City on the north shore
of the Lake. The Company has 918 water connections serving a permanent population
estimated at 500 persons. This water system is classified as a “Community” system which
utilizes surface water as its water source (Tahoe-Sierra IRWM, 2014).
Water rights for the Fulton Water Company were originally approved in 1960 and subsequently
amended in 1963 by the State Of California State Water Rights Board via Decision D 11528.
Surface water from Lake Tahoe is the only water source for this company. Although the
Company began water service in 1928, it did not formally register with the CA Secretary of
State’s office until 1961 as corporation # C0409124.
The Company utilizes its Cedar Flat Intake and Lake Forest Intake to obtain water from Lake
Tahoe. It also has several wells and other intakes which are no longer active. A detailed
description of the Fulton Water Company’s lake intakes, water main and links, and
transmission and distribution system is provided in the Placer County General Plan, Appendix
A: Large Water Systems available on-line at: http://relicensing.pcwa.net/
documents/Library/PCWA-L-019.pdf .
Drinking water quality in the Lake Tahoe region is generally very good. The Fulton Water
Company regularly monitors water quality and reports the information to state regulators. An
on-line water quality database9 reports that during the years 2004 to 2006, water from Fulton
Water Company met all state and federal water quality standards. However, thirteen
pollutants were detected in water samples and six of these (alpha particle, radium-226,
radium 228, bromodichloromethane, dibromochloromethane, and 1,2-dibromo-3-
chloropropane) exceeded health guidelines (EWG, 2007). Although the alpha particles and
radium are likely naturally occurring in granite and other rock and soil/substrate in the Tahoe
region, the methane and propane constituents are not natural and continued monitoring is
warranted. The Consumer Confidence Report for this Company is available on the CPUC
website10.
Glenridge Water Company
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 102, Homewood, CA 96141
Telephone: (530) 525-6659
Contact: Kelli Twomey
8 Decision D 1152 is available on-line at: <http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/waterrights/board_decisions
/adopted_orders/decisions/d1150_d1199/wrd1152.pdf>.
9 EWG water quality database at: <http://www.ewg.org/tap-water/whatsinyourwater/CA/Fulton-Water-
Company/3110015/>.
10 <http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/PUC/Water/Consumer_Confidence_Reports.htm>.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 4 Mutual Water Companies 4-14
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
Alternative Contact: Steven Glazer, Owner
E-mail: glazerwest@att.net
Website: Data not provided
Number of Shareholders: Data not provided
Water System Number: CA0910024
CPUC Number: Data not provided
Corporation Number: Not available
The Glenridge Water Company is located just north of Meeks Bay, in Glenridge on the west
shore of Lake Tahoe in El Dorado County. The system has 45 service connections serving
approximately 124 to 130 people. Infrastructure includes a water tank.
Drinking water quality in the Lake Tahoe region is generally very good. The Glenridge Water
Company regularly monitors water quality and reports the information to state regulators. An
on-line water quality database11 reports that during the years 2005 to 2007, water from
Glenridge Water Company met all state and federal water quality standards. However, five
pollutants were detected in water samples and three of these (alpha particles, radium-226
and radium-228) exceeded health guidelines (EWG, 2007). Both the alpha particles and
radium are likely naturally occurring in granite and other rock and soil/substrate in the Tahoe
region; however continued monitoring is warranted.
Lakeview Water Co
Mailing Address: 1373 Las Canoas Road, Pacific Palisades, CA 90272
Contact: Eleanor Buck
Alternative Contact: Robert G. Bundy
Telephone: Data not provided
E-mail: Data not provided
Website: Data not provided
Number of Shareholders: Data not provided
Water System Number: Data not provided
CPUC Number: WTD 358
Corporation Number: C0486539
Lake View Water Company is a for-profit private company formed on March 1, 1965. The
Company appears to be exempt from submitting consumer confidence reports to the CPUC12.
Data about this company is not readily available.
Madden Creek Water Company
Mailing Address: 6998 W Lake Boulevard, Tahoma, CA 96142
Alternative Address: PO Box 264, Tahoma, CA 96142
11 EWG water quality database at: <http://www.ewg.org/tap-water/whatsinyourwater2
/CA/glenridge-water-company/0910024/>.
12 See CPUC at: <http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/PUC/Water/Consumer_Confidence_Reports.htm>.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 4 Mutual Water Companies 4-15
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
Telephone: (530) 525-7555
Contact: Robert E. Marr, President
E-mail: Tahoerobb@Sbcglobal.Net
Website: Data not provided
Number of Shareholders: Data not provided
Water System Number: CA3110043
CPUC Number: WTD 92
Corporation Number: Company is not listed with the Calif Secretary of State’s Office.
Madden Creek Water Company serves 166 water connections with an estimated population of
300 in a Homewood neighborhood. This water system is classified as a “Community” system
which utilizes ground water as its only water source (Tahoe-Sierra IRWM, 2014) and this is
accessed via the Silver Street Well. Estimated peak water demand is 1.67 gpm per customer
which calculates to a total peak demand of 267 gpm for the company-wide service area
(Nichols, 2008).
Drinking water quality in the Lake Tahoe region is generally very good. The Madden Creek
Water Company regularly monitors water quality and reports the information to state
regulators. An on-line water quality database13 reports that during the years 2004 to 2008,
water from Madden Creek Water Company met all state and federal water quality standards.
However, six pollutants were detected in water samples and two of these (alpha particles,
and cyanide) exceeded health guidelines (EWG, 2007). Both the alpha particles and cyanide
are likely naturally occurring in granite and other rock and soil/substrate in the Tahoe region;
however continued monitoring is warranted. The Consumer Confidence Report for this
Company is available on the CPUC website14.
Although Madden Creek Water Company is not registered as a corporation with the California
Secretary of State’s office, there is a related company called the Mid-Sierra Water Utility
which is registered as corporation number C0637230; however the specific relationship
between these two companies is not clear.
Rainbow Springs Public Water System
Mailing Address: PO Box 1100, Soda Springs, CA 95728
Telephone: (530) 426-3661
Contact: Mr. John Slouber
E-mail: Not available
Website: None
Number of Shareholders: Not applicable
Water System Number: CA3100027
Corporation Number: Not listed in state database
13 EWG water quality database at: <http://www.ewg.org/tap-water/whatsinyourwater/CA/Fulton-Water-
Company/3110015/>.
14 <http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/PUC/Water/Consumer_Confidence_Reports.htm>.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018 Chapter 4
Mutual Water Companies 4-16
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
The State Water Board Drinking Water Division list the “Rainbow Springs Public Water System”
with an administrative contact of Mr. John Slouber (former owner of the Royal Gorge ski
resort). The Rainbow Springs Public Water System has historically sold spring water to bottled
water companies. The primary source of water for this system is groundwater accessed via
four active springs15 located near the Rainbow Lodge off Highway 80. There are also three
inactive springs listed in the state database. The state drinking water database describes this
system as serving a population of 300 persons. The Rainbow Springs Public Water System has
received three violations for coliform from water quality officials on December 2010, April
2011, and September 2014. Since the Rainbow Springs Public Water System is not currently
registered as a corporation with the Secretary of State’s office, it is difficult to determine its
current status.
Tahoe Cedars Water Company
Mailing Address: P.O. BOX 264, Tahoma, CA 96142
Telephone: 530-525-7555
Contact: Robert Marr, Treatment Operator
E-mail: Tahoerobb@Sbcglobal.Net
Website: None available
Number of Shareholders: Not available
Water System Number: CA3110013
Corporation Number: Registration at the Calif Secretary of State’s Office was not found.
The Tahoe Cedars Water Company was formed on 01-01-1976 to distribute water to West
Shore residents around Tahoma in both Placer and El Dorado Counties, including the following
neighborhoods: Tahoe Cedars, Tahoe Cedars Addition, Pomin Park, and Wilson Subdivision.
The company has 1161 service connections (SWRCB, 2015) serving a regular population of
1,000 to 2,000 persons and a peak season (summer) population of approximately 3,000 to
5,000 people. The company charges a $1,000 connection fee. In 2010, Tahoe Cedars Water
Company raised its annual service fees (flat water utility rate) to $503.20 per year. This was
its first raise in 16 years. The company’s insurance certificates and infrastructure easements
were questioned when a water main broke in June 2012 as reported by the Tahoe Daily
Tribune (Sierra Sun) newspaper16.
The Tahoe Cedars Water Company utilizes groundwater as its water supply accessed via one
well located near Elm Street. Two other water intakes (Lake Tahoe Intake and Tenth Street
Well) were both abandoned in previous years and are now inactive (SWRCB, 2015).
Drinking water quality in the Lake Tahoe region is generally very good. The Tahoe Cedars
Water Company regularly monitors water quality and reports the information to state
regulators. An on-line water quality database17 reports that during the years 2004 to 2008,
15 Details at: <https://sdwis.waterboards.ca.gov/PDWW/JSP/WaterSystemDetail.jsp?tinwsys_
is_number=7653&tinwsys_st_code=CA&wsnumber=CA3100027>.
16 Newspaper article available at: <http://www.tahoedailytribune.com/article/20120626/NEWS/120629934>.
17 EWG water quality database at: <http://www.ewg.org/tap-water/whatsinyourwater/CA/Fulton-Water-
Company/3110015/>.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 4 Mutual Water Companies 4-17
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
water from Tahoe Cedars Water Company met all state and federal water quality standards.
However, three pollutants were detected in water samples and one of these (alpha particles)
exceeded health guidelines (EWG, 2008). The alpha particles are likely naturally occurring in
granite and other rock and soil/substrate in the Tahoe region; however continued monitoring
is warranted.
In September 2014, the California State Water Resources Control Board issued citation # 01-
02-14[c]003 to the Company for violating the California Safe Drinking Water Act and for
failure to collect required water quality samples for lead and copper (CA Water Resources,
2014). The Consumer Confidence Report for this Company is available on the CPUC website18.
The sufficiency of water supply and water pressure to provide fire flows has not been
assessed by LAFCO.
Preliminary information indicates this company operates as a for-profit organization, rather
than as a mutual. The water company is not listed in the CA Secretary of State’s database
(http://kepler.sos.ca.gov/) as a formal corporation. Therefore, given the lack of information
about corporate organization, it is recommended that LAFCO conduct further study to make a
final determination as to this company’s status.
Tahoe Park Water Company
Mailing Address: PO Box 5627, Tahoe City, CA 96145
Alternative Address: 5000 Windplay Drive, Suite #4, El Dorado Hills, CA 95762
Telephone: (916) 941-8999
Alternative Phone: (530) 583-3938
Contact: Richard M. Dewante, Manager
E-mail: None
Website: None
Number of Shareholders: Data not available
Water System Number: CA3110049 and CA3110049
Corporation Number: c1954679
The Tahoe Sierra Integrated Water Management Plan reports this private for-profit company is
composed of two sections: 1) Tahoe Park Water Co - Skyland/Nielsen serves 89 water
connections which have an estimated permanent population of 50 persons and 2)
Tahoe Park Water Company Main Section serves 440 water connections which have an
estimated population of 750 persons. This water system is classified as a “Community”
system which utilizes ground water as its water source (Tahoe-Sierra IRWM, 2014).
The Company’s service area encompasses Tahoe Park Tract and Miramar Heights Tract
adjacent to State Hwy. 89, two miles south of Tahoe City and Tahoe Sierra Estates north of
Tahoe Park.
18 http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/PUC/Water/Consumer_Confidence_Reports.htm
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 4 Mutual Water Companies 4-18
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
Drinking water quality in the Lake Tahoe region is generally very good. The Tahoe Park Water
Company regularly monitors water quality and reports the information to state regulators. An
on-line water quality database19 reports that during the years 2004 to 2007, water from Tahoe
Park Water Company met all state and federal water quality standards. However, five
pollutants were detected in water samples and two of these (alpha particles and radium-228)
exceeded health guidelines (EWG, 2008). The alpha particles are likely naturally occurring in
granite and other rock and soil/substrate in the Tahoe region; however continued monitoring
is warranted. The Consumer Confidence Report for this Company is available on the CPUC
website20.
In 2013, the Tahoe Park Water Company applied to the Calif Public Utilities Commission
(CPUC) for a rate increase. The Tahoe City PUD and other Company customers filed a protest
with the CPUC (TCPUD, 2013).
The Placer County Zoning Administrator approved a Use Permit to allow development of a
new well for the TPWC to be located on a vacant residential lot at Assessor’s Parcel No: 085-
290-012 (Placer County, 2015). Continuing the process to obtain needed permits for the new
well, the Company applied to Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) in August 2015 (TRPA,
2015).
Tahoe Swiss Village Utility Inc.
Mailing Address: PO Box 102, Homewood, CA 96141
Telephone: (530) 525-6659
Contact: Steven M. Glazer, Owner/General Manager
E-mail: glazerwest@att.net
Alternative contact: Fred L. Curry at flcurry@gmail.com
Website: None
Number of Shareholders: Not applicable
Water System Number: CA3110042
CPUC Number: WTD 98
Corporation Number: C1576383
Tahoe Swiss Village Utility provides service to 378 water connections serving a permanent
population of approximately 300 persons plus visitors in a neighborhood located in Glenridge
Park in Meeks Bay (1.5 miles north of Homewood). This company serves customers in both
Placer and El Dorado Counties. The water system is classified as a “Community” system
which utilizes surface water as its water source (Tahoe-Sierra IRWM, 2014). The Consumer
Confidence Report for this Company is available on the CPUC website21.
19 EWG water quality database at: http://www.ewg.org/tap-water/whatsinyourwater/CA/Fulton-Water-
Company/3110015/
20 http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/PUC/Water/Consumer_Confidence_Reports.htm
21 http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/PUC/Water/Consumer_Confidence_Reports.htm
Draft Final MSR, August 2018 Chapter 4
Mutual Water Companies 4-19
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
In July 2010, the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) approved a memorandum of
understanding (MOU) with Tahoe Swiss Village Utilities, Inc. which lays out specific operation
and maintenance activities which are exempt from the TRPA code (TRPA, 2010b).
The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) does regulate this utility and since it serves
less than 500 customers, it is classified as a “Class-D company”. In January 2014, the Tahoe
Swiss Village Utility applied to the CPUC for a rate increase. The purpose of the rate increase
is to support the water storage tank re-habilitation project and addition of cathodic
protection and telemetry to the tank will ensure the company maintains adequate storage
facilities to provide safe and reliable water service (CPUC, 2015).
The utility and its customers at the Tahoe Swiss Village Homeowner’s Association have
disagreed about the use of easements and litigation has been discussed 22.
Timberland Water Company
Mailing Address: P0 Box 1855 Penn Valley, CA 95946
Telephone: (530) 538-3478
Contact: John Ballard, Owner & President
E-mail: Not available
Website: None
Number of Shareholders: Not applicable
Water System Number: CA-3100029
CPUC Number: WTD 99
This company serves an unincorporated area known as Timberland Subdivision located 3 mi.
south of Tahoe City fronting Lake Tahoe. Water is supplied to customers from a groundwater
well. The Consumer Confidence Report for this Company is available on the CPUC website23.
In July 2010, the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) approved a memorandum of
understanding (MOU) with Timberland Water Company which lays out specific operation and
maintenance activities which are exempt from the TRPA code (TRPA, 2010a).
22 The disagreements are described in the Homeowner’s Association newsletter at:
http://www.tahoeswissvillage.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/TSVNewsletter10_22_2010.pdf
23 CPUC website at:
ftp://ftp.cpuc.ca.gov/water/ConsumerConfidenceReports/2014/Timberland_2015_CCR_%26_Cert.pdf
Draft Final MSR, August 2018 Chapter 4
Mutual Water Companies 4-20
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
4.7: REFERENCES
California Department of Public Health (CDPH). March 11, 2013. Public Water System No.
3110012 Compliance Order 0102-13R-001-3110012-22. Redding, Ca. 18 pages.
Available on-line at: <http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/drinking_water/programs/
documents/ddwem/dwp%20enforcement%20actions/Placer/2013/01-02-13R-001-
3110012-22.pdf>. Accessed September 8, 2015.
California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). March 26, 2015. Packet for Public Agenda #3354
San Francisco, California. 69-pages. Available on-line at: <https://ia.cpuc.ca.gov/
agendadocs/3354.pdf>. Accessed 2September2015.
California Water Resources Control Board. Division of Drinking Water. Public Water System
No. 3110013, Citation 01-02[c]003. Redding, CA. 15-pages. Available on-line at:
<http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/drinking_water/programs/documents/ddwem/dwp
%20enforcement%20actions/Placer/2014/01-02-14-C-003-3110013-52.pdf>.
Drinking Water Branch. Website <https://sdwis.waterboards.ca.gov/PDWW/JSP
/WaterSystemFacilities.jsp?tinwsys_is_number=3428&tinwsys_st_code=CA>.
Environmental Working Group (EWG). Drinking Water Quality Report 2004 – 2007. Available
on-line at: http://www.ewg.org/tap-water/. Accessed 1September2015.
Nichols Consulting Engineers, Chtd. Memorandum from C. Heinbaugh to D. Tirman. January
29, 2008. 5-pages. Available on-line at:
<http://www.placer.ca.gov/~/media/cdr/ECS/EIR/Homewood/Hydro/WQ%2030.pdf>.
Accessed 12August2015.
Nichols Consulting Engineers, Chtd. Homewood Mountain Resort Water Supply Assessment.
Draft Final. October 2010. 26 –pages. Available on-line at:
<http://www.trpa.org/wp-content/uploads/Appendix_AA_ Water_Supply_
Assessment.pdf>. Accessed 14August2015.
Placer County Environmental Health (PCEH). September 28, 2015. Personal communication
with Vicki Ramsey, REHS, Consumer Protection Team.
Placer County General Plan, Background Report. Technical Appendices. Appendix A: Large
Water Systems. September 25, 1992. Authored by Crawford Multary & Starr; DKS
Associates; Psomas and Associates; Jones & Stokes Associates; Recht Hausrath &
Associates; and J. Laurence Minitier & Associates. 382 pages. Available on-line at:
<http://relicensing.pcwa.net/documents/Library/PCWA-L-01 9.pdf>.
Placer County Planning Department Memorandum to Zoning Administrator from Development
Review Committee. Regarding Skyland/Nielsen new water well Minor Use Permit. July
21, 2015. 10-pages. Available on-line: <http://www.placer.ca.gov/~/media/
cdr/Planning/ZA/2015/Aug5/TahoePark.pdf>. Accessed September 5, 2015.
Placer County. July 10, 2008. Memorandum from Development Review Committee to Placer
County Planning Commission. Auburn, CA. 7-pages. Available on-line at:
<http://www.placer.ca.gov/Departments/CommunityDevelopment/Planning/Hearings
/~/media/cdr/Planning/PC/71008/71008StaffRptItem2.ashx>. Accessed on
September
Draft Final MSR, August 2018 Chapter 4
Mutual Water Companies 4-21
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). Division of Drinking Water. Safe Drinking
Water Information System. Water System Details. Available on-line at:
<https://sdwis.waterboards.ca.gov/PDWW/JSP/WaterSystemDetail.jsp?tinwsys_is_nu
mber=7653&tinwsys_st_code=CA&wsnumber=CA3100027>. And <https://sdwis.
waterboards.ca.gov/PDWW/JSP/WaterSystemDetail.jsp?tinwsys_is_number=3428&tin
wsys_st_code=CA&wsnumber=CA3110013>. Accessed September 5, 2015.
Squaw Valley Mutual Water Company website. Available on-line at:
<http://www.svmwc.com/about.html>. Accessed 19August2015.
Tahoe City Public Utility District (TCPUD). Memorandum to the Board of Directors Regarding
Tahoe Park Water Company – Protest of Rate Increase. February 8, 2013. 4-pages.
Available on-line: <http://tahoecitypud.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id
=2&clip_id=174&meta_id=15982>. Accessed September 5, 2015.
Tahoe City Public Utility District (TCPUD). As amended October 2011. 2010 Urban Water
Management Plan. Authored by Auerbach Engineering Corporation. 111-pages.
Available on-line: <http://www.tahoecitypud.com/download/general/10uwmp.pdf>.
Accessed September 5, 2015.
Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA). Staff Report Tahoe Park Water Company New
Primary Supply Water Well; 3275 Ann Road, Placer County, California; Assessor’s
Parcel No: 085-290-012, TRPA File No: ERSP2015-1129. August 13, 2015. 9-pages.
Available on-line: < http://www.trpa.org/wp-content/uploads/Item-no.-V.A.-Tahoe-
Park-Water-Co..pdf>. Accessed September 5, 2015.
Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA). July 2010a. Memorandum of Understanding between
TRPA and Timberland Water Company. 5-pages. Available on-line at:
<http://www.trpa.org/wp-content/uploads/Appendix-UU_Timberland-Water-
Company.pdf>. Accessed 1August2015.
Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA). July 2010b. Memorandum of Understanding between
TRPA and Tahoe Swiss Village Utility. 5-pages. Available on-line at:
<http://www.trpa.org/wp-content/uploads/Appendix-TT_Tahoe-Swiss-Village-
Utility.pdf>. Accessed 1August2015.
Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA). July 2010c. Memorandum of Understanding between
TRPA and Ward Well Water Company. 5-pages. Available on-line at:
<http://www.trpa.org/wp-content/uploads/Appendix-VV_Ward-Well-Water-
Company.pdf>. Accessed 1August2015.
Tahoe-Sierra IRWM Plan. July 2014. Section 2 – Region Description, Appendix 2-A: CDPH
Regulated Water Systems. Available on-line at: <http://tahoesierrairwm.com/wp-
content/uploads/2014/07/Appendix-2-A_CDPH_WaterSystems.pdf>. Accessed
1August2015.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 4 Mutual Water Companies 4-22
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
Chapter 5
REGULATIONS FOR WASTEWATER
SYSTEMS
(photo courtesy of http://dspud.com/)
This Municipal Service Review (MSR) describes eight public districts/agencies that provide
wastewater services including Alpine Springs CWD, Donner Summit PUD, North Tahoe PUD,
Squaw Valley PSD, Sierra Lakes County Water District, Tahoe City PUD, Tahoe-Truckee
Sanitation Agency, and the Truckee Sanitary District. A ninth district provides wastewater
treatment services in the region, Northstar CSD, and this District was described in a separate
MSR. Lake Tahoe and nearby upper alpine areas are environmentally sensitive areas that are
subject to the stringent regulations for wastewater systems that are described in this
chapter.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 5, Wastewater Regulations 5-1
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
5.1 REGULATIONS FOR WASTEWATER SYSTEMS
Both state and federal regulatory authority exists for the control of water quality in surface
waters of California. Under the Clean Water Act (CWA), the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) regulates municipal and industrial effluent discharges to navigable waters through the
issuance of National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits. The basic
approach used in both state and federal processes is 1) to designate beneficial uses to be
protected, 2) to set water quality objectives that are protective of the most sensitive uses,
and 3) to control municipal, industrial, and other sources to meet these objectives.
Federal Wastewater Treatment Regulations
Clean Water Act
The Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. § 1251 et seq.) is the federal law that governs and authorizes
water quality control activities by the EPA. Pursuant to federal law, the EPA has published
water quality regulations under Volume 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR). The
CWA regulates water pollution through two different and supplementary approaches:
Water quality and technology-based standards; and
Section 303 of the CWA requires states to adopt water quality standards for all
surface waters of the United States.
The two approaches to regulating water pollution are implemented through the use of
discharge permits, which contain mass or concentration-based effluent limits for the
pollutants in the permittee’s wastewater. These approaches are applied to pollutant
dischargers through the implementation of the national wastewater discharge permitting
program set up under the CWA. The CWA established national goals to eliminate pollutant
discharges to navigable waters and to assure that all navigable waters would be fishable and
swimmable.
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
The NPDES permit system was established under section 402 of the CWA to regulate municipal
and industrial discharges to surface waters of the United States. The discharge of wastewater
to surface waters is prohibited unless an NPDES permit has been issued which allows that
discharge. Each NPDES permit contains limits on allowable concentrations and/or mass
emissions of pollutants contained in the discharge. Under the NPDES program, dischargers are
required to monitor and provide reports on compliance with their permit limits. These
reports, formally titled Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMRs), are submitted to the
appropriate regulatory agency, and they describe water quality data and analysis. The
regulatory agency or any interested citizen can review this data to determine whether or not
the discharger has complied with its NPDES permit requirements, and, if appropriate, pursue
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 5, Wastewater Regulations 5-2
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
action to enforce compliance. Tahoe-Truckee Sanitation Agency’s WWTP operates under
Waste Discharge Requirements Order No. R6T-2002-0030. The Donner Summit PUD’s
Treatment Plant operates under Waste Discharge Requirements Order R5-2015-0068 (NPDES
PERMIT NO. CA0081621). These are the only two wastewater treatment plants studied in this
MSR.
Enforcement of NPDES guidelines and permits falls within jurisdiction of the Regional Water
Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and is subject to review by the EPA Regional Administrator
(EPA Region IX, San Francisco Office). The Lahontan RWQCB covers the Town of Truckee and
portions of Lake Tahoe and Martis Valley. The Central Valley RWQCB covers the Donner
Summit area. The RWQCB regulates activities involving discharges to land or groundwater
from diffused sources. A Report of Waste Discharge must be filed with the RWQCB to obtain a
Waste Discharge Requirement (WDR) for these types of non-surface water discharge.
Congress amended the CWA in 1987 to include non-point source pollutants. Non-point source
pollutants are often chemicals from lawns or gardens, automobile residues, urban runoff, or
household cleaning agents or compounds. Most non-point source pollutants enter the
wastewater stream and the water supply in large quantities and sudden surges, largely due to
storm events. Although the EPA has established NPDES requirements for storm water, control
of this type of pollution has proven to be difficult and could potentially require costly
upgrades in existing wastewater treatment plants.
Section 303(d) Impaired Waters List and TMDLs
Under Section 303(d) of the CWA, states are required to develop lists of water bodies which
will not attain water quality objectives after implementation of required levels of treatment
by point source dischargers (municipalities and industries). Section 303(d) requires that the
state develop a total maximum daily load (TMDL) for each of the listed pollutants. The TMDL
is the cumulative load that the water body can receive and still be in compliance with water
quality objectives. These limitations are then placed in the discharger’s NPDES permit as
water quality-based effluent limitations.
Lake Tahoe is designated as an Outstanding National Resource Water and as such it is
provided with the highest level of protection under USEPA’s Antidegradation Policy.
However, its water quality is impaired by elevated fine sediment particles and nutrients that
are derived from land development, atmospheric deposition, and disturbances to forests and
streams. Lake Tahoe was placed on the Section 303(d) list of impaired water bodies in 1988
and the Lake’s transparency continues to be monitored by scientists. TMDLs for the Lake
were adopted in November 20110 by the Lahontan RWQCB. In December 2012, TRPA adopted
a Water Quality Management Plan for Lake Tahoe that serves to streamline the
administration, management, and implementation of water quality regulations by a multitude
of agencies and this Plan is available on-line at: <http://www.trpa.org/wp-
content/uploads/Final-U.S.-EPA-Adopted-Lake-Tahoe-208-WQMP_2013.06.19.pdf>. Donner
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 5, Wastewater Regulations 5-3
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
Lake is also on the 303(d) list for violation of Office of Environmental Health Hazard
Assessment (OEHHA) MTRL of fish tissue criteria for "Priority Organics" such as PCBs
(Polychlorinated biphenyls) (Lahontan, 2010).
Within this MSR study area, the streams and rivers that are on the Clean Water Act Section
303(d) list of impaired water bodies for elevated levels of pollutants include:
• The Truckee River
• North Fork American River
• Squaw Creek
• Ward Creek
• Blackwood Creek
• General Creek
Additional information on 303(d) listings is available in the Tahoe-Sierra Integrated Regional
Water Management Plan, July 2014. The Donner Summit PUD and the Tahoe-Truckee
Sanitation Agency are the only two agencies studied in this MSR that actually own and operate
a wastewater treatment plant. Both these agencies continuously monitor their discharge to
ensure compliance with the above water quality regulations.
National Toxics Rule
The EPA established the National Toxics Rules (NTR) to create numeric criteria for priority
toxic pollutants for California and 13 other states and territories that were not in complete
compliance with the CWA. For California, the NTR established water quality standards for
protection of aquatic life and/or human health for 36 pollutants for which water quality
criteria exist, but which were not covered under California’s statewide water quality
regulations.
California Toxics Rule
Federal water quality standards are contained in both the National Toxics Rule (40 CFR
131.36) and the California Toxics Rule (40 CFR 131.37).The EPA issued the California Toxics
Rule (CTR) in May 2000. The California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) has
adopted a statewide implementation policy for the federal toxics standards and these also
apply to both the Lahontan Region and the Central Valley Region. There are 130 constituents
listed in the California Toxics Rule (CTR) criteria, which include the EPA’s previously issued
NTR criteria for California. Some of the key elements of the CTR include:
Amended numeric standards for 30 toxic pollutants and added new criteria for 8 toxic
pollutants to protect aquatic life and human health uses for water bodies.
Dissolved-based standards for most trace metals and endorsement of the use of
translator mechanisms for determination of local metals objectives.
Provisions for compliance schedules to provide time for permittees to meet the new
toxics standards.
Provisions for mixing zones when calculating toxic constituent effluent limitations.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 5, Wastewater Regulations 5-4
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
Use of interim effluent limits to provide time for dischargers to take actions to meet
final limits.
The EPA recently promulgated numeric water quality criteria for priority toxic pollutants and
other water quality standards for waters in the State of California pursuant to section
303(c)(2)(B) of the CWA if those pollutants could be reasonably expected to interfere with the
designated uses of states waters. Although California had adopted numeric criteria for priority
toxic pollutants in 1992, the courts ordered California to rescind these water quality control
plans in 1994 and the new water quality criteria rule, known as the California Toxics Rule
(CTR), temporarily replaced the standards adopted in 1991. The CTR established:
Ambient aquatic life criteria for 23 priority toxics;
Ambient human health criteria for 57 priority toxics; and
Compliance schedule provision.
Under the CTR various regional water quality control boards will issue schedules of
compliance for new or revised NPDES permit limits based on the federal criteria when certain
conditions are met. Currently each basin plan, as prepared by the regional water quality
control board, contains a water quality criterion that all waters shall be maintained free of
toxic substances in concentrations that produce detrimental physiological responses in
human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. This has been contested by local jurisdictions all over
California since it is expected to add significantly to the cost of wastewater treatment.
For the Donner Summit PUD wastewater treatment plant, the NPDES permit issued by the
Central Valley RWQCB considers the California Toxics Rule. Discharge to the South Fork of
the Yuba River, undergoes a number of rounds of sampling under the CTR. The permit
includes effluent limitations based on the results of the CTR and other samples. See Chapter 7
for more information on the Donner Summit PUD.
The Tahoe-Truckee Sanitation Agency also complies with the California Toxics Rule with
oversight from the Lahontan RWQCB. See Chapter 16 for further details.
California Wastewater Treatment Regulations
Several types of state regulations affect wastewater collection and treatment in California.
California Water Code (including the Porter-Cologne Act)
The California Water Code is the principal state regulation governing the use of water
resources within the State of California. This law controls, among other issues, water quality
protection and management, and management of water-oriented agencies. Division 7 of the
California Water Code, commonly referred to as the Porter-Cologne Act, is the principal
mechanism for regulation of water quality and pollution issues within California. This act
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 5, Wastewater Regulations 5-5
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
established a regulatory program to protect the water quality and beneficial uses of all state
waters. The Porter-Cologne Act also established the State Water Resources Control Board and
California Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCB) as principal state agencies
responsible for water quality control. The SWRCB has divided California into nine regions with
Nevada County located in the Central Valley RWQCB.
The Porter-Cologne Act grants the SWRCB and regional offices broad powers to protect water
quality and is the primary vehicle for implementation of California’s responsibilities under the
federal CWA. These broad powers include the authority and responsibility to adopt plans and
policies, to regulate discharges to surface and groundwater, to regulate waste disposal sites
and to require cleanup of hazardous materials and other pollutants. The Porter-Cologne Act
also includes reporting requirements for unintended discharges of any hazardous substance,
sewage, or oil/petroleum product.
Regional Water Quality Control Boards formulate and adopt a water quality plan for its
specific region which conforms to the Porter-Cologne Act. The Porter-Cologne Act provides
that a regional office may include water discharge prohibitions applicable to local conditions,
areas, and types of waste within its regional plan. The regional offices are also authorized to
enforce discharge limitations, take actions to prevent violations, and conduct investigations
about the quality of any of the waters of the state. Civil and criminal penalties are applicable
to persons who violate the requirements of the Porter-Cologne Act or SWRCB/RWQCB orders.
The Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region was first adopted in 1975, and most
recently updated in 1995. The Plan presents water quality standards and control measures for
surface and ground waters of the Lahontan Region, which includes the California portion of
Lake Tahoe and its tributaries. The Central Valley RWQCB adopted a Water Quality Control
Plan1 for the Sacramento River and San Joaquin River Basins in 1994 (Third Edition) and this
has subsequently been amended several times. The Plan presents water quality standards and
control measures for surface and ground waters for the Sacramento and San Joaquin River
drainage basins which are bound by the crests of the Sierra Nevada on the east and the Coast
Range and Klamath Mountains on the west. The Plan’s boundaries extend some 400 miles from
the California - Oregon border southward to the headwaters of the San Joaquin River.
The Porter Cologne Act mandates that all sewage be exported from the Tahoe Basin. The
Tahoe-Truckee Sanitation Agency (T-TSA) is the sole operator of wastewater treatment
facilities for the Tahoe Basin portions of Eastern Placer County and Eastern Nevada County. T-
TSA treats and disposes of collected wastewater at the Water Reclamation Plant east of
Truckee. The Truckee area location of the wastewater treatment plant is not within the
Tahoe Basin and is therefore consistent with the Porter Cologne Act. T-TSA (Chapter 16)
accepts wastewater from Truckee Sanitary District, North Tahoe PUD (Chapter 10), Squaw
1 Water Quality Control Plan details available at:
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/water_issues/basin_plans/
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 5, Wastewater Regulations 5-6
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
Valley PSD (Chapter 12), Alpine Springs CWD (Chapter 6), Tahoe City PUD (Chapter 15), and
Northstar CSD (separate MSR). A second wastewater treatment plant located outside the
Tahoe Basin is operated by the Donner Summit PUD (Chapter 7) and this plant also treats
wastewater from the Sierra Lakes County Water District (Chapter 11).
Sanitary District Act
As part of the California Health and Safety Code section 6400 et seq, the Sanitary District Act
of 1923 governs the formation, elections, governance, and operations of a sanitary district. A
sanitary district may be merged with a county sanitation district, following the County
Sanitation District Act. In addition to providing sewage collection, treatment and disposal,
State Law enables county sanitation districts to provide additional services such as refuse
transfer or disposal, street cleaning, and water services. Although there are no sanitary
districts operating in North Tahoe/Martis Valley, we have included information about this
type of district to provide options for any future consideration of governance structure.
Other State Agencies
Other state agencies with jurisdiction or involvement in water quality regulation in California
include the Department of Public Health (DPH) for drinking water regulations and water
reclamation criteria, the Department of Pesticide Regulation, the Department of Fish and
Game, and the Office of Environmental Health and Hazard Assessment.
Local Wastewater Regulations
The Tahoe Regional Planning Agency has adopted a Water Quality Management Plan for Lake
Tahoe that serves to streamline the administration, management, and implementation of
water quality regulations by a multitude of agencies and this Plan is available on-line at:
<http://www.trpa.org/wp-content/uploads/Final-U.S.-EPA-Adopted-Lake-Tahoe-208-
WQMP_2013.06.19.pdf>.
For the Donner Summit area that is within Placer County and Nevada County, the County
Environmental Health Department approves wastewater disposal systems for subdivisions of
less than 100 lots consistent with adopted ordinances compatible with the Central Valley
RWQCB Guidelines. However, even for subdivisions of less than 100 lots, enough information
must be forwarded to the RWQCB, along with specified reports and permits, for the RWQCB to
assess the consistency of the development with State regulations. It should be noted that
Central Valley RWQCB can also regulate, and may require their approval of systems for
subdivisions of less than 100 lots.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 5, Wastewater Regulations 5-7
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
Wastewater Solids Regulations
Solids generated at a wastewater treatment facility comprise screenings, grit, primary or raw
sludge (PS) and secondary or waste activated sludge (WAS). The screenings and grit are
typically dewatered and disposed in a landfill. Sludge generated by a wastewater treatment
facility is defined as biosolids once beneficial use criteria, as determined by compliance with
EPA regulations, have been achieved through stabilization processes. Stabilization processes
are described as those that help reduce pathogens and reduce vector attraction.
Several federal, state, and local regulations are in place that influence whether biosolids
from municipal wastewater treatment plants can be reused or disposed of. Increased
concerns and debate over biosolids disposal and its associated environmental impacts have
led to more stringent revisions and amendments for many of these regulations. Continuing
changes in regulations affecting biosolids management make a flexible management program
essential.
Federal, state, and local agencies are responsible for regulating biosolids beneficial
reuse/disposal. The authority of each agency varies based on the beneficial reuse/disposal
methods employed. However, overall guidelines are established by the EPA. These guidelines
are in turn implemented by state and local governments. Many state and local agencies in
California have developed additional rules, guidelines, and criteria for biosolids management.
In order to implement the long-term biosolids permitting program, required by the Water
Quality Act of 1987, the EPA initiated two rule makings. The first rulemaking established
requirements and procedures for including biosolids management in NPDES permits,
procedures for granting state biosolids management programs primacy over federal programs,
or for federal programs to implement biosolids permits if a state so chooses.
The second rulemaking proposed to regulate and control biosolids permitting was 40 CFR Part
503, Standards for the Use and Disposal of Sewage Sludge. This rule addresses three general
categories of beneficial reuse/disposal of biosolids including:
Land application of sewage sludge for beneficial use of organic content;
Surface disposal of biosolids in a monofill, surface impoundment, or other dedicated
site; and
Incineration of sewage sludge with, or without, auxiliary fuel.
5.2 FUTURE REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS
This section provides insight into the future regulatory considerations that may affect agency
sewer systems’ effluent discharges. Identifying future regulatory trends is critical for the
following reasons:
Developing treatment scenarios and alternatives;
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 5, Wastewater Regulations 5-8
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
Planning for process and layout requirements for future regulatory compliance; and
Making budget considerations for major design and construction projects.
Identifying future pollutants of concern (POCs), such as metals, nutrients, and/or pathogens,
will help to develop alternatives that are flexible and can be easily expanded or upgraded to
treat future POCs. For example, planning may include reserving space in the site layout for
nutrient reduction, tertiary filtration, advanced oxidation, or an alternative disinfection
method that would provide treatment of future POCs.
Nutrient Criteria
Nitrogen and phosphorus are elemental nutrients that support photosynthesis and growth in
aquatic bacteria, algae, and plants. Although nitrogen and phosphorus are naturally present
in limited quantities, human activities and pollution can result in too much of these nutrients
in waterways and subsequently create problems such as algae blooms and bacterial
overgrowth. Nitrogen based compounds such as nitrates, nitrites, and ammonia are harmful to
people and fish when found in large quantities in local streams and other water bodies.
Nutrient pollution in the San Francisco Bay and the Sacramento/San Joaquin Delta has been
studied and remains an on-going concern (McKee et. al., 2011 and HDR Engineering, 2011).
Since the Donner Summit PUD wastewater treatment plant is located on the South Yuba River,
which is a tributary to the Sacramento River and Delta, nutrients from wastewater treatment
plants is an issue of interest for this MSR. It is recognized that the enhanced treatment
systems utilized by Donner summit PUD and by the Truckee-Tahoe Sanitation Agency enable
these wastewater plants to remove more nitrogen and phosphorus from their discharges than
others.
Nitrogen and phosphorus are the leading cause of impairments to the nation’s surface waters
and they are receiving greater regulatory scrutiny regarding their contribution to the overall
quality of the nation’s receiving waters. The EPA has been considering the development of
nationwide numeric criteria for total nitrogen and total phosphorus and perhaps also
modification to the regulations for secondary treatment of wastewater. Additionally, the
State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) is in the process of developing statewide
policies for nutrients. The SWRCB is currently in the process of developing a Nutrient Numeric
Endpoint (NNE) framework and policy for inland surface waters and they have held public
scoping sessions on this issue. Details are available on their website at:
http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/ water_issues/programs/nutrient_objectives/
Microconstituents and Bioaccumulative Constituents
Microconstituent, also referred to as “contaminants of emerging concern” by the EPA Office
of Water, are substances that have been detected in surface waters and the environment and
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 5, Wastewater Regulations 5-9
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
may potentially cause deleterious effects on aquatic life and the environment at relevant
concentrations. Microconstituents include:
Persistent organic pollutants (POPs) such as polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs;
used in flame retardants, furniture foam, plastics, etc.) and other organic
contaminants.
Pharmaceuticals and personal care products (PPCPs), including a wide suite of human
prescribed drugs, over-the-counter medications, bactericides, sunscreens, and
synthetic musks.
Veterinary medicines such as antimicrobials, antibiotics, anti-fungals, growth
promoters, and hormones.
Endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs), including synthetic estrogens and androgens,
naturally occurring estrogens, as well as many other compounds capable of modulating
normal hormonal functions and steroidal synthesis in aquatic organisms.
Nanomaterials such as carbon nanotubes or nano-scale particulate titanium dioxide.
Constituents that are taken up by organisms at faster rates than the organisms can remove
them can accumulate in the organism and the food chain, and can remain in the environment
for long periods of time. Mercury, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and dioxins are some
bioaccumulative constituents that are being increasingly regulated.
Monitoring requirements for these trace pollutants are increasing, including requirements to
analyze constituents at lower detection limits. It is likely that water quality criteria followed
by new effluent limits will be added to permits at some time in the future. Implementation of
contaminants of emerging concern standards is not expected to be imminent as the EPA is
currently focused on assessing the potential impact contaminants of emerging concern have
on the environment and human health.
California State Recycled Water Policy
The SWRCB adopted a Recycled Water Policy in 2009 and updated in 2013 to establish more
uniform requirements for water recycling throughout the State and to streamline the permit
application process in most instances2. The Recycled Water Policy includes a mandate that
the State increase the use of recycled water over 2002 levels by at least 200,000 acre-feet
per year (AFY) by 2020 and by at least 300,000 AFY by 2030. It also includes goals for
stormwater reuse and conservation and potable water offsets by recycled water. The onus for
achieving these mandates and goals is placed on both recycled water purveyors and potential
users. Since the recycled water project permit process is streamlined, projects will not be
required to include a monitoring component. If any regulations arise from new knowledge of
risks associated with contaminants of emerging concern, then projects will be given
compliance schedules. Regulations are not expected to arise in the imminent future.
2 Details are at the State Water Board website at
www.swrcb.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/water_recycling_policy/.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 5, Wastewater Regulations 5-10
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
5.3 REFERENCES
California, State of. November 2015. California Water Code. Available on-line at:
<http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.html/wat_table_of_contents.html>.
California Water Quality Control Board - Lahontan Region (Lahontan) Regional Board 6. 2010.
Draft California 2010 Integrated Report (303(d) List/305(b) Report. Available on-line
at: <http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/tmdl/2010state_ir_
stfrpt/00460.shtml>. Accessed 2Nov2015.
HDR Engineering, Inc. December 2011. Nutrient Regulatory Considerations. 25-pages.
Available on-line at: <http://bacwa.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Nutrient-
Regulatory-Considerations-FINAL.pdf>.
McKee, L.J., Sutula, Gilbreath, A.N., Beagle, J., Gluchowski, D., and Hunt, J. 2011 Numeric
nutrient endpoint development for San Francisco Bay- Literature review and Data Gaps
Analysis. Southern California Coastal Water Research Project Technical Report No.
644. www.sccwrp.org
The Partnership of the Tahoe-Sierra Integrated Regional Water Management and South Tahoe
Public Utility District. July 2014.Tahoe-Sierra Integrated Regional Water Management
Plan. 1138 pages. Available on-line at: <http://tahoesierrairwm.com/wp-
content/uploads/2014/07/T-S-IRWMP_July-2014_lo-res.pdf>
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 5, Wastewater Regulations 5-11
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
Chapter 6
Alpine Springs County Water District
(photo courtesy of http://www.alpinesprings.org)
This Municipal Service Review (MSR) describes the Alpine Springs County Water District. The
District was formed in 1963 and currently provides water, sewer, solid waste, fire/emergency,
and parks services within its service area.
Table of Contents
6.1 Agency Profile .................................................................................................... 6-2
6.2 Overview of Agency.............................................................................................. 6-3
6.3 Formation and Boundary ........................................................................................ 6-3
6.4 Accountability and Governance ............................................................................... 6-5
6.5 Management Efficiencies and Staffing ....................................................................... 6-5
6.6 Population and Growth ......................................................................................... 6-7
6.7 Financing .......................................................................................................... 6-9
6.8: Water Services .................................................................................................. 6-13
6.9 Wastewater Services ........................................................................................... 6-18
6.10: Fire and Emergency Services ................................................................................ 6-20
6.11: Park and Recreation Services ............................................................................... 6-22
6.12: Solid Waste ..................................................................................................... 6-23
6.13: Determinations ................................................................................................ 6-23
6.13: References ...................................................................................................... 6-27
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 6, Alpine Springs CWD 6-1
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
6.1 Agency Profile
ALPINE SPRINGS COUNTY WATER DISTRICT
Type of District: County Water District
Enabling Legislation: The County Water District Law: Water Code sections 30000-
33901
Functions/Services: Water, wastewater collection, solid waste collection,
fire/emergency services, park and recreation
Main Office: 270 Alpine Meadows Road, Alpine Meadows, CA 96146
Mailing Address: Same
Phone No.: 530-583-2342
Fax No.: 530-583-0228
Web Site: www.alpinesprings.org Email: info@alpinesprings.org
General Manager: John M. Collins, P.E. Email: john@alpinesprings.org
Phone: 530-583-2342 X12
Office Manager: Pam Zinn Email: pam@alpinesprings.org
Phone: 530-583-2342 X11
Governing Body: Elected Board of Directors
Director Term Expiration
Janet Grant, President 11/30/2018
John Northrop, Vice-President 11/30/2020
Evan Salke, Director 11/30/2018
Dave Smelser, Director 11/30/2020
Christine York, Director 11/30/2018
Meeting Schedule: 2nd Friday of the month at 9:00 a.m.
Meeting Location: Board Room, 270 Alpine Meadows Road, Alpine Meadows, CA 96146
Date of Formation: 1963
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 6, Alpine Springs CWD 6-2
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
6.2 Overview of Agency
Summary Description of Existing Services
The Alpine Springs County Water District (ASCWD/District) provides water, sewer, solid waste,
fire/emergency, and parks services within its service area. See Figure 6-1 for District boundary
and Sphere of Influence (SOI).
Location and Size
The District is located approximately four miles west of Tahoe City, stretching west from State
Route 89. The District is located in the Bear Creek Valley watershed. Encompassing
approximately five square miles, the District serves a permanent population of approximately
600 residents. The District consists of three subdivisions: Juniper Mountain Subdivision, Bear
Creek Subdivision, and Alpine Estates Subdivision. Additionally, the District includes Alpine Ski
Resort and a commercial area.
6.3 Formation and Boundary
The District was formed on March 19, 1963 under the County Water District Law: Water Code
Sections 30000-33901 (LAFCO Resolution No. 63-63). At formation, the District was
approximately 2,575 acres. The District existing boundary is shown in Figure 6-1, below.
Boundary History
Since its formation, the District has completed one annexation, the Bear Creek Valley
Annexation, which was approved in December 1973 (LAFCO Resolution No. 2-73). Portions of
the District are coterminous with Squaw Valley Public Services District, North Tahoe Fire
Protection District, and Tahoe City Public Utilities District.
Sphere of Influence
Neither District staff nor LAFCO files indicate whether a SOI has been established for the
District.
Extra-territorial Services
The District does not serve any customers outside its boundaries.
Areas of Interest
The District noted that they are aware of one proposed development within its territory: the
“Alpine Sierra Development.” The proposal includes 33 single-family residential units, 5 of the
units having separate guest units, and 14 residential townhomes. A Notice of Preparation for a
project EIR was released on April 8, 2014. The District is also directly adjacent to the
Squaw Valley development area.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 6, Alpine Springs CWD 6-3
S
q
u aw
C
reek Squaw
Valley
R d T
r
u
c k
e
e
R
i
v
e
r
89
R
iv
Bear
Creek e
r
R
d
Rd
Alpine
Meadows
Crest
R
d
Sno w
Tr
Scott
John
t
Rd
e
al
h
C
Courchevel Rd
W
ard
C
Ward Creek
reek
Blvd
Alpine Springs CWD
0 1,000 2,000
Feet
Parcels
Parcels, Roads and district boundary from Placer County GIS
Figure 6-1 ALPINE SPRINGS COUNTY WATER DISTRICT
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
6.4 Accountability and Governance
The District operates under the leadership of an elected five-member Board of Directors, with
a General Manager providing daily oversight and management of staff and resources. Board
meetings are held on 2nd Friday of the month at 8:30 a.m. Meetings are held at the District’s
board room located at 270 Alpine Meadows Road, Alpine Meadows, CA 96146. Meeting notices
and agendas are posted on the District’s website and outside the main office at least 72 hours
prior to meeting dates. Following Board approval, meeting minutes are posted on the District’s
website (www.alpinesprings.org).
Public comments are allowed at scheduled meetings and also can be provided by letters to the
District. Operating procedures and practices, including budgets, personnel policies, fees and
rates, capital improvement plans, and other documents are available for public review at the
District’s offices and some are available on the District’s website. District operating hours are
9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., Monday through Friday.
Board members are elected to four-year terms; the next election will take place in 2016. Board
members receive compensation of $125 for attendance of regularly scheduled meetings and
$25 per day for one additional day of District work per month and for each day on which a
Director attends one or more committee meetings. Monthly and annual pay limits are
established at $175 and $2,100, respectively. The current board of directors is as follows:
Table 6.1: Current ASCWD Board of Directors
Director Term Expiration
Janet Grant, President 11/30/2018
John Northrop, Vice-President 11/30/2020
Evan Salke, Director 11/30/2018
Dave Smelser, Director 11/30/2020
Christine York, Director 11/30/2018
6.5 Management Efficiencies and Staffing
The daily operations of the District are overseen by the General Manager, who oversees four
departments: Administration (1 employee), Recreation (seasonal employees), Operations and
Maintenance (water and sewer), and the Fire Department (under a contract for management
and first response with North Tahoe Fire Protection District NTFPD). The District maintains a
total of four year round employees and two seasonal employees.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 6, Alpine Springs CWD 6-5
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
The District operates with minimal staffing, facilities, and equipment. Should further cost
efficiencies and facility sharing become necessary, options may include the use of joint powers
authority, technological improvements, and/or out-sourcing of services. ASCWD is a member
of two JPAs for the operation of a common risk management and insurance program.
Contract Services
The District contracts for General Manager and financial services. The current General Manager
contract was established on July 1, 2008 and is with Collins Engineering Consulting, LTD for
$8,882.50 per month. The contract continues in perpetuity unless terminated under the
conditions of the Agreement (ASCWD, 2008).
The District also contracts with North Tahoe Fire Protection District for the management of the
Alpine Meadows Fire Department. Solid waste disposal is contracted to Tahoe Truckee Sierra
Disposal Company.
Technology/Management
The District utilizes a SCADA system to electronically monitor critical water and sewer. The
District is in the third and final year of a water meter replacement program. The new meters
are read remotely by the passing meter reader. The meters have leak detection technology and
facility managers are notified when there is a leak.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 6, Alpine Springs CWD 6-6
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
6.6 Population and Growth
Population
It has been Placer County General Plan policy to steer urban growth to the cities, which is
confirmed in the 2013 Placer County Housing Element. While the County has grown at a rapid
pace, much of this growth has occurred within the cities. Unincorporated Placer County’s
population grew at an AAGR of 1.8 percent between 1990 and 2000. Incorporated areas of the
County grew at an Average Annual Growth Rate (AAGR) of 5.2 percent.
From 2000 to 2010, Placer County as a whole had a 3.4 percent AAGR for population, a rate
nearly three times California’s population AAGR of 1.0 percent during this period. Most of this
growth occurred in the incorporated areas of the county where the AAGR was 5.0 percent
between 2000 and 2010. Growth in unincorporated areas of the county slowed to an AAGR of
0.7 percent.
The 2010 Census reported that there is a population of approximately 602 residents in Census
Tract 220.14, Block Group 3, which is the closest GIS shape file boundary reflecting the District.
The District projects that future growth will occur at a rate of 0.5 percent, which seems
reasonable in that there do not seem to be any new major projects on the horizon and it is
unlikely that revisions to the area plan will occur in the near future. According to the District,
approximately 25 percent of the homes are full-time residences.
Population growth rates within the District were estimated using historical growth rates from
the U.S. Census and input from District staff. The ASCWD estimates population growth based
on customer connections:
Table 6.2: Estimated # of Future Customers
Projected
# # # # Projected
Customers Customers Customers Customers # Customers
Service in 2003 in 2008 in 2012 in 20174 in 20224
Water1 602 643 653 669 686
Wastewater1 602 643 653 669 686
Fire/emergency 500 400 410 420 431
services2
Solid Waste --- 512 512 525 538
Parks3 500 1,555 980 1,005 1,030
1 Number of connections billed
2 Number of residents based on population at 25 percent full time residents and 2.5
residents per household
3 Number of park passes and group passes sold
4 Projected based on 0.5 percent annual growth projections
Source: ASCWD projections
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 6, Alpine Springs CWD 6-7
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
Estimates of population in resort areas are difficult to predict, as populations are transient and
have significant variation throughout the year. There are no current studies that accurately
project the number of seasonal visitors during peak times. Service providers typically provide
services based on land use type and variety of complicated flow or fixture unit values. The
water and wastewater connections included in the above table reflect permanent residents,
seasonal uses and/or demands, as well as visitor uses.
Table 6.3: Summary of Existing Population
Permanent Estimated Current Peak
Population (2013) Visitor Population1
Alpine Springs CWD 191 1,5462
Projected Growth and Development
Alpine Springs CWD is outside of the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency planning area. The Placer
County General Plan serves as the County’s vision for long-term land use development and
conservation. Placer County’s General Plan, adopted on August 16, 1994, and updated May 21,
2013, provides a series of goals, policies, standards and implementation programs to guide the
land use, development, and environmental quality of the County.
The Alpine Springs Area Plan was completed in 1994. The county has not established a time
frame for updating the Alpine Springs Area Plan and no substantial changes have been made to
that Plan since its adoption. The primary land uses within the District consist of single family
dwellings, multiple family dwellings, condominiums, commercial development and the ski area.
Substantial new growth is not anticipated and most growth will likely occur in the form of infill.
There are approximately 100 vacant lots available for building. The District plans
approximately two new water and wastewater service connections per year, so growth is very
slow. For purposes of this study, a five percent population growth rate is projected. While
population growth may be greater than the number of projected service connections, much of
the new increase is assumed to occur on lands already having water and sewer service
connections.
The District boundary is relatively large compared to the developed area of Alpine Springs. The
vast majority of the District takes in the alpine high mountain ridges on the north, south, and
west that are occupied by the ski resort. Most of the development area is confined to the valley
area.
There is currently one development project proposed – Alpine Sierra Development – which
includes 33 single family dwellings, five of which will include second dwellings, and 14
townhomes on 46 acres. As of April 15, 2014, the project application remains incomplete and
Placer County staff has advised that an Environmental Impact Report is required to complete the
1 This column shows the # overnight visitors. (Day-use only visitors are not included.)
2 Overnight visitor population for ASCWD calculated from 653 units x 2.66 persons per household and
89% absentee owner unit rate.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 6, Alpine Springs CWD 6-8
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
processing of the application. There is no published schedule for completion for the planning
review process for this project.
Absent consideration of the Alpine Sierra Development project, growth within the District is
minimal and mostly confined to infill of existing previously subdivided lots.
Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities
As described in Chapter 3, LAFCo is required to consider the provision of public services to
disadvantaged unincorporated communities (DUCs). Relevant data were reviewed for the Alpine
Springs area. No DUCs have been identified within Alpine Springs CWD boundaries, its SOI, or
adjacent areas. The U.S. Census 2010 found the median household income (MHI) in the 96146
zip code was $52,333.3 This is higher than the DUC threshold MHI of less than $48,706 (80
percent of the statewide MHI). Additionally, this area does receive adequate water,
wastewater, and fire protection services as detailed in this MSR. Please see Chapter
3, Section 3.6 of this MSR for more information on disadvantaged unincorporated
communities.
6.7 Financing
This section evaluates the factors affecting the financing of operations and improvements for
ASCWD. Information on District financing is derived from audited financial statements for the
Fiscal Year 2011/2012, as well as information provided by District staff. These statements
represent the financial statements of the District’s consolidated services, and follow
Government Accounting Standards Board (GASB) method of Accrual accounting. The District has
Governmental Funds, which include a General Fund and a Park Fund, and a Proprietary Fund
(Enterprise Fund), which includes a Water Fund, a Sewer Fund, and a Garbage Fund. Overall,
ASCWD provides a range of public services in a very cost-effective manner, compared to other
districts, as described in Appendix 5 (AP.5: Salary Information from State Databases).
Disclaimer: The financial information provided in this MSR section was accurate as of its writing
in 2013. However, the District updates its financial information on an annual basis. Therefore,
the financial information in this MSR has been superseded and readers are encouraged to read
the newer financial statements and budgets published by the District on their website at:
http://www.alpinesprings.org/home .
District Revenues and Expenditures
The District’s operating revenues exceeded expenditures in both Fiscal Year (FY) 2010/2011
and 2011/2012 (Table 6.4). There is adequate revenue to meet current obligations and those
expected in the near future. As shown in Table 6.4, an annual recurring net income of
3 2010 census via American Fact Finder website at:
<http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=CF>.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 6, Alpine Springs CWD 6-9
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
approximately $300,000 is estimated for the ASCWD based on District operating revenues
totaling approximately $1.74 million and District operating expenditures of approximately $1.45
million.
Table 6.4: ASCWD Revenues, Expenditures, and Change in Net Assets – Fiscal Years
2010/2011 and 2011/2012
Source FY2011/2012 FY2010/2011
Operating Revenues
Water $634,531 627,608
Sewer 243,822 240,346
Garbage 182,044 175,671
Park 20,631 19,570
Subtotal $1,081,028 $1,063,195
General Revenues
Property Taxes 557,474 552,828
Contributions 62,572 74,640
Interest & Other 48,666 51,301
Subtotal 668,712 678,769
Total Revenues $1,749,740 $1,741,964
Expenditures
General Government 550,586 560,692
Park 125,659 117,993
Water 477,240 473,080
Sewer 129,128 129,305
Garbage 169,562 164,843
Total Expenditures $1,452,175 $1,445,913
Change in Net Assets 297,565 296,051
Beginning Net Assets 3,551,918 3,225,896
Ending Net Assets $3,849,483 $3,551,918
Source: Independent Auditor’s Report (Damore, Hamric & Schneider, Inc., 2012, p. 9)
Recurring Revenues
ASCWD operating revenues include service charges, property tax, connection fees, grants and
other revenues. Grants and other revenues are allocated to administration services. Property
tax revenue, which was $557,474 for FY 2011/2012, is a main source of general revenue for the
District. Beginning in 2011, approximately 80 percent of the District’s gross property tax
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 6, Alpine Springs CWD 6-10
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
revenues are used to pay for the contract for fire services with North Tahoe Fire Protection
District.
Service charges are collected for all services provided by the District, and connection fees are
collected for water and wastewater services. Water and sewer user fee revenue was $878,353
in FY 2011/2012. Solid waste fees were $182,044 and Park revenues included $20,631 in the
same FY, both of which were slightly higher than the previous FY.
Recurring Expenditures
Operating expenditures include direct operating services, administration of direct services, and
administration of capital outlays. Costs of labor include contract staff, salaries, payroll taxes,
workers' compensation, and benefits to include PERS contributions, and a health plan
reimbursement arrangement. Cost of labor represents approximately 32 percent of the
District's total budget.
The fiscal year (FY) 2012/2013 contract with NTFPD was $416,400 (NTFPD, 2012), which was
increased to $440,000 for FY 2013/2014. The ongoing contract is a 15-year agreement to
provide management and staffing of the Alpine Meadows Fire Station at least 150 days per year.
Also, the ASCWD pays for utilities, repairs and maintenance, and alarm system for the fire
station at an estimated $19,156 for FY 2012/2013. New for FY 2013/2014, the ASCWD is
providing $14,550 for FY 2013/2014 to assist the NTFPD with residential defensible space work
within the boundaries of the District; and $5,000 for plan check fees, reports, and construction
inspections related to fire and life safety cost recovery fees for projects within the boundaries
of ASCWD (NTFPD, 2013).
District Assets and Liabilities
Operating expenditures include direct operating services, administration of direct services, and
administration of capital outlays. Costs of labor include salaries, payroll taxes, workers'
compensation, and benefits to include PERS contributions, health, vision and dental insurance,
as well as a health reimbursement arrangement.
Current assets for 2012 totaled $3,849,483. The District’s net assets are composed of the
capital assets of the District: water supply, storage, transmission, distribution systems, sewer
collection systems, land, buildings, park facilities, and equipment. With respect to property,
plant and equipment, the District held $1,977,534 million in fixed assets, net of accumulated
depreciation. Plant and equipment accounted for 1,965,216, land usage and easement rights
making up the remaining. Depreciation in 2012 was $87,806.
Table 6.5: Statement of Net Assets, 2012
Assets and Liabilities Amount
Assets
Current Assets 1,975,262
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 6, Alpine Springs CWD 6-11
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
Capital Assets 1,977,534
Total Assets 3,952,796
Liabilities
Current Liabilities 84,341
Total Long-Term Liabilities 18,972
Total Liabilities 103,313
Net Assets
Investment in Capital Assets, 1,935,526
Net of Related Debt
Unrestricted 1,916,957
Total Net Assets $3,849,483
Source: Independent Auditor’s Report (Damore, Hamric & Schneider, Inc., 2012, p. 8)
Long Term Liabilities and Debt
Long-term debt and investment information is for all District activities such as water,
wastewater, parks and recreation. Long-term debt (i.e., bonds, certificates of participation,
etc.) are key methods used by the District to finance capital improvements. At the end of
2012, the District had outstanding debt in the amount of $42,008 that was for the purchase of
two vertical water wells. The District’s long-term liabilities at year end 2012 included accounts
payable, accrued compensated absences for employees, and accrued payroll, and totaled
$61,305.
Asset Maintenance and Replacement
On August 8, 2003, the ASCWD Board established Policy 2.7.0, requiring the District to address
the need to accumulate reserves for recapitalization and capital outlay. Specifically, the
District must reserve a minimum of 2.5 percent of annual cash reserves and place it into the
recapitalization fund to be used exclusively to pay for recapitalization of facilities. The ASCWD
identifies capital improvements each budget cycle for the upcoming and future years. For FY
2012/2013, the District proposed improvements and repairs in the amount of $516,000 (ASCWD,
2012).
Cost Avoidance
ASCWD is a member of two joint-power authorities (JPA) for the operation of a common risk
management and insurance program covering workers’ compensation, property, general and
automobile liability, and automobile physical damage insurance. The District is a member of
the public employee retirement system (Placer LAFCO, 2004).
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 6, Alpine Springs CWD 6-12
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
6.8: Water Services
Service Overview
The District is located in the Bear Creek watershed, which flows to the Truckee River. The
District provides domestic water service to four commercial centers (which includes the Alpine
Meadows Ski Area, a 30-unit apartment complex, 462 single-family homes, and 130
condominiums (Placer LAFCO, 2004, pp. 4.1-3). The District’s water system facilities include
pumps, transmission, distribution, storage, and treatment.
The domestic water supply system is owned, operated, and managed by the District. The
system consists of four springs, two wells for domestic use (R-1 and AME well), two wells (R-1
and R-2) for snow making, one of which is also connected to the domestic system, six storage
tanks, water treatment includes chlorination facilities, two distribution booster pump stations,
and four distribution zones.
Water Supply/Demand
The District obtains its water supply from the Alpine Springs Watershed via four springs
(horizontal wells) and two vertical wells. Additionally, in 1992 the District purchased two snow-
making wells, R-1 and R-2, which provide a combined capacity of 850 gpm (Placer LAFCO, 2004,
pp. 4.1-3). Horizontal wells 1 through 4 are on USFS lands; Alpine Meadows Estate (AME) Well
and Wells R1 and R2 are on District-owned land (ASCWD, 2013, p. 6).
Water Supply
The District’s water system has a total of seven water supply wells, three of which are primary
domestic water sources (Table 6.6). The water system is divided into four pressure zones,
Zones 1–4. The “springs” referred to in the table below are horizontal gravity flow wells that
flow directly into the highest pressure zone (Zone 1). Vertical Wells R1 and R2 are used for
supplying snowmaking water to the Alpine Meadows Ski Area.
Table 6.6: ASCWD Water production and storage facilities
Supply Capacity Storage Capacity
Production Facility (gpm) Facility1 (gallons)
Spring 1 60 Tank 1 100,000
Spring 2 and 4 118 Tank 2 100,000
Spring 3 14 Tank 3 100,000
AME Well1 25 Tank 4 100,000
Vertical Well R1 350 Tank 5 100,000
Vertical Well R22 500 Tank 4-A 500,000
Total Capacity 1,000,000
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 6, Alpine Springs CWD 6-13
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
1 The AME Well is currently being rehabilitated, which will restore its capacity
to 150–200 gpm (ASCWD, 2013, p. 5).
2 Vertical Well R2 will require improvements prior to use as a potable water
supply.
Source: (Placer LAFCO, 2004, pp. 4.1-3)
The District indicates that its total water supply design capacity is 567 gpm, for an average
annual supply of approximately 298 mg (ASCWD, 2013, p. 5). The capacity does not include the
Vertical Wells R1 and R2, which are used for snowmaking. The firm yield of the District’s overall
water supply is estimated at 50 percent of the average annual supply, which equates to
approximately 149 mg. If only spring water is utilized, as desired by District residents, peak
day demands will exceed supplies during a prolonged drought. However, in times of drought
Well R1 is utilized to supplement system needs and to meet peak system demands during the
summer months. Vertical Well R2 exceeds EPA’s secondary standard for manganese levels and
would require additional treatment; additionally it is not equipped with a chlorine feed system
(Long, 2013, p. 3). If Vertical Well R1 water is used during drought years, the District can
supply 1,089 gpm with a firm capacity of 589 gpm.
Water Demand
Alpine Springs County Water District’s current water demand consists of domestic uses and
snowmaking machines for Alpine Meadows Ski Area. As of 2012, ASCWD provided domestic
water service to 653 customers for a total of 1,595 equivalent dwelling units (EDU), as well as
raw water from its Vertical Wells to the Ski Area. Annual domestic demand totaled 204 acre-
feet (AF) in 2012, with a maximum day domestic demand of approximately 460 gpm.
Table 6.7: Summary of ASCWD Water Demand
Average Maximum Peak
Equivalent Annual Monthly Day Annual
Dwelling Demand Demand Demand (acre-
Demand Source Units (gpd) (gpd) (gpm) feet)
Present
Residential 1,498 142,300 275,400 239 159
Commercial 97 9,200 17,800 15 10
Unaccounted (20%) 30,300 58,640 51 34
Total 1,595 181,800 351,840 304 204
Future (Buildout)
Residential 2,000 285,000 368,000 319 319
Commercial 150 21,400 27,600 24 24
Unaccounted (10%) 30,640 39,560 34 34
Total 2,150 337,040 435,160 378 378
Source: (Placer LAFCO, 2004, pp. 4.1-4)
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 6, Alpine Springs CWD 6-14
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
The District anticipates an increase of approximately 33 customers by 2022. The Alpine Springs
Development would increase the average day demand by 6.9 gpm and a maximum day demand
by 31.1 gpm (Long, 2013, p. 2).
Water Infrastructure and Facilities
Treatment Systems
The only treatment provided to the system is disinfection by chlorine. Transmission lines are
periodically flushed, particularly in the lower pressure zones.
Water Storage
The District maintains six water storage tanks with a combined capacity of 1 million gallons.
Four of the storage tanks having a capacity of 100,000 gallons each, are in need of replacement.
Two of the water storage tanks were repaired in 2014. The largest storage tank is a 500,000
gallon redwood tank built in 1978 and has 25 years of useful life remaining (Placer LAFCO, 2004,
pp. 4.1-3).
According to California Title 22, a water system must be able to supply maximum day demand
with all source operations, including adequate fire flow storage and peak hourly flow.
Fluctuations in water demand exceeding maximum day demand are supplied from storage
tanks. Storage requirements are as follows: fire protection at 3,000 gpm for three hours,
operation storage at 25 percent of maximum day demand, and emergency storage totaling 25
percent of fire and operational storage. Under these assumptions, ASCWD indicates it has
sufficient storage for projected buildout needs, and excess supply capacity now that one of the
snow wells has been connected to the system.
Table 1.8: ASCWD Water Storage Summary
Storage Needs (gallons)
Storage Requirement As of 2004 Buildout
Fire Flow 540,000 540,000
Equalization 109,440 136,080
Emergency 162,488 169,020
Total 812,438 845,100
Total Treated Available 1,000,000 1,000,000
Storage
Available Storage Surplus 187,562 154,900
Source: (Placer LAFCO, 2004, pp. 4.1-5)
Distribution and Transmission
Water throughout the system is generally gravity fed, although there are two pressure pumps
to aid delivery to lower pressure zones. Most distribution piping is composed of asbestos
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 6, Alpine Springs CWD 6-15
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
cement pipe ranging in size from 6–10 inches diameter (Placer County, 1994, pp. A-6).
Flexibility of supply to specific zones during emergencies is adequate (Placer County, 1994, pp.
A-6). Almost all areas can be supplied from two directions by separate sources or storage tanks.
The following table provides a summary of existing system pressure zone surplus and deficit.
Table 6.9: Existing System Pressure/Zone Surplus/Deficit Summary
Available Available Average Max Day
Source from Upper Day Max Day Surplus/
Supply Zones Demand Demand Deficit
Zone Source (gpm) (gpm) (gpm) (gpm) (gpm)
Zone 1 Wells 1, 2,
178 17 77 101
4
Zone 2 None 70 24 108 -7
Zone 3 Well 3,
39 -7 49 221 -189
AME Well
Zone 4 Well R1 350 -189 12 54 108
Totals 567 102 460 13
Source: (Long, 2013, pp. Table 4, 4)
The Proposed Alpine Sierra Development Water & Sewer Facility Evaluation (Study) prepared
by Brooke Long identified existing distribution system limitations and deficiencies.
Distribution deficiencies identified include the following:
• Maximum day supply capacity deficiencies in Zones 2 and 3
• Source water and supply reliability concerns
• Areas with pressure and fire flow deficiencies during maximum day demand
conditions
The Study recommends conveying excess supply capacity from Well R1 through the existing
distribution system from Pressure Zone 4 at the bottom of the valley up through Pressure Zone
3, Pressure Zone 2, and finally into Pressure Zone 1. The recommendation would require
rebuilding the existing Pump Station B and installing two new pump stations.
Pressure and fire flow deficiencies exist in the Juniper Mountain Subdivision and fire flow and
redundancies and deficiencies in portions of the Bear Creek Subdivision and Alpine Estates
Subdivision. The report recommends creating a new pressure zone between Zones 2 and 3,
which would include installation of additional waterline and two pressure reducing stations.
The recommendation would increase the maximum day demand pressure at the highest point
and provide adequate fire flow.
In summary, the District has recently reconstructed Well R-1 and connected it into the domestic
distribution system at a cost of $549,500. The District also has several ongoing Capital
Improvement Projects which will (1) refurbish the Districts AME Well (Projected cost
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 6, Alpine Springs CWD 6-16
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
$$1,120,000 of which $570,000 has been expended to date), and (2) installation of 1,100 linear
feet of 8 inch ductile iron water pipe (projected cost $400,000).
Challenges in Provision of Water Services
Two projects within and surrounding the District are currently being reviewed by Placer
County and Placer LAFCO:
1. Alpine Sierra Development within the District,
2. Village at Squaw Valley Specific Plan,
The District will need to actively participate in the planning process for each of these
proposals to ensure that water services within the District are not adversely impacted. Please
also note that an application for incorporation of Squaw Valley by local residents was
processed by LAFCo in the years 2013 – 2015 and this application was later withdrawn.
Climate Change
Climate change has been identified as one of the factors that increases uncertainty in regards
to water supply in a recent US Bureau of Reclamation study of the Truckee River Basin (BOR,
2015). This study found that average annual groundwater recharge in the Martis Valley aquifer
will likely change under future climate scenarios. Since the District relies upon groundwater
for its water supply, this issue is a concern. Considering the worst case scenarios, under a
warmer-drier climate, groundwater recharge in the Martis Valley could
decrease up to 23 percent compared to a reference condition. A Hotter-Drier climate could
decrease Martis Valley groundwater recharge up to 33 percent compared to a reference
condition due to decreases in the extent of snowpack and a faster snowmelt season. Wetter
conditions are also possible under various climate change scenarios and these types of
conditions could potentially increase groundwater recharge. A water demand study included
in this report indicates that demand will not outstrip supply in the Lake Tahoe Basin until the
year 2080, under a robust economic scenario (BOR, 2015).
The Bureau of Reclamation, as well as funding researchers at the Desert Research Institute and
PCWA are also developing an integrated groundwater, surface water, and climate change model
of the Martis Valley Groundwater Basin (MVGB). It is not known yet if the District will be
included in the future studies. However, climatically shifting runoff and groundwater
availability is an issue that the District should consider in its own water planning efforts as well
as consideration of involvement in regional water planning.
Water Service Adequacy
A water and sewer evaluation was prepared in 2011 and updated in 2013 as part of the Alpine
Sierra Development preparation in order to review the District’s system capabilities. The report
noted several existing water distribution system deficiencies (Long, 2013, p. 6):
• Maximum day supply capacity deficiencies in pressure zones 2 and 3
• Source water and supply reliability concerns
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 6, Alpine Springs CWD 6-17
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
• Areas with pressure and fire flow deficiencies (available fire flow <1,000 gpm) during
maximum day demand conditions
The District has identified fire flow improvements for the Juniper Mountain Subdivision in its
Long Range Water and Sewer Plan. The improvements have been targeted for “future years”
per the District’s 2012 budget. However, should the Alpine Sierra Development be approved,
the system deficiencies noted above will be addressed through both onsite and offsite
improvements.
No complaints were received by the District in 2011; one was received in 2012 and was regarding
water fees.
6.9 Wastewater Services
Service Overview
The District’s wastewater service provision is limited to collection; all treatment and disposal
is provided by the Truckee-Tahoe Sanitation Agency, of which the District is a member. The
District owns and operates its sewer collection system for the benefit of residential and
commercial customers within its boundaries. The system was constructed in the late 1960s,
early 1970s.
Wastewater is collected within the District and transmitted to the Tahoe-Truckee Sanitation
Agency (TTSA) treatment facility for treatment. The TTSA4 is a regional treatment facility
located in Truckee, California, which was established to treat and dispose of wastewater
generated in the area located between Truckee and Lake Tahoe. The TTSA receives wastewater
from its member districts at various locations along the Truckee River Interceptor sewer line
which runs from Tahoe City to the TTSA wastewater treatment plant. The District does not
currently provide any out of territory services. The District has a Long Range Water and Sewer
Plan to identify and plan for needed maintenance and upgrades of its system.
Wastewater Capacity
The District currently serves 653 wastewater connections within its District, of which 5 are
commercial customers (ASCWD, 2013, p. 8). The District does not utilize an equivalent unit
conversion for commercial or industrial customers. The Proposed Alpine Sierra Development
Water and Sewer Facility Evaluation (Long, 2013, p. 12) quotes the ASCWD Recommended Long
Range Water and Sewer Master Plan prepared by Lumos and Associates, dated December 2006,
4 Members of the Tahoe-Truckee Sanitation Agency (TTSA) include Tahoe City Public Utilities District,
North Tahoe Public Utilities District, Alpine Springs County Water District, Squaw Valley Public Services
District, and Truckee Sanitation District (Placer County, 2003). Northstar CSD is also served by T-TSA
facilities through a contract with TSD for shared use of TSD’s collection system infrastructure in route
to the TTSA.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 6, Alpine Springs CWD 6-18
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
as concluding that “unless substantial growth is seen in the Alpine Springs community, the size
of the sewer system will continue to adequately serve the community”.
According to the District’s previous MSR, which incorporated information from the TTSA MSR,
ASCWD has an Average Day Demand (ADD) of 0.066 mgd and a peak-hour flow of 0.28 mgd in
the summer and 0.29 in the winter (Placer LAFCO, 2004, pp. 4.2-3). At buildout peak-hour
flows are expected to increase to approximately 0.40 mgd. The following table provides a
summary of current and projected wastewater flows for the District:
Table 6.10: ASCWD Current and Future Wastewater Flows
Average Day Demand Peak-Hour Flow (mgd)
Timeframe MGD EDU1 Summer Winter
Current 0.0662 653 0.28 0.29
Buildout 0.40 0.40
1 EDU = one equivalent dwelling unit (EDU) with wastewater generation of 420 gallons-per-day
(gpd).
2 (Nevada LAFCo, 2003, pp. 4-6)
The District services five commercial customers, which are included in the EDU total.
Source: (Placer LAFCO, 2004, pp. 4.2-3)
Wastewater Infrastructure and Facilities
ASCWD’s sewer infrastructure was built incrementally along with specific development patterns
in the community. However, there is no information available on the length of mains,
appurtenances, or other important infrastructure components (Placer LAFCO, 2004, pp. 4.2-3).
The District has several ongoing capital improvement projects including replacement of
approximately 1,200 linear feet of exist 6 inch clay sewer main with 8 inch PVC sewer main
(Projected cost $415,000).
Treatment Systems
The District does not provide effluent treatment, nor does it dispose of effluent or waste
solids. All effluent is transmitted to T-TSA facilities for treatment and disposal.
Challenges
Because there is no readily available information regarding the District’s sewer infrastructure,
it is difficult to identify challenges to the provision of services. However, typical challenges to
similar districts include aging infrastructure, capital replacement, and infiltration/inflow (I/I)
intrusion of the system. Although there is no formal capital improvement plan for the District,
in 2006 the District had a Recommended Long Range Water and Sewer Master Plan prepared,
which identified the need for a District-wide sewer line evaluation.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 6, Alpine Springs CWD 6-19
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
Wastewater Service Adequacy
Studies prepared in the mid-2000s concluded that there is adequate capacity for collection
and transmission by the District, and treatment by TTSA. See the TTSA section for further
information regarding the Agency’s capacity and availability.
6.10: Fire and Emergency Services
Service Overview
The ASCWD provides facilities and funding for fire and emergency services in Alpine Meadows,
which is accomplished through a contract with the North Tahoe Fire Protection District (NTFPD)
to provide fire suppression and emergency medical services. The NTFPD provides structure fire
protection, emergency medical response, rescue/extrication, hazardous materials response,
fire safety education, arson investigation and fire prevention within the ASCWD. Because the
entirety of the ASCWD is classified as State Responsibility Area (SRA), the responsibility for
prevention and suppression of wildland fires falls to Cal Fire. The USFS, Tahoe National Forest,
Truckee Ranger District, provides these direct protection responsibilities on behalf of Cal Fire
through an Exchange of Acres Agreement. Wildfire protection services are provided at the local
level by NTFPD. More information regarding the NTFPD is located in Chapter 9 of this MSR.
Other services provided by NTFPD include plan review, code enforcement, public education,
fire investigation, and the Defensible Space Program.
The ASCWD’s Insurance Service Office (ISO) rating
is 6 on a scale of 1 to 10, 1 representing the highest
public protection and 10 indicating there is no
recognized protection.
The Alpine Meadows Community Wildfire Protection
Plan was prepared in October 2005, and in 2007,
the community of Alpine Meadows became the fifth
“firewise” community in the Sierra Nevada and one
of only eleven in the state (David Jaramillo, 2009).
Figure 1 NTFPD Station at 270 Alpine
Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies Meadows Rd
The District has one fire station, which is located at 270 Alpine Meadows Road. The ASCWD
maintains fire hydrants throughout all neighborhoods located within its boundaries. The District
states that it has scheduled replacement of the small diameter mains (4-6 inch) with 8 inch
mains over the next 10 years, which will increase fire flow capabilities (ASCWD, 2013, p. 11).
In addition to hydrants, multiple ponds exist along Bear Creek, which provide an additional
static water supply. The Truckee River at the lower end of the community is another excellent
water source. The abundant water supply and fire station within the community has allowed
Alpine Meadows to maintain its current ISO rating.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 6, Alpine Springs CWD 6-20
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
Management Efficiencies/Cost Avoidance/Facilities Sharing
Through the NTFPD, Alpine Meadows is also covered by the Lake Tahoe Regional Chiefs
Association mutual aid agreement, providing simplified access to Lake Tahoe Basin fire
departments upon request. The NTFPD is also a signatory to the California Master Mutual Aid
System, which provides access to free firefighting resources throughout the state (Geoarch
Sciences, 2005).
In 2009, the ASCWD obtained a grant, which was primarily for fuels reduction within the Bear
Creek watershed on property owned by ASCWD (David Jaramillo, 2009). Fuels reduction
included the removal of small diameter fir and pine as well as shrubs. The NTFPD also has a
chipper program that provides curbside chipping to residents by request within the District; a
program that has been further funded by the ASCWD in the FY 2013/2014 budget. The intent
of fuels reduction is to mitigate wildland fire intensity and spread by removing ladder fuels and
undergrowth, and provide more defensible spaces in the event of wildfires. It can be viewed
as a cost avoidance strategy as well as benefit to life and safety.
Challenges
The Alpine Meadows Community Wildfire Protection Plan noted that decreasing budgets and
increasing volume within the NTFPD may force its Board at some point to limit commitments to
communities outside their district; Alpine Meadows may want to plan for the eventuality of
becoming a part of the NTFPD or another fire district, or creating their own fire protection
service (Geoarch Sciences, 2005). It may also be beneficial to discuss options and opportunities
for shared fire service with the Squaw Valley PSD in order to determine the best efficiency of
cost and service.
Fire and Emergency Service Adequacy
The District contracts with NTFPD to provide all fire and emergency response personnel.
Under the contract, the District’s fire station is staffed by NTFPD a minimum of 150 days per
year. Fire and emergency response during the remainder of the year is provided from
NTFPD’s next closest fire station located in Tahoe City, which is staffed year-round. The
response time into the Alpine Meadows from the Tahoe City station is approximately 7-15
minutes.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 6, Alpine Springs CWD 6-21
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
6.11: Park and Recreation Services
Service Overview
The District operates one park (Alpine Springs Community Park), which is approximately 3-5
acres in size. The park is open to the public on a pay-to-use basis only. The District does not
have any established park standards. The park is available for groups, weddings, and events.
Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies
Alpine Springs Community Park features include a pond, beach, picnic tables, volleyball net,
tennis court, and restrooms (ASCWD, 2013, p. 12). Anticipated expenditures for FY 2012/2013
consisted of maintenance needs for the park and were approximately $13,000. Park revenue is
in the form of user fees, for which the District has a fee schedule, and averages around $15,000
annually. Family season passes are available, or one time user fees are based on number of
people in a group. The District has not identified any recreation needs.
Management Efficiencies/Cost Avoidance/Facilities Sharing
The Alpine Springs Community
Park is managed by the
District’s General Manager who
oversees seasonal park
employees. Maintenance of the
park is performed either by a
staff member or contracted to
a private firm, depending on
availability. Due to the geographic isolation of the park facilities, there is not any readily
available cost avoidance or facility sharing opportunities open to the District. It is
recommended that the District continue to be open to new measures to increase cost
efficiencies, such as competitive bidding processes and other measures.
Challenges
No challenges related to the provision of parks and recreation were identified by the District.
Park and Recreation Service Adequacy
It appears that the park facilities are adequate at this time. In the review and entitlement
process of the Alpine Sierra development, it may be found that additional park needs are
identified. It will be in the District’s best interest to closely review the analysis and
recommendations of the EIR and county staff.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 6, Alpine Springs CWD 6-22
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
6.12: Solid Waste
Service Overview
The ASCWD maintains an agreement with Tahoe Truckee Sierra Disposal Company (TTSD), a
private company, for solid waste collection and disposal (ASCWD, 2013, p. 12). Services
provided by the TTSD include waste collection and disposal, public outreach, education
programs, Christmas tree recycling, green waste pickup, meeting State mandated diversion
rate requirements (AB 939), and participating in the curbside recycling “blue bag” program
(Nevada LAFCo, 2006, pp. 2.5-1).
Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies
The TTSD provides collection services to residential and commercial customers within the
District. Disposal is either at the Eastern Placer County Eastern Regional Sanitary Landfill or to
the District’s Material Recovery Facility (MRF). The TTSD provides a voluntary household
recycling program, as well as hazardous materials, oil, and green waste recycling.
Management Efficiencies/Cost Avoidance/Facilities Sharing
The contract for garbage services is administered by the ASCWD General Manager. The District
paid approximately $116,000 in FY 2012/2013 for its contract with the Disposal Company and
revenue for garbage services totaled $177,201. No opportunities for cost avoidance or facilities
sharing were identified by the District or the consultants in preparing this MSR.
Challenges
No challenges were identified by the District, nor were any identified by the consultants in
preparing this MSR.
Solid Waste Service Adequacy
The District did not identify any inadequacies in solid waste services, nor were any identified
in the preparing of this MSR.
6.13: Determinations
Population and Growth
1. The population within the Alpine Springs County Water District is estimated to include
191 permanent residents as of 2013 and an average of 1,546 overnight visitors.
2. According to the District, approximately 25 percent of the homes are full-time
residences.
3. Growth within the District is minimal and mostly confined to infill of existing previously
subdivided lots. The District projects that future growth will occur at a rate of 0.5
percent.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 6, Alpine Springs CWD 6-23
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities
4. No areas within the District qualify as a disadvantaged unincorporated community
because the median family income exceeds 80% of the state median family income.
Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities
5. Alpine Springs CWD was established in 1963 to provide water service within its five sq.
mi. boundary area in eastern Placer County.
6. Alpine Springs CWD provides a variety of services including water, wastewater
collection, solid waste collection, fire/emergency services, and park and recreation
services within its service area.
Water
7. In general, the District has sufficient water supplies to meet existing average
and peak day demands.
8. The District’s peak day demands will exceed supplies provided from its springs during a
prolonged drought. However, in times of drought, Horizontal Well R1 is used to
supplement system needs.
9. Horizontal Well R2 is not currently suitable for potable water usage due to elevated
levels of manganese beyond state limits.
10. The District has existing pressure zone deficiencies that affect the adequacy of fire flow
in Zones 2 and 3. The District is considering improvements to address these deficiencies.
11. Two projects within and surrounding the District are currently being reviewed by Placer
County and Placer LAFCO: 1) the Alpine Sierra Development within the District and 2)
Squaw Valley Specific Plan The District will need to actively participate in the
planning process for each of these developments to ensure that water services within
the District are not adversely impacted.
12. The District has a Long Range Water and Sewer Plan to identify and plan for needed
maintenance and upgrades of its system.
Wastewater
13. The District’s wastewater service provision is limited to collection; all treatment and
disposal is provided by the Truckee-Tahoe Sanitation Agency, of which the District is a
member.
14. The District has a Long Range Water and Sewer Plan to identify and plan for needed
maintenance and upgrades of its system.
15. The ASCWD Recommended Long Range Water and Sewer Master Plan prepared by Lumos
and Associates (dated December 2006) concluded that “unless substantial growth is seen
in the Alpine Springs community, the size of the sewer system will continue to
adequately serve the community.”
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 6, Alpine Springs CWD 6-24
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
Fire and Emergency Services
16. The ASCWD provides facilities and funding for fire and emergency services in Alpine
Meadows, which is accomplished through a contract with the North Tahoe Fire
Protection District (NTFPD) to provide fire suppression and emergency medical services.
17. The contract with NTFPD ensures Alpine Springs Fire Station coverage a minimum of 150
days per year, and initial response from NTFPD facilities the remainder of the year.
18. Alpine Springs CWD retains ownership of all fire equipment, supplies, and property and
is responsible for staffing of the station with volunteer firefighters. However, the
station is not staffed regularly, with one resident firefighter covering the District a
portion of the time. Annexation of the lands within the ASCWD to the North Tahoe Fire
Protection District for the purpose of providing fire services could alleviate some
duplication in costs through sharing of administrative staff, mechanics, repair facilities,
and various other items. ASCWD should consider this governance option and provide
LAFCo with a brief report, prior to preparation of the next MSR by LAFCo in 2023.
19. The District is made up entirely of State Responsibility Area (SRA) lands, directing
responsibility for wildland fire suppression to CalFire.
20. The ASCWD’s Insurance Service Office (ISO) rating is 6 on a scale of 1 to 10. On the
scale 1 represents the highest public protection and 10 indicates there is no recognized
protection.
21. The Alpine Meadows Community Wildfire Protection Plan was prepared in October 2005,
and in 2007, the community of Alpine Meadows became the fifth Firewise community in
the Sierra Nevada.
Parks and Recreation
22. The District owns and operates one park, the Alpine Springs Community Park.
23. The District does not have any established park and recreation standards.
24. It appears that the park facilities are adequate at this time.
25. In the review and entitlement process of the Alpine Sierra development, it may be found
that additional park needs are identified. It will be in the District’s best interest to
closely review the analysis and recommendations of the EIR and county staff.
26. It is noted that three districts in the North Tahoe Martis Valley area provide recreation
services (ASCWD, North Tahoe PUD, and Tahoe City PUD) as shown in Table E1-1 in the
Executive Summary. Other recreation service providers in the region include the
Truckee Donner Recreation and Park District, California State Parks, and the U.S. Forest
Service. Given this plethora of recreation service providers, LAFCO and its subject
districts should study whether additional efficiencies could be gained through structural
or organizational changes.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 6, Alpine Springs CWD 6-25
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
Solid Waste and Recycling
27. The District’s oversight of its solid waste removal contract with TTSD appears both
sufficient and efficient. No management efficiencies, cost avoidance, or facilities
sharing opportunities were identified during the preparation of this MSR.
28. The District did not identify any inadequacies in solid waste services, nor were any
identified in the preparing of this MSR.
Financial Ability of Agency to Provide Services
29. The District’s operating revenues exceeded expenditures in both Fiscal Year (FY)
2010/2011 and 2011/2012 (Table 6.4). There is adequate revenue to meet current
obligations and those expected in the near future.
30. ASCWD provides a range of services in a very cost effective manner as described in
Appendix 5 (AP.5: Salary Information from State Databases).
31. Approximately 80 percent of the District’s gross property tax revenues are used to pay
for the contract for fire services with North Tahoe Fire Protection District.
32. It is recommended that the District continue to be open to new measures to increase
cost efficiencies, such as competitive bidding processes and other measures.
Status of, and Opportunities for, Shared Facilities
33. ASCWD has maintained an on-going agreement for the past several years with North
Tahoe Fire Protection District for operations of facilities of the District’s fire protection
services.
Accountability for Community Service Needs, Including Governmental
Structure and Operation Efficiencies
34. ASCWD was established in 1963 pursuant to Division 12 of the Water Code of the State
of California. It was authorized on March 25, 1963.
35. An elected five-member Board of Directors oversees the management of the District’s
public resources. ASCWD meets its statutory financial reporting requirements that
ensure its operations are conducted in an open and transparent manner. ASCWD meets
its fiscal accountability requirement to its customers through budgetary and financial
reporting using its website as a communication channel and other communication tools.
The District provides public notice of meetings, and posts agendas and minutes online.
36. Operational and management efficiency is important to ASCWD. Management efficiency
is obtained in part by the District’s organizational structure where the Board and
management work together in the identification of goals and issues and assignment of
staff as appropriate for each type of service provided. The District has adopted policies
to guide District operations. ASCWD uses master plans, annual budget, and annual
Capital Improvement Plan to plan for and carry out operations and capital programs.
The District continues its work to improve efficiency in numerous areas of service,
including operations, finance, customer service and field services.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 6, Alpine Springs CWD 6-26
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
37. There is a risk is that a District that serves only 191 permanent customers may not be
sustainable over the long-run. It is recommended that ASCWD produce a study that
outlines various options, including reorganization of its government structure, for
ensuring the long term and sustainable provision of public services to customers within
ASCWD’s boundaries. The results of this study should be presented to LAFCO prior to
the year 2023, when LAFCO prepares the next MSR for ASCWD.
6.13: References
ASCWD. (2008, July 13). Agreement for General Management Services. Alpine Meadows, CA:
ASCWD.
ASCWD. (2012). ASCWD Draft Budget . Alpine Springs: ASCWD.
ASCWD. (2013). Placer LAFCO MSR Update Request for Information Response. Alpine Springs,
CA.
Damore, Hamric & Schneider, Inc. (2012). Alpine Springs County Water District Financial
Statements and Auditor's Report for the Fiscal Years Ended June 30, 2012 and 2011.
Sacramento.
David Jaramillo, R. (2009). Alpine Meadows Fuel Reduction Project. Retrieved May 5, 2014,
from Alpine Springs County Water District: <http://98.129.89.114/tahoe/478/site/
graphics/pdf/Alpine%20Meadows%20Outreach%20JC%20edits.pdf>
Geoarch Sciences, I. &. (2005, October). Alpine Meadows Community Wildfire Protection Plan
. Retrieved May 5, 2014, from North Tahoe Fire Protection District:
http://www.ntfire.net/Images/Images/alpine%20cwpp%20(reduced%20file).htm
JLong, B. (2013). Proposed Alpine Sierra Development Water & Sewer Evaluation. Alpine
Meadows: ASCWD.
Nevada LAFCo. (2003, November). Eastern County Wastewater MSR. Retrieved June 1, 2014,
from Nevada LAFCo: <http://www.mynevadacounty.com/nc/lafco/docs/
LAFCo%20Municipal%20Service%20Reviews/Completed%20MSRs/2003%20Eastern%20Nev
ada%20County%20Wastewater%20MSR.pdf>.
Nevada LAFCo. (2006, April). Eastern Nevada County General Government Services Municipal
Service Review. Retrieved June 2, 2014, from Nevada LAFCo:
http://www.mynevadacounty.com/nc/lafco/docs/LAFCo%20Municipal%20Service%20R
eviews/Completed%20MSRs/2006%20Eastern%20County%20General%20Government%20
Services%20MSR.pdf
NTFPD. (2012, September 19). Fiscal year 2012/2013 Final Budget. Retrieved May 5, 2014, from
North Tahoe Fire Protection District: <http://www.ntfire.net/Images/
Images/final%20budget%202012-2013.pdf>
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 6, Alpine Springs CWD 6-27
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
NTFPD. (2013, September 18). Fiscal Year 2013/2014 Final Budget. Retrieved May 5, 2014, from
North Tahoe Fire Protection District: http://www.ntfire.net/Images/Images/13-
14%20final%20budget.pdf
Placer County. (1994). Placer County General Plan: Draft Background Report Technical
Appendices. Retrieved May 30, 2014, from Tahoe Regional Planning Agency:
http://www.trpa.org/documents/rseis/General%20Refs/Placer%20County%20General%
20Plan%201994/Background%20Report/Appendices.pdf
Placer LAFCO. (2004). Municipal Services Review Area 3 Services. Auburn: Placer LAFCO.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation. (August 2015 ). Truckee Basin
Study, Basin Study Report. 310 pages. < http://www.usbr.gov/watersmart/bsp/> and
<http://www.usbr.gov/watersmart/bsp/docs/finalreport/truckee/tbsbasinstudy.pdf>
.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 6, Alpine Springs CWD 6-28
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
CHAPTER 7: DONNER SUMMIT
PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT
Photo Courtesy of: http://trailstrekker.blogspot.com/2011/08/lake-angela-by-way-of-pacific-crest.html
This chapter of the Municipal Service Review (MSR) describes the provision of wastewater
services by the Donner Summit Public Utility District (DSPUD/District). This District was formed
in 1948 and currently provides water treatment and distribution, and sewer collection and
treatment services within its service area.
Table of Contents
7.1 Agency Profile ...................................................................................... 7-2
7.2 Overview of District................................................................................ 7-2
7.3: Formation And Boundary .......................................................................... 7-4
7.4: Accountability and Governance .................................................................. 7-5
7.5: Management Efficiencies and Staffing .......................................................... 7-8
7.6: Population and Growth ............................................................................ 7-8
7.7 District Services ...................................................................................7-12
7.8: Financing ...........................................................................................7-21
7.9: Service Adequacy .................................................................................7-35
7.10: Opportunities to Share Facilities ...............................................................7-35
7.11: Determinations ...................................................................................7-37
7.12: References ........................................................................................7-40
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 7, Donner Summit PUD 7-1
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
7.1 AGENCY PROFILE
Donner Summit Public Utility District
Type of District: Public Utility District
Enabling Legislation: Public Utility District Act: Public Utilities Code §§ 15501-18055
Functions/Services: Water treatment and distribution, and sewer collection and
treatment
Main Office: 53823 Sherritt Lane, Soda Springs, CA 95728
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 610, Soda Springs, CA 95728
Phone No.: (530) 426-3456
Fax No.: (530) 426-3460
Web Site: www.dspud.com
General Manager: Tom Skjelstad Email: tskjelstad@dspud.com
Other Contact: Julie Bartolini Email: jbartolini@ dspud.com
Governing Body: Elected Board of Directors – 4-year terms
Name Role Term Ends
Cathy Preis President 12/31/2020
Sara Schrichte Vice President 12/31/2020
Robert Sherwood Secretary 12/31/2020
Alex Medveczky Director 12/31/2018
Phil Gamick Director 12/31/2018
Meeting Schedule: Third Tuesday of each month, 6:00 p.m.
Meeting Location: District Office, 53823 Sherritt Lane, Soda Springs, CA 95728
Date of Formation: 1950
Principal County: Placer County
Other: Multi-county district serving Nevada County and Placer County
7.2 OVERVIEW OF DISTRICT
The Donner Summit Public Utility District (DSPUD/District) provides sewer collection and
treatment, and water treatment and distribution to customers within its service area. This
Municipal Service Review (MSR) is the second for the District. The District’s first MSR was
prepared under the jurisdiction of Nevada LAFCo in 2004 under the Western County Wastewater
Services MSR. Placer LAFCo is the principal LAFCo for the DSPUD. The PUD is a multi-county
district serving customers in both Nevada County and Placer County. DSPUD is a public agency
formed in 1950 with Senate Bill No. 35, “The Donner Summit Public Utility District Act,” under
the provisions of the Public Utility District Act §§ 15501-18055 for the primary purpose of
providing water and sewer services in the service area.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 7, Donner Summit PUD 7-2
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
TYPE AND EXTENT OF SERVICES
The District provides sewer collection and treatment, and water treatment and distribution to
customers within its service area. The District also provides maintenance of related facilities
and equipment. Primary activities for the District’s water system include repairs and
maintenance of infrastructure (e.g., tanks, pipeline, and meters), water treatment, water
testing, preparation of an annual report for the California Department of Health, and State
permitting. Primary activities for the District’s sewage system include sewage collection,
repairs and maintenance of infrastructure, and sewage treatment. DSPUD is a public agency
formed in 1948. Approximately 331 water and 273 sewer service connections are maintained by
the District and supported by its operating budget which was $3.8 million in FY 2015-2016
(DSPUD, CAFR, 2016).
DSPUD provided fire and emergency response services up until 2006, when those service
responsibilities were transferred to neighboring Truckee Fire Protection District as part of a
reorganization approved by Nevada LAFCo.
LOCATION AND SIZE
The District is located in the unincorporated area of eastern Nevada County and northeastern
Placer County. It encompasses approximately 13 square miles (8,320 acres) along the Interstate
80 (I-80) corridor, including the Norden and Soda Springs communities in the Donner Summit
area. The utility district is roughly bounded by the I-80/Old Highway 40 exit to the west and
by Donner Summit to the east. The northern edge of the District extends to Castle Peak. The
PUD serves the Sugar Bowl Ski Resort located in Placer County. The District also has a service
contract with Serene Lakes Community Services District.
The District’s customer base is limited to residential users and commercial activity, including
Caltrans rest stops along I-80 and three ski resorts that operate on the summit: Boreal, Sugar
Bowl, and Donner Ski Ranch. The District has no industrial users. The Town of Truckee is the
closest socioeconomic center to the District area. Soda Springs, where the District office is
located, has only a few tourist-oriented commercial uses and a population of 81 according to
the 2010 US Census, only a portion of which may be full-time residents. There were 93
registered voters in the service area as of 2013. Land uses in the District are predominantly
forest and recreational, followed by seasonal, weekend/vacation residential uses. The
wastewater treatment plant and district office are located on Sherritt Lane at 6,800-feet
elevation, immediately north of I-80 off Donner Summit Road in Soda Springs. DSPUD’s water
treatment plant is located just north of Donner Ski Ranch on Donner Summit, at approximately
7,200-feet elevation with no development above the watershed area. See Figure 7-1 for a map
of the service boundaries and significant District features.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 7, Donner Summit PUD 7-3
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
7.3: FORMATION AND BOUNDARY
The formation of the District was first put to a vote in Placer County on December 19, 1947,
and in Nevada County on March 2, 1948. Nevada County’s Ordinance No. 163 called for a special
election "to determine whether or not said utility district shall be organized under the public
utility district act ...". Nevada County Board of Supervisors’ Resolution dated March 24, 1948
accepted the outcome of the vote in both Nevada and Placer counties. This Resolution contains
the initial legal description for the District (DSPUD, 2018). The California Secretary of State
subsequently certified the Board’s Resolution on August 27, 1948, under the provisions of
Section 9 of the Public Utility District Act. On March 24, 1950, Senate Bill No. 35 was proposed
and subsequently amended and approved by the California State Legislature, to create the
Donner Summit Public Utility District, merging what had been two separate districts in Nevada
and Placer Counties. The District was originally formed in order to provide the service area with
sewer and water facilities for military encampments, civilian repair crews, and tourist facilities,
and to allow for public financing of the water and sewer facilities given the high cost of such
infrastructure in the mountainous terrain of the Donner Summit area.
BOUNDARY HISTORY
The boundaries of the District were originally formed in 1948. The State Board of Equalization
tracks district boundaries. Through the years there have been a number of annexations and
detachments, which have led to the current DSPUD boundaries. Since the 2004 MSR, the District
boundaries have been changed twice: first in 2008 with the annexation of the remaining
territory of Sugar Bowl and most recently in 2013 with the annexation of the Big Bend Mutual
Water Company, which was within the Sphere of Influence of the District. In July 2006, the
Truckee Fire Protection District annexed the DSPUD fire service area and DSPUD disengaged
from provision of fire and emergency services. The current boundaries of the District encompass
8,320 acres, as listed in Table 7-1.
SPHERE OF INFLUENCE
The District’s Sphere of Influence (SOI) has been established and was last updated in 1998. The
SOI is approximately 10,000 acres in size, with most of the SOI lying in Placer County as listed
in Table 7-1. The District manager has indicated that the SOI boundary is adequate for
projected future needs.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 7, Donner Summit PUD 7-4
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
Table 7-1: Size of Donner Summit PUD
Number of Size (acres) Number of
Size (acres)
Parcel’s of SOI only** Parcel’s
Agency of boundary
(APNs) in (APNs) in SOI
area
boundary area only
DSPUD in Nevada County 7,823 441* 3,844 706*
DSPUD in Placer County 834 254* 6,249 1358*
Total DSPUD 8,657 695* 10,093 2064*
*Note: Parcel counts are not exact. Sometimes the District boundary crossed part of a parcel.
For example, it crossed a third or a half of a large parcel. Also, major highways and some
roadways were excluded from the parcel list.
**SOI acreage provided does not include the boundary area.
Data source: GIS data from Placer County and Nevada County
EXTRA-TERRITORIAL SERVICES
The District provides wastewater treatment services for Sierra Lakes County Water District
(SLCWD) customers via an Interim Service Agreement. SLCWD services customers in the Serene
Lakes area.
AREAS OF INTEREST
No other areas outside the District boundaries have been identified that require services from
the District.
7.4: ACCOUNTABILITY AND GOVERNANCE
The District is governed by a five-member Board of Directors, who are elected by registered
voters within the District boundaries. Regularly scheduled meetings are held on the third
Tuesday of the month at 6:00 p.m. Meetings are located at the District office, at 53823 Sherritt
Lane, Soda Springs, CA 95728. The current Board Members are as follows:
Name Role Date Term Ends
Cathy Preis President 12/31/2020
Sara Schrichte Vice President 12/31/2020
Robert Sherwood Secretary 12/31/2020
Alex Medveczky Director 12/31/2018
Phil Gamick Director 12/31/2018
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 7, Donner Summit PUD 7-5
N E V A D A C O U N T Y
80
Lake Van Norden
Lake Mary
Palisade
Lake Ice Lakes
P L A C E R C O U N T Y
Road
gs
n
pri
S
a
d
o
Donner Summit PUD S
Sphere of Influence
0 1 2
Miles
County Boundary
District Boundary, Big Bend update from Placer County LAFCo,
District Boundary and SOI from Nevada County LAFCo GIS.
Figure 7-1 DONNER SUMMIT PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
Directors Phil Gamick and Alex Medveczky were appointed by the Nevada County Board of
Supervisors (Resolution No. 14-427) rather than through a general election. DSPUD Board
candidates for election must reside in and be a registered voter within the Donner Summit PUD
boundaries. Although Board Members do not receive any benefits, they are compensated at a
rate of $300 per meeting for the President, $275 per meeting for the Vice President, $250 per
meeting for Directors, and $125 per meeting for any Board Member attending special meetings.
No Director may receive more than $4,800 in any calendar year under the provisions of the
Public Utility District Code.
In accordance with Government Code § 54954, all meetings are publicly posted on the District’s
website, at the District office, and at the local post office a minimum of three days prior to
regular Board meetings. The District also emails full Board packets to a list of customers who
have requested them. Agendas for special meetings are posted in the same locations at least
24 hours prior to the special meeting. Agendas are posted on the District’s website prior to
regular meetings, and meeting minutes are posted after meetings. For all meetings considered
out of the ordinary, including those on proposed projects that may result in rate increases or
Proposition 218 issues, an extra notification step is taken: these meetings are posted on the
website and sent on post cards and/or letters to all ratepayers.
The attorney for the DSPUD is generally present at Board meetings to ensure compliance with
the Brown Act (Government Code §§ 54950-54926), the conflict-of-interest regulations set forth
in the Political Reform Act (Government Code § 81000 et seq.), and other applicable laws.
DSPUD has adopted a policy manual intended to be a resource for the Board, staff, and public
in determining and evaluating the conduct of the District. There is no record of violations of
any of the government code sections listed above.
The agenda for each Board meeting includes a public comment period, and the District Board
has adopted a policy that establishes a procedure for addressing complaints from the public.
Customers with comments or complaints can mail them to the District at P.O. Box 610, Soda
Springs, CA 95728. The public can also comment through the District website and attend the
meetings of the Board of Directors. The District does not track how many comments or
complaints it receives, but during 2011 and 2012, the District estimates that fewer than 10
comments or complaints were received.
The District has adopted policies addressing budget preparation, fixed asset accounting,
investment of funds, and expense authorization. All of these policies are consistent with the
California Special District Association’s sample policy handbook. Budgets are adopted in public
meetings and are available to the public upon request. As required, the District has an
independent audit conducted annually. The last report was dated June 30, 2015. The audit
found that there were no issues of noncompliance with financial regulations that could have an
effect on the financial statement.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 7, Donner Summit PUD 7-7
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
Placer County has been the principal county for Donner Summit PUD since 2008 (previous to
that, Nevada County had been considered the District’s principal county, as Nevada County had
the greater portion of the entire assessed value of taxable properties within the District’s
boundaries). Even though most of the geographic territory of the District’s boundaries lie within
Nevada County, Placer County contains parcels which together have a greater portion of the
entire assessed value as shown on the County’s equalized assessment roll of all taxable
properties.1 Therefore, Placer LAFCo adopted an MSR for this District in early 2018 and has
authority to update the District’s sphere of influence.
7.5: MANAGEMENT EFFICIENCIES AND STAFFING
Day-to-day operations are managed by the General Manager. The General Manager is a full-
time employee with control over District water and sewer construction projects and operations.
There are eight full-time employees of the District, a reduced number from the 16 full-time
employees in 2003 when the District provided fire protection and emergency services. District
staff includes a general manager, an office manager, and an administrative assistant. The sewer
and water department staff include a chief plant manager and four licensed operators.
The District has adopted a set of policies that address general management, personnel,
operations, Board actions, and facilities development. The policies are generally identical to
those recommended in the California Special Districts Association “Sample Policy Handbook”
which is used by special districts throughout the state.
7.6: POPULATION AND GROWTH
POPULATION
Soda Springs, where the District office is located and around which the service area is centered,
has only a few tourist-oriented commercial uses and a larger number of seasonal residents and
second homeowners. The population characteristics for this region were studied in detail in a
2004 Economic Development Study for Donner Summit (Nevada County, 2004). This MSR’s
analysis of population relies upon the 2004 Economic Study, results of the Federal 2010 census,
and other data as cited. Soda Springs was reported to have 81 inhabitants and a population
density of 238.6 people per square mile in the 2010 US Census. Soda Springs is located in Census
Tract 9. The average household size was 1.98 and there were 41 households. The Community
Fact Finder Report (California State Parks, February 2013) estimated that there are 98
permanent residents in Soda Springs. The US Census Bureau Fact Finder identified 136 housing
units of which 41 were occupied in the 2010 Census. This means that 30 percent are presumed
occupied by permanent residents. For purposes of this study, population growth is projected
based on the higher estimate of permanent residents. Relevant population data for the other
lands served by the District are not available. The geographic extent of DSPUD’s service area is
different from the area of Soda Springs identified in the 2010 US Census. The District has not
1 See Section 56066 of the Cortese Knox Hertzberg Act for more details regarding determination of the
principal county.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 7, Donner Summit PUD 7-8
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
estimated the full-time population of its service area, but does note that there are 93 registered
voters within their boundaries. Approximately 331 water and 273 sewer service connections are
maintained by the District, with a total of 818.5 equivalent dwelling units (EDUs) served within
the District and 816 EDUs served in Sierra Lakes. The higher number of EDUs than service
connections is a reflection of the numerous EDUs for commercial connections, such as the
Caltrans rest areas which account for two connections but 91 EDUs. It is typical for a residential
sewer connection to be served by one EDU. Of the sewer connections, 232 are residential and
41 are commercial. Of the water connections, 288 are residential and 43 are commercial. The
District encompasses approximately 13.5 square miles (8,657acres). For the purposes of this
analysis, a conservative assumption of Placer County’s higher average household size (as
compared to Nevada County’s) was used. An existing maximum population (i.e. including
seasonal visitors) of 737was calculated (288 water connections2 X 2.56 average household size
in Placer County, according to the 2009 Placer County Housing Element Background Report)
within the formal District boundaries as shown in Table 7-2, below. The population density of
the service area is estimated at 55 people per square mile during peak seasonal timeframes.
Table 7-2: Existing Population Data (2018)
Number of Permanent Visitor Total Peak
Agency Registered Population Population Population
Voters (Estimated) (Estimated) (Estimated)
Donner Summit
93 369 368 737
Public Utility District
PROJECTED GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT
The Donner Summit PUD is located in both Placer and Nevada Counties. As a result, lands within
the District are subject to two different
AERIAL PHOTO OF SODA SPRINGS AREA 1
planning agencies, depending on which
County they are located.
DSPUD provides sewer
service to four primary
development centers
including Soda Springs,
Kingvale/PlaVada
Woodlands, Boreal Ski
Resort/Caltrans Rest
Stop, and Sugar Bowl.
2 There are 331 total water connections. 43 water connections are assumed to be used by commercial
enterprises. 288 water connections are assumed to be used for residential connections. One residential
connection is assumed to equal one dwelling unit.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 7, Donner Summit PUD 7-9
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
The Placer County General Plan serves as the County’s vision for long-term land use
development and conservation for the Placer County portion of the District. Placer County’s
General Plan adopted on August 16, 1994, and updated May 21, 2013, provides a series of goals,
policies, standards, and implementation programs to guide the land use, development, and
environmental quality of the County. The land use designation in the western portion of the
District within the Placer County is Timberland. The Sugar Bowl area is classified as Agriculture-
Timberland, Resort Recreation and Medium Density Residential (3,500 to 10,000 sq. ft. lots) by
the Placer County General Plan3. Some years ago, a development group proposed to develop
what was then the Royal Gorge properties around Lake Van Norden and the Ice Lakes (Serene
Lakes) area. This development would have required both water and sewer service from Sierra
Lakes County Water District and Donner Summit PUD. Wastewater would have been delivered
to Donner Summit PUD for treatment and disposal. The project developer lost the property in
bankruptcy and in recent years the Truckee Donner Land Trust (TDLT) acquired the holdings.
As such, the TDLT relinquished all development rights/expectations on the former Royal Gorge
property. The 10 sewer connections previously associated on these lands have been offered
back to the Sierra Lakes County Water District.
Parcels located in Nevada County are subject to the Nevada County General Plan, approved by
the Board of Supervisors in 1996 and subsequently amended in 2008 (Safety) and 2010
(Circulation/Housing), 2014 (Housing, Noise, Safety) and 2016 (Land Use). The Nevada County
General Plan is the long-term policy guide for the physical, economic and environmental future
of the County. It is
comprised of goals,
objectives, policies,
and implementation
measures, which are
based upon
assessments of
current and future
needs and available
resources, and
which are intended
to carry out the four
central themes
which are critical to
the future of
Nevada County and
its quality of life.
On October 25, 2016, the Nevada County Board of Supervisors approved the Soda Springs Area
Plan through Resolution 16-519. The Area Plan establishes policies and accommodates
3 These land use designations reflect existing land uses and development potential in line with the
master plan for the Sugar Bowl area.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 7, Donner Summit PUD 7-10
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
neighborhood commercial land uses to serve the local population and to encourage recreational
uses (primarily a formal snow play area, museum, etc.) and economic development. The
primary land use designation within the Nevada County portion of the District includes Urban
Single family, Urban Medium Density, Recreation, Highway Commercial and Forest -40. As
noted above, Soda Springs is the primary community within the Nevada County portion of the
DSPUD. While there is a permanent resident population base, Soda Springs is primarily a tourist
area with a large percentage of second homes. The Town of Truckee is the closest
socioeconomic center to the District area, but is not part of the District’s service area. Although
opportunities for new substantial growth or planned residential developments appear to be
limited within the DSPUD boundaries, there are future opportunities for infill development and
redevelopment as described in Nevada County’s Area Plan.
Since the 2004 Western County Wastewater MSR, the only new construction includes a
subdivision of 25 homes at Sugar Bowl and a recreation center for skateboarders and acrobat
snowboarders at Boreal. In 2010, DSPUD estimated that there were approximately 300 vacant
lots within its boundaries that could be developed in the future. This potential future
development was estimated to generate future sewer service demand of 332 EDU’s (DSPUD,
2010). However, these lots are being developed at a slow pace and the District estimates the
current growth rate at less than two percent, within its boundaries (DSPUD, 2013). In Table 7-
3, below, an average annual growth rate is calculated for DSPUD, similar to the calculation for
compound interest rates. This future population growth model assumes an average annual
(compound) growth rate of one-half percent. This leads to a projected 2040 population of 835
persons which is 13 percent higher than the 2015 population of 737 persons. It is important to
note that approximately half the population shown in Table 7-3 will likely be overnight visitors.
Table 7-3: Projected Population Growth in DSPUD boundaries
Year 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
Projected Population 737 756 775 794 814 835
Additionally, DSPUD’s 2010 Wastewater Facilities Plan also estimated that there were vacant
lots within Serene Lakes area and the potential future development of those lots could generate
sewer service demand for an additional 80 EDUs (DSPUD, 2010). However, the future
development potential in Serene Lakes (SOI 2005-2025 area) is substantially decreased with the
recent acquisition of lands by the TDLT.
DISADVANTAGED UNINCORPORATED COMMUNITIES
LAFCo is required to consider the provision of public services to disadvantaged unincorporated
communities (DUCs). Relevant data were reviewed for the Donner Summit area. The Donner
Summit PUD boundaries, its SOI, and adjacent areas all contain DUC’s. The U.S. Census has
prepared estimates for the year 2013, based upon actual 2010 census data of the median
household income (MHI) for the 95728 zip code as $42,574.4 This is lower than the DUC threshold
4 2010 census data via American Fact Finder website at:
<http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=CF>.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 7, Donner Summit PUD 7-11
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
MHI of less than $48,706 (80 percent of the statewide MHI). Additionally, the Department of
Water Resources (DWR) has developed a web-based application to assist local agencies and
other interested parties in evaluating disadvantaged community (DAC) status throughout the
State. The DAC Mapping Tool is an interactive map application that allows users to overlay the
following three US Census geographies as separate data layers: 1) Census Place; 2) Census Tract;
and 3) Census Block Group. Only those census geographies with an annual median household
income (MHI) that is less than 80 percent of the Statewide annual MHI (PRC Section 75005(g) is
shown on the map. The Soda Springs area meets the definition of a DAC (and DUC) for all three
types of geographies (DWR, 2015). It should be noted that the portion of the PUD’s boundaries
that lies within Nevada County seems to contain most of the DUC area. The residences and
business that are within the District’s boundaries do receive adequate water, wastewater,
and fire protection services as detailed in Placer LAFCo’s 2018 MSR for this region. No
public health and safety issues have been identified in the DUC area.
7.7 DISTRICT
SERVICES
SERVICE OVERVIEW
The District provides water
treatment and distribution, and
wastewater collection and treatment
services within the service area. Fire
protection and emergency services
were transferred to the Truckee Fire
Protection District in 2006, and those
services were deleted from the
District’s responsibilities on July 1 of
that year. This MSR focuses only on
the provision of wastewater collection and treatment services by DSPUD.
WATER SERVICE
DSPUD provides water service to the communities of Norden and Soda Springs; to east- and
westbound Caltrans rest areas off Interstate 80 west of Truckee; and to the ski resorts of Sugar
Bowl, Soda Springs Resort, and Donner Ski Ranch. Recycled water may be provided, as needed,
for road repairs on Interstate-80, dust control, and erosion control projects in the vicinity.
The water system consists of about 331 metered connections, 43 of which are commercial
connections and 288 of which are residential connections. Most of the service connections are
for seasonal homes; however, the system can serve up to 15,000 people during the peak holiday
or skiing seasons. The District water system uses one surface water source, Lake Angela, which
it owns and operates along with a dam permitted by the Division of Dam Safety. Lake Angela is
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 7, Donner Summit PUD 7-12
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
located near the peak of Donner Summit at 7,280-feet elevation. The 75 million-gallon lake is
fed by snow melt and spring sources. The District has indicated that it owns most of the
watershed and water usage is monitored. Public access to the Lake can be obtained via a few
informal hiking trails in the area. The Donner Summit PUD works to balance the protection of
water quality with public access.
The District holds a State water permit for treatment and delivery of drinking water used for
municipal purposes. The water system and plant are inspected annually by the State Water
Resources Control Board Division of Drinking Water (DDW). The Division of Dam Safety also
performs an annual inspection of the dam at Lake Angela. The Nevada and Placer County
Departments of Public Health annually review a permit for the water treatment plant.
View of Lake Angela Dam
DISTRIBUTION AND TRANSMISSION OF WATER
DSPUD treats water and distributes it to domestic users, including residential, commercial,
lodging, and resort users, throughout the service boundaries. Water from Lake Angela is
processed through a nearby treatment plant. The plant's capacity is estimated at 0.50 mgd.
From the treatment plant, distribution lines run west along Donner Pass Road and serve that
corridor, as well as the communities of Soda Springs and Norden. Sugar Bowl is also connected
to this system. Additionally, the District provides water distribution parallel to Interstate 80,
between Soda Springs and the CalTrans rest area. Altogether, the District delivers water
through approximately 11 miles of pipe, and the distribution system consists of PVC and ACP
pipe in sizes varying from 6 to 12 inches. The system includes a number of storage tanks and
pressure-regulating devices to serve the various pressure zones over the variable elevations of
the district. There is enough capacity in the distribution system to roughly double the existing
number of services. All water service is metered.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 7, Donner Summit PUD 7-13
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
WASTEWATER SERVICE
The District provides sewerage service to the Norden and Soda Springs communities and to
several ski resorts including Sugar Bowl, Donner Ski Ranch, Boreal, and Soda Springs. Through
the SLCWD, the Serene Lakes community is also served by the DSPUD wastewater treatment
plant (WWTP). It is estimated that the WWTP serves approximately 2,000 individual residents
(i.e. within the combined service area for DSPUD and SLCWD.
The District holds a 30-year Special Use Permit from the US Forest Service for the WWTP site.
A discharge permit from the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (CVRWQCB)
is reviewed every five years for the sewage treatment operation, and the District recently
received formal approval of its discharge permit in June 2015, Order No. R5-2015-0068 (NPDES
Permit No. CA0081621). This permit became effective as of August 1, 2015 and will expire July
31, 2020 (CVRWQCB, 2015).
The most recent inspection of the WWTP occurred on May 1, 2013, and the WWTP was generally
in compliance. The District has on occasion violated its nitrate, ammonia, and pH limit, and
operates under both Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) Order R5-2009-0034 and Cease and
Desist Order (CDO) R5-2009-0035. The CDO contains a time schedule to achieve full compliance
with effluent ammonia, nitrate, copper, cyanide, dichlorobromomethane, aldrin, alpha BHC,
manganese, silver, and zinc WDRs limitations by April 24, 2014. Since the District is considered
a small disadvantaged community, all mandatory minimum penalties are allowed to apply to
the upgrade and expansion project. According to District staff, the system has not exceeded its
peak flow capacity.
Primary services provided by the District for the wastewater system are collection, treatment,
disposal, and maintenance. The District services 41 commercial sewer connections and 232
residential sewer connections. Commercial use is based on a number of factors, including use,
the number and size of beds in a room, restaurant seats, bar seats, etc. A 1.56-million-gallon
storage tank provides three days of emergency storage for treatment effluent and is also used
for spray irrigation operational storage during the summer and potential snow making
operational storage in the winter. To comply with the CDO, the District constructed a new
treatment system consisting of membrane bioreactors (MBR) for biological treatment and
filtration, and ultraviolet (UV) for disinfection. Boilers and recirculation pumps are used to heat
the influent to facilitate the biological treatment process. A 756,000-gallon equalization
storage tank is also utilized.
Bio-solids resulting from the treatment process are directed to a sludge storage tank during the
winter months and are dried in sludge beds during the summer months. Sludge is transported
for disposal to a landfill in Lockwood, Nevada.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 7, Donner Summit PUD 7-14
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
Constructing brick walls at the MBR building
In order to finance the upgrade and expansion of the WWTP, the District held a public election
of ratepayers to vote on the formation of a Community Facilities District (CFD No.1). The CFD
is a special financing district created for the purpose of financing improvements to the WWTP
required by the State to meet water quality standards. The CFD resulted in a special tax levied
on customers within CFD No. 1. Following the formation of CFD No. 1, all properties who voted
for the CFD were included in the CFD No. 1 and are considered “Inside CFD No.1” (a term used
in District documents). Rate payers who voted against the CFD are now considered “Outside
CFD No.1” and pay for the wastewater treatment plant improvements through their regular
wastewater rates, whereas customers who are “Inside CFD No. 1” pay for the improvements
with special taxes.
SUPPLY AND DEMAND FOR SERVICE
Supply and demand for water and sewer districts are typically impacted by development
occurring within the District that could result in an increase in the demand for these services
and the need for additional infrastructure. Other factors that impact supply in the District are
prolonged drought and algae in Lake Angela. Minimal development is expected to occur within
the District because the area is an isolated community with little growth projected.
WATER
The average annual total supply of water from Lake Angela is 310 acre-feet (AF), while the
historic annual water supply taken from 2005 to 2012 has been 262.7 AF. Demand rises in the
winter months due to the seasonal ski resort population. The winter peak use is 6.5 million
gallons (mg) or 23.2 AF per month, and summer peak use is 4.6 mg or 16.4 AF a month.
According to the District Manager, the District anticipates having sufficient water supplied for
anticipated development in the foreseeable future.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 7, Donner Summit PUD 7-15
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
WASTEWATER
The District upgraded its WWTP and construction was completed in 2015. Factors that can
influence the District’s ability to supply and/or deliver wastewater service to customers include
treatment plant capacity and Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) regulations. The
NPDES permit (R5-2016-0068) indicates the new WWTP design average dry weather flow
capacity is 0.52 MGD5. As previously mentioned, the District has an interagency agreement
with SLCWD to treat their wastewater.
Data from the old WWTP indicates that it had a treatment capacity of 0.619 million gallons per
day (mgd) with potential to support 1,809 EDUs. Typical Average Annual Flow during the years
2002 to 2006 was 0.23 mgd (DSPUD, 2010). Peak flows within the year 2013 were 0.533 mgd.
Future service demands from within both the DSPUD and the SLCWD boundaries were considered
during the design and upgrade for the new WWTP. The District expanded its treatment plant
capacity to satisfy needs projected from the development of existing lots that are currently
vacant.
INFRASTRUCTURE AND FACILITIES
This section describes the existing infrastructure associated with the provision of water and
sewer services by the District. The District owns and operates Lake Angela and the dam on the
lake. The sewer facilities at 53283 Sherritt Lane are situated on land leased by the US Forest
Service, Tahoe National Forest.
WATER
The District owns and operates its sole water source, Lake Angela, as well as all related facilities
such as the dam on Lake Angela and the infrastructure used to deliver the water. Lake Angela
has a holding capacity of 310 acre-feet, while the District has water rights of 265 acre-feet
annually.
The District provides surface water treatment at its water treatment plant at Lake Angela.
According to the Department of Public Health’s Division of Drinking Water and Environmental
Management (DPH), the surface water treatment is unconventional and appears to be an in-line
filtration system. This type of system is considered an unapproved alternative technology and
is of some concern to the DPH. As a result of the re-classification of the system type, during
their last inspection on September 13, 2012, the DPH raised the standards for cryptosporidium
filtration from 0.3 to .01 NTU. The DPH also noted concerns with the chemical treatment
process and the fact that the system had had several turbidity standard failures since 2007
because of very low raw water alkanity and very cold water and made recommendations for
facilities improvements. The DPH also found that the water treatment plant was not capable
of supplying the maximum daily demand to the system, and that the plant needed to be
upgraded to reliably provide the maximum daily demand. A minimum 10-year projected growth
needs to be included in the upgrade.
5 http://www.dspud.com/assets/pdf/dspud_wwtp_npdes_to.pdf
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 7, Donner Summit PUD 7-16
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
The rated capacity of the plant is 0.554 mgd. The total storage capacity is 1.2 mg in two
550,000-gallon tanks. There are currently no proposed or planned increases in the capacity of
the system, but there may be upgrades in the treatment system. The District received funding
in 2013 from the California Department of Public Health’s Clean Water Fund to study and
provide upgrade alternatives to the water treatment system. Construction of upgrades is
anticipated to begin in the spring/summer of 2016.
The District recently annexed the Big Bend Mutual Water Company (BBMWC), a “non-transient
community water system,” which had been operating without a permit and under a “Boil
Water” notice for the past eight years due to the fact their ground water source was under the
influence of a surface water source. Twenty-nine homes, most of them seasonally occupied,
are served by the District in the Big Bend area. For the past five years, DSPUD has been
operating, maintaining, and managing the Big Bend Mutual Water Company’s service. After the
BBMWC’s Board of Directors voted to drill a new well, and the loan to accomplish this required
DSPUD to co-sign, the District annexed the BBMWC in order to give the District more avenues
by which to collect debt payments if the BBMWC defaulted on its loan. The annexation also
assured full-time management of BBMWC, certified staffing, reliable maintenance and
operations of the system, and future financing for any needed improvements.
WASTEWATER
The District’s sewer facilities at 53283 Sherritt Lane are situated on land leased by the US Forest
Service, Tahoe National Forest. The District upgraded its WWTP and construction was
completed in 2015. Improvements included a membrane equipment building, a
chemical/electrical building, a sludge pump building, an equalization storage tank and pump
building, an equalization meter and valve fault, and new headworks. The new WWTP facilities
include an upgrade to UV light disinfection processes.
During the high seasons (summer and winter) with peak service demands, wastewater flows
into a new 700,000-gallon storage tank, resulting in 950,000 total gallons of storage. This
storage allows staff to adjust storage time to even out flows at the WWTP resulting in
considerable flow equalization. Additionally, the existing spray field irrigation system which
facilitates effluent discharge in the spring and summer was expanded by 10 acres. During the
fall and winter seasons, discharge is directed to the Yuba River. The Clean Water Revolving
Fund and the USDA contributed funding to the upgrade project due the public benefits of
lowering effluent ammonia and nitrate concentrations to meet California quality requirements
for recycled water.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 7, Donner Summit PUD 7-17
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
Extreme fluctuations in the inflow, with very high flow and extremely cold influent during
winter ski season, create wastewater treatment challenges. The bacteria that help degrade the
sewage prefer warmer temperatures and do not function well in very cold environments. New
boilers in the recirculation tanks will also warm up the effluent from a current low of three
degrees (C) in the winter (bacteria stop working at eight degrees) to increase bacteria activity.
In addition, the project includes the proposed expansion of the existing effluent irrigation
disposal on an adjacent parcel owned by Boreal Ridge Corporation. These improvements will
bring DSPUD into compliance with the RWQCB water quality regulations. Other site
improvements include new driveways, access roads, and snow storage areas. DSPUD and SLCWD
set up a committee with representatives and engineers from both districts to study and design
the construction project.
The District’s maintenance plan includes inspection of all main lines by way of television camera
on a rotational schedule. All lines are cleaned before the inspections. When defects in the
pipelines are found, they are either grout-sealed, or a stainless-steel insert is placed to correct
the defect. The District also inspects manholes within the service area on an annual basis.
WATER QUALITY
Water Quality Permits for the Sewage Treatment Plant
The wastewater treatment plant currently operates under Order No. R5-2015-0068, allowing
discharge of treated effluent to the South Yuba River not to exceed 0.52 mgd average dry
weather flow and only during the months of October through July. During the other months,
the permit allows for discharge to land on a 53-acre parcel at an average monthly rate below
0.52 mgd through the use of spray irrigation. The NPDES permit from the RWQCB was renewed
and approved during the Board’s public hearing on June 4-5, 2015. Table 7-4, below, presents
a recent history of the PUD’s permits from the RWQCB.
CREW FRAMING THE RETAINING WALL IN 2012
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 7, Donner Summit PUD 7-18
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
Table 7-4: Permits from the Central Valley RWQCB
Date Order/Permit Number Description
April 24, WDRs Order R5-2009-0034 The Central Valley Water Board regulated
2009 and Cease and Desist discharges from the PUD WWTP. The orders
Order (CDO) R5-2009- became effective of 13 June 2009 and 24 April
2009, respectively.
0035
March 28, CDO R5-2014-0044 The Central Valley Water Board adopted CDO R5-
2014 2014-0044, which rescinded and replaced R5-2009-
0034. CDO R5-2014-0044 updated interim effluent
limitations, extended time schedules, and provided
Mandatory Minimum Penalty (MMP) protection for
aluminum, ammonia, copper, cyanide,
dichlorobromomethane, manganese, nitrate, silver,
and zinc. This Order considers the exemption from
MMPs provided by CDO R5-2014-0044.
June 4, 2015 WDRs Order R5-2015-0068 The Board renewed the WDRs and issued WDRs
Order R5-2015-0068, which rescinded WDRs Order
R5-2009-0034, except for enforcement purposes.
August 11, The Central Valley Water Board issued a Minor
2015 Modification Letter to correct typographical errors
related to the Report of Waste Discharge due date
and the WDRs Order expiration date.
August 26, ACLO R5-2015-0538 Administrative Civil Liability Order (ACLO) R5-2015-
2015 0538 for MMPs was issued in the amount of $3,000
for effluent limitation violations that occurred
between 1 July 2014 and 30 April 2015. The penalty
was satisfied by the completion of a compliance
project and the Board considers the effluent
violation to be resolved.
August 1, Notice of Violation Board staff issued a Notice of Violation and draft
2016 Record of Violations for effluent limitation
violations (manganese) from 1 May 2015 through 31
May 2016. On 11 August 2016, the Discharger
responded and agreed with the violations and the
proposed administrative civil liability. Assessment
of mandatory penalties ($6,000) was issued.
December 8, Order R5-2017-0114 Amends Order R5-2015-0068 to remove the final
2017 effluent limitations and monthly compliance
effluent monitoring requirements for aluminum.
Acknowledged DSPUD’s submittal of Copper Water-
Effect Ratio Study Work Plan dated 12 April 2016
and DSPUD Copper Water-Effect Ratio Study (Study)
dated 17 November 2016. Order amends Order R5-
2015-0068 to remove the final effluent limitations
and monthly compliance effluent monitoring
requirements for copper. Rescinded cease and
Desist Order R5-2014-0044.
Overview of Database Reports
This section provides the results of database searches on water quality for the DSPUD.
Compliance of wastewater agencies with water quality regulations promulgated by the State
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 7, Donner Summit PUD 7-19
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) and the Central Valley Regional Water
Quality Control Board (Regional Water Board) is important to LAFCo. This type of information
is especially important since during a drought, a community can’t rely upon “dilution” as a
solution to pollution. When local water supplies are scarce, keeping that supply at a high level
of water quality is desirable.
California Integrated Water Quality System Project
The California Integrated Water Quality System (CIWQS) is a relational database used by the
State and Regional Water Boards to track information about permit violations and enforcement
activities. DSPUD has permits from the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board and
is therefore classified as a “Permittee.” Permittees are allowed to self-report their own permit
violations to the CIWQS. A four-year term from January 1, 2013 to December 31, 2017, was
queried in the CIWQS database. Table 7-5 below shows both formal enforcement actions and
informal enforcement actions. Formal actions require compliance with requirements. An
informal response may consist of a phone call or staff enforcement letter that are aimed at
stopping the violation. The relation between violations to enforcement action is a many-to-one
relationship, such that several violations may be combined into one enforcement action. Most
of the violations listed in Table 7-5 were minor exceedances of coliform, lead, copper, and
ammonia (SWRCB, 2018).
Table 7-5: Violations and Enforcement Report, 2013-2017
Violations Violations
Formal Linked to Informal Linked to
Facility Organization Enforcement Formal Enforcement Informal
Actions Enforcement Actions Enforcement
Actions Actions
Wastewater
Donner
Treatment 5 10 19 205
Summit PUD
Plant
Data Source: CA Integrated Water Quality System relational database. State and Regional Water Boards
(SWRCB, 2018).
Of the violations listed in Table 7-5 above, over 165 of these were exempt from the Mandatory
Minimum Penalty Report requirements of the State Water Board. Although ten violations were
linked to formal enforcement action, only nine violations were considered serious effluent
violations (SWRCB, 2018a and 2018b).
The new wastewater treatment plant was completed in 2015. The year 2016 was the treatment
plant’s first year of operation and during that year, technicians and engineers learned how to
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 7, Donner Summit PUD 7-20
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
optimize the system. As a result of this learning curve, water quality violations declined in
2017. Additional years of data with the new treatment plant will support a more accurate trend
analysis of the water quality situation.
Sanitary Sewer Overflow Database
The State Water Board maintains a database of Sanitary Sewer Overflows (SSO) from
public/permitted systems and private lateral sewage discharges. This database is a specific
module in the CIWQS. The State Water Board formalized the Statewide General Waste
Discharge Requirements for Sanitary Sewer Systems (SSS), Water Quality Order No. 2006-0003
(SSS WDRs), on May 2, 2006. All public agencies that own or operate a sanitary sewer system
that is comprised of more than one mile of sewer pipes which convey wastewater to a publicly
owned treatment facility must be covered under the SSS Waste Discharge Requirements. The
SSS Waste Discharge Requirements requires enrollees, among other things, to maintain
compliance with the Monitoring and Reporting Program. A four-year term from January 1, 2013
to December 31, 2017, was queried in the CIWQS-SSO database. The results of the database
SSO queries regarding DSPUD are listed below in Figure 7-2.
During the four-year study period, DSPUD had a total of two reported sanitary sewer overflow
events as shown in Figure 7-2, below. The years 2016 and 2014 each had one reported spill.
The 2014 SSO event had a total volume of 5,000 gallons spilled; however, 4,000 gallons was
recovered and returned to a sewer line before reaching a drainage channel. This event was
classified “Category 2” event caused by a treatment plant shut down for influent line tie-in
which took longer than expected, causing flow to backup and over flow out of a nearby
manhole. The 2016 SSO event was very small with only 100 gallons of total volume spilled.
The spill did not reach a drainage channel and/or surface water. It was confined to a land
area and classified as a Category 3 event. The spill was cleaned up and the correct reporting
process was followed.
Figure 7-2: DSPUD Results Sanitary Sewer Overflow Database
7.8: FINANCING
LAFCo is required to make a determination regarding the financial ability of the Donner Summit
Public Utility District to provide public services. This Chapter provides an overview of financial
health and provides a context for the financial determination. The audited Comprehensive
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 7, Donner Summit PUD 7-21
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
Annual Financial Reports (CAFR) from the District for the fiscal years 13/14, 14/15, and 15/16
are the primary source of information for this Chapter. This Chapter was written on December
1, 2017 and the CAFR for the fiscal year 16/17 was not yet available and therefore it is not
included in this chapter. The most recent financial data for the PUD can be found on the
District’s website at: <http://www.dspud.com/fiscal.php>. Based on recent
recommendations from the Little Hoover Commission, this determination on the financial
ability to provide services is based upon several key financial performance indicators that are
shown in tables in the following pages.
In California, special districts are classified as enterprise or non-enterprise districts, based on
their source of revenue:
Enterprise districts: Finance of district operations is via fees for public service. Under
this model, the customers that receive goods or services such as drinking or sewer water,
waste disposal, or electricity, pay a fee. Rates are set by a governing board and there
is a nexus between the costs of providing services and the rates customers pay.
Sometimes enterprise district may also receive property taxes which comprise a portion
of their budget.
Non-enterprise districts: Districts which receive property taxes are typically classified
as non-enterprise districts. Services that indirectly benefit the entire community, such
as flood or fire protection, community centers, and cemetery districts are often funded
through property taxes.
DSPUD receives a portion of the Nevada County and Placer County property taxes assessed on
owners within the District boundaries. However, since most of the revenue is derived from fees
for service, for purposes of this MSR DSPUD is considered an enterprise district. Details about
the fees charged for wastewater collection and transport services are provided on the following
pages.
FINANCIAL POLICIES & TRANSPARENCY
DSPUD prepares an annual budget and an annual financial statement, both of which are
reviewed in public meetings and made available to the public via the District’s website. The
financial statement includes an independent auditor’s report. The fiscal year begins on July 1
and ends on June 30. Budgets and CAFRs for recent years are available to the public via the
District’s website.
Disclaimer: The financial information provided in this MSR section was accurate as of its writing
in 2018. However, the District updates its financial information on an annual basis. Therefore,
the financial information in this MSR has been superseded and readers are encouraged to read
the newer financial statements and budgets published by the District on their website at:
https://www.dspud.com.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 7, Donner Summit PUD 7-22
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
The audit for FY 15/16 (DSPUD, 2016) found that there were no issues of noncompliance with
financial regulations that could have an effect on the financial statement6. Funding for
upgrades to the wastewater and water treatment plants has come from Federal and State loans.
The Board began work on a Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) in 2015. The CIP will mostly focus
on smaller CIP projects. The District’s assets exceeded liabilities at the close of fiscal year
14/15 by $13 million. This represents the net position (value) of the District as of June 30,
2015. However, during the year from FY 14/15 to 15/16, the net position declined to a total of
$12.7 million as shown in Figure 7-3, below. A summary of financial policy indicators is shown
in Table 7-6 below.
Table 7- 6: Summary of DSPUD Financial Policies & Transparency Indicators
Indicator Score Notes
Summary financial information presented in √ The annual CAFR and budgets
a standard format and simple language. clearly and transparently
present financial information
District has a published policy for reserve 0 Insufficient data
funds, including the size and purpose of
reserves and how they are invested
Other financing policies are clearly 0 Insufficient data –
articulated
Compensation reports and financial √ Wage scale for staff positions is
transaction reports that are required to be listed within the annual DSPUD
submitted to the State Controller's Office budget which is posted on the
are posted to the district website District website.
Key to score:
√= Above average (compared to similar sewer districts)
∆= Average
0= Below average
REVENUES AND EXPENSES
This section describes sources of revenues and expenses associated with the District’s water
and sewer systems.
Revenue
The District receives revenue from several sources including customer fees, property tax, grants
and other sources. Most of these revenues are utilized in the District’s general fund. Following
is a summary of the annual revenues for the PUD. As shown in Table 7-7, below, the primary
source of revenue for most fiscal years is the Customer Service Fees for Wastewater Service.
However, “Contributed capital” in FY 13/14 was the largest revenue source for that year.
6 Donner Summit PUD and Gibson & Company Inc. CPA of Sacramento. Financial Statement for FY 15/16.
November 2016.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 7, Donner Summit PUD 7-23
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
Figure 7-3: Net Position FY 14/15 and 15/16
Source: DSPUD, 2016
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 7, Donner Summit PUD 7-24
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
Table 7-7: Donner Summit PUD Summary of Revenues
FY 2011/2012 FY 2013/2014 FY 2014/2015 FY 2015/2016
Per audited Per audited Per audited Per audited
Revenues
financial financial statement financial financial
statement statement statement
Customer Service Fees for
Water Service $387,695 $370,710 $363,828 $377,730
Customer Service Fees for
Waste Water Service $2,335,612 $1,734,339 $2,088,224 $2,208,373
Property tax $118,208 $417,000 $411,000 $424,813
Interest Income (non-
operating) $491 $17,000 $36,000 $973
Other Income $32,047 $27,000 $76,000 -17,181
Contributed capital $885,632 $5,734,000 $874,000 $676
Total $3,759,685 $8,300,049 $3,849,052 $2,995,000
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 7, Donner Summit PUD 7-25
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
Expenses
For FY 2015/16, expenses for the PUD included administrative expenses, depreciation of capital
assets, and the costs of providing sewer collection, treatment, and disposal services. Total
expenses incurred during the past few years is shown in Table 7-8. The four largest expense
categories in FY 15/16 were employee salaries/benefits, utilities, depreciation, and interest
charges from loans, as shown on Figure 7-4 (next page).
Table 7-8: Total Annual Expense
Fiscal year Expense Amount
FY15/16 $3,357,989
FY14/15 $2,862,836
FY13/14 $2,214,192
FY 11/12 $2,237,960
Data Source: Audited Financial
Statements by DSPUD FY 11/12, 13/14,
14/15 and 15/16
Utility expenses have been trending upward in recent years. The DSPUD budgeted $214,549 for
its utility, communications, and telemetry expenses in the FY 2012-2013 budget. This amount
accounted for 10.6 percent of the District’s expenses. In the FY 17/18 budget, the utility line
item increased to $327,594 (DSPUD, 2017). In the long-term future, the District could explore
the use of new technology to develop and capture renewable energy to reduce its annual
expenditures on utility costs. The District should investigate efficiencies in its electricity use,
which will require proper budgeting for energy efficiency consultation.
Comparing revenues to expenses provides an analysis of the overall fiscal health of the
enterprise fund and
serves to assess the
financial ability of
the PUD to provide
$9,000,000
water and
wastewater $8,000,000
services. In Figure
$7,000,000
7-5 (right), the total
$6,000,000
annual revenue
listed in Table 7-7 is $5,000,000
compared with the
$4,000,000
total annual
$3,000,000
expenses listed in
Table 7-8. $2,000,000
$1,000,000
$0
FY 11/12 FY13/14 FY14/15 FY 15/16
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 7, Donner Summit PUD 7-26
$
.S.U
Figure 7-5: Comparison of Total Annual Revenue to
Total Annual Expenses
Revenue
Expense
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
Figure 7-4: Statement of Activities and Changes in Net Position
Source: DSPUD, 2016
Construction of the new WWTP did require the District to incur loans which will be repaid
through a combination of a special tax on customers in two zones and increased rates on
customers in a third zone7. The interest rate on one loan was recently reduced, resulting in
savings for District ratepayers. The transmission/collection pipes for both the water and sewer
system are aging and the District will face slightly higher levels of maintenance and capital
improvement costs in the future. The District’s budget for FY 17/18 predicts that revenues will
exceed expenditures for the year (DSPUD, 2017). As part of a recent rate study, the District’s
7 Personal communication with General Manager, Tom Skjelstad, 2015.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 7, Donner Summit PUD 7-27
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
consultants (Hansford) prepared projections comparing future anticipated revenues to
expenditures as shown in Figure 7-6, below.
Figure 7-6.
Data source for Figure 7-6 is DSPUD, 2018.
A summary of revenue and expenditure indicators is shown in Table 7-9 below.
Summary Scores Revenues, Expenditures, and Net Position
Table 7-9: Summary of Indicators Revenues, Expenditures, and Net Position
Indicator Score Notes
Revenues exceed expenditures √ Total revenue was less than the operating
in 50% of studied fiscal years expenditures in only one of the four study years. It
is recognized that capital improvement projects are
expensive and necessary. Many wastewater districts
in California are in a similar situation.
Increases or decreases in net ∆ Changes to the Net Position are shown in Figure 7-3
position to be variable. However, the decline in Net Position
of -$300,000 in FY2016 was predominately due to an
increase in expenses as compared to FY2015. This
situation is typical of many wastewater districts in
California.
Key to score:
√= Above average (compared to similar sewer districts)
∆= Average
0= Below average
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 7, Donner Summit PUD 7-28
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
RATE RESTRUCTURING
WATER
During a public hearing held June 21, 2016, Donner Summit Public Utility District's Board of
Directors approved and adopted a 12.5% water rate increase effective July 1, 2016. Funds from
water rates will finance a necessary upgrade to the water treatment plant, maintain reserves
for plant maintenance and operation and pay off debt.
Consistent with adopted Ordinance 03-2016 (which modified Ordinance 2008-02), rates are
based on the service size (the diameter of the pipe servicing the connection). A specific number
of gallons per month are allotted to each service connection based on the service size. All water
is metered. The rates are listed in Table 7-10, below.
Table 7-10: Water Rates/Metered Service
Service Size Gallons Cost per Gallon Rate per Month Rate per Year
(inches) Allowed per (2016)* (2016)*
Month
¾ inch 10,000 0.005627 $56.27 675.23
1 inch 18,500 0.005627 $104.10 $1,249.18
1 ½ inch 25,000 0.005627 $140.67 $1,688.09
2 inch 40,000 0.005627 $225.08 $2,700.94
3 inch 65,000 0.005627 $365.75 $4,389.02
4 inch 175,000 0.005627 $984.72 $11,816.60
5 inch 262,000 0.005627 $1,474.26 $17,691.13
6 inch 350,000 0.005627 $1,969.43 $23,633.19
*Rates will increase slightly during years 2017 to 2021 consistent with the rate ordinance
WASTEWATER
To provide the necessary revenue to cover current cost of wastewater service, the District
Board adopted new wastewater rates and fees with Ordinance 01-2012 on February 14, 2012.
The new fee structure is tiered with rates and fees increasing annually. Wastewater rates are
calculated on an EDU basis for Inside and Outside CFD No. 1 customers. Existing customers pay
the full rate because they currently send wastewater flow to the WWTP. Future customers will
pay reduced monthly rates to cover their portion of operations and maintenance expenses and
a connection fee to cover their impact to the financing debt. Rates for existing customers
increase annually due to the inclusion of rehabilitation costs for the treatment plant once the
upgrades and expansion are complete, as well as typical operations and maintenance expenses.
The treatment plant project is currently paid for by a loan from the SWRCB’s Clean Water State
Revolving Fund (CWSRF). This loan will be repaid by Inside CFD No. 1 customers through special
taxes and by Outside CFD No. 1 customers through their annual service charges. Table 7-11,
below, shows past fees (2012-2016). In Dec. of 2017 the SWRCB agreed to lower the interest
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 7, Donner Summit PUD 7-29
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
rate on TSD’s CWSRF loan from 2.2% to 0.75% and this will save the District $3.43 million over
25 years (Personal communication, T. Skjelstad, 2018).
Table 7-11: Calculated Wastewater Rates and Connection Fees through 2016
Calculated Rates
Rates by 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Customer Effective 1/1/2012 7/1/2012 7/1/2013 7/1/2014 7/1/2015
Date
Charge per EDU per month
Existing Customers
Inside CFD $110.32 $110.32 $110.32 $114.83 $116.24 $117.58
No. 1
Outside $110.32 $127.03 $143.06 $164.28 $165.69 $167.02
CFD No. 1
Future Customers
Inside CFD $45.72 $45.72 $46.12 $47.99 $48.58 $49.13
No. 1
Outside $45.72 $62.43 $78.86 $97.44 $98.02 $98.58
CFD No. 1
*Connection Fee: $1,070 prior to April 1, 2012
Outside CDF No. 1 only $1,772 April 2012-June 2012
$2,362 Jul 2012–Jun 2013
$3,542 Jul2013-Jun 2014
$5,312 Jul 2014-Jun 2015
$7,672 Jul 2015-Jun 2016
Rates for service remained the same from 2016 thru 2017. On August 15, 2017, the PUD adopted
Resolution 06-2017 approving new water rates.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 7, Donner Summit PUD 7-30
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
In June 2018 DSPUD will consider new rates for wastewater services during a public meeting.
The proposed rates are shown in Table 7-13, below.
Table 7-13.
Data Source for Table 7-14: DSPUD, March 2018
Table 7-14: Summary of Rate Indicators
DSPUD Rate Indicator Score Notes
Rates were adopted by the Board of Directors √ PUD’s Board of Directors adopted
sewer rates as part of Ordinance 01-
2012 and Resolution #06-2017. The
rates are based the 2011 sewer rate
study by Hanford Economics and this
is available on the DSPUD website.
Rates are consistent with requirements of the √ Ordinance 01-2012 and the minutes
State Water Resources Control Board and the from the February 14, 2012 public
process for adopting rates are consistent with meeting describes consistency with
Proposition 218 state laws. Water rates for 2017 and
2018 were approved via Resolution
#06-2017, adopted a regular public
meeting of the Board of Directors.
Rates are readily available to constituents √ Rates are transparently displayed on
the District’s website.
Key to score:
√= Above average (compared to similar sewer districts)
∆= Average
0= Below average
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 7, Donner Summit PUD 7-32
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
300,000
250,000
200,000
150,000
100,000
50,000
0
ASSET MAINTENANCE AND REPLACEMENT
The Donner Summit PUD owns the wastewater treatment plant and associated sewage
collection and disposal infrastructure and also owns the water treatment plant and water
delivery pipelines. These capital assets are depreciated over their estimated useful lives.
Although the PUD does not have a formal policy regarding depreciation of assets, the audited
financial statement analyzes depreciation in a manner consistent with standard accounting
practices. Asset maintenance is typically a significant issue for a District; however, the PUD’s
infrastructure is a mix of newer facilities such as the WWTP and older facilities such as the
water delivery pipelines. Historically, the PUD budgeted an average of $134,000 annually for
maintenance projects on both the water and sewer system that are implemented on an as-
needed basis. However, in FY 15/16 this expense increased to $261,467 as shown in Figure 7-
6. For FY 17/18 the PUD’s annual budget allocates only $13,000 for facility maintenance and
repair (DSPUD, 2017).
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
In the past, the District planned for and implemented capital improvements on an as-needed
basis. The District recognizes that it is difficult to determine whether or not existing rates are
sufficient to pay for future operational improvements without a formal capital improvement
plan. Although a capital improvement plan was not provided to the MSR consultants, the
District’s General Manager has indicated that the Board is interested in documenting and
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 7, Donner Summit PUD 7-33
$
SU
Figure 7-7: Annual Maintenance
Expenditures DSPUD
Facility maintenance
Vehicle maintenance
Equipment
maintenance
Fiscal Year
Data Source: CAFR for DSPUD, 2011 - 2016
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
planning for future capital improvements and will likely develop a capital improvement plan in
the near future8.
LONG-TERM LIABILITIES AND DEBTS
Upgrading the WWTP and associated facilities represents a significant capital improvement.
Future improvements to the water system will also be a capital expenditure. To finance the
WWTP and other past capital expenditures, the District encumbered loans from a variety of
sources. The District is currently paying off these long-term debts. The District has several
loans outstanding whose funds were used to upgrade the wastewater treatment plant
including the following:
• State of California Water Resources Control Board loan; collateralized by net revenues
of the District. The interest rate was recently renegotiated down to 0.75%; interest and
principal payable in annual installments of $802,557 based on June 30, 2015 balance
(but will be $719,191 if loan is fully funded) beginning 1 year after completion of
construction, but not later than December 1, 2015; final payment due December 1,
2041.
• State of California Water Resources Control Board loan; collateralized by District
revenue; interest of 0%; principle payable in semi-annual installments of $3,458 on July
1 and January 1; final payment due January 1, 2020.
• Sierra Lakes County Water Districts loan; uncollateralized; interest at 2.75%; interest
and principal payable in an initial payment due August 8, 2016 of $327,875 and
subsequent annual installments of $70,885 on July 1; final payment due July 1, 2021.
• (DSPUD, 2016)
The District's assets exceeded liabilities at the close of the fiscal year15/16 by $12,700,433
(DSPUD, 2016).
COST AVOIDANCE
The District has sought cost-saving opportunities where feasible. The District avoids the cost of
room rental for meetings by holding public meetings at the District office, on property the
District leases from the US Forest Service. Often, employing staff directly rather than hiring
consultants saves money. The District employs eight full-time personnel, including a general
manager, office manager, administrative assistant, a chief plant manager, and four licensed
operators. The water and wastewater department share staff, information, and other resources
to maintain an efficient work environment and keep rates as low as possible. In another
example, the District sought and received low-interest, low-cost financing for the wastewater
treatment plan upgrades, and has applied for and received grants to offset some costs. When
the District purchased two new service trucks in 2012 through the State purchasing program, it
resulted in some cost savings. In the past, the PUD has had limited staff wage freezes as needed
8 Personal Communication with General Manager Tom Skjelstad, Donner Summit PUD, September 11, 2013
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 7, Donner Summit PUD 7-34
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
and these also produce cost savings. They also outsourced the annual installation and tear-
down of a fence surrounding a holding pond, and have implemented a policy to use on-call
personnel to resolve most alarms at the water and wastewater treatment plants by utilizing a
SCADA system, thus reducing overtime costs.
The District provides wastewater treatment to SLCWD. The District does not share other
facilities or equipment with other districts or agencies.
CHALLENGES
The District has identified no regulatory issues, infrastructure issues, or other challenges within
the next 12 months. Implementing the requirements of the new discharge permit from the
RWQCB for the WWTP will be demanding. New regulations enacted from the CA DPH are
expected in the next five years.
7.9: SERVICE ADEQUACY
The District’s facilities are currently sized to adequately serve the existing connections within
the service area. Water supply has historically exceeded demand by approximately 45 to 50
acre-feet, and all new developments are conditioned on the availability of water to serve the
projects at the time of construction.
The recent upgrade and expansion of the wastewater treatment plant gives it adequate service
capacity for the next 30 years. Prior to the current upgrade and expansion of the wastewater
treatment plant, the District conducted a public outreach campaign to communicate with both
resident and vacation home-owners within the District. The public outreach program included
asking all property owners of both improved and unimproved parcels if they intended to develop
their property to the extent that a sewer and water permit would be needed. Three letters
were sent over a two-year time period explaining that the wastewater treatment plant would
not be expanded for another 30 years. After the last letter went out, the District gave the
responses to its engineers so that they could size the plant accordingly. As per standard
engineering practices, the engineers included approximately 10 percent surplus capacity.
7.10: OPPORTUNITIES TO SHARE FACILITIES
The District holds its meetings at the District office at 53823 Sherritt Lane, Soda Springs, CA
95728. The District offices are on the site of the wastewater treatment plant. The District
currently treats wastewater from SLCWD through a legal agreement. DSPUD is geographically
separated from other agencies in Nevada and Placer Counties, making its participation in
expanded sharing opportunities with the other wastewater providers less feasible. However,
there are opportunities for expanded sharing within the sub-regional area served by the DSPUD
that might result in economies of scale, cost savings, and regional environmental benefits.
There are several independently run package plants and community land disposal wastewater
treatment plants in the region including:
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 7, Donner Summit PUD 7-35
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
• The Kingvale Lodge and camp which provides hotel and other overnight facilities for
visitors to Sugar Bowl and the Donner Lake area.
• Cisco Grove Campground & RV Park which has a small water/wastewater system9.
• Pla Vada Homeowner’s Association which serves a small number of residential parcels
located primarily in Nevada County10.
While no problems with the operation or management of these facilities were noted, the
possibility of these facilities cooperating in sharing resources, personnel, and expertise, should
be explored. While closing these facilities and pumping wastewater to an expanded District
WWTP treatment plant may not be feasible at this time, in the future the cost for these systems
to achieve full compliance with increased regulations may be more than the cost of connecting
to the District system. The agencies and entities involved could investigate the cost/benefit of
connecting these systems to a public system in the future. Beyond a cost/benefit study, an
investigation of a regional wastewater system would also have to carefully examine a wide
range of technical and political/jurisdictional issues. For example, DSPUD and SLCWD have had
past disagreements regarding the calculation of flow rates and other issues, which seem to have
been generally resolved with the adoption of an interim agreement in 2003. The interim service
agreement clearly defined some of these issues such as ownership, measurement of system
capacity, maintenance and operation costs, plant expansion, and capital improvements in order
to reduce current and future disagreements.
Both DSPUD and SLCWD have population bases that fluctuate seasonally and both have relatively
few registered voters. This results in a relatively small pool of potential Board Members and
occasionally makes it more difficult to reach other economies of scale. There may be
opportunities to provide other services beyond just wastewater on a regional basis through a
reorganization of existing service providers.
The District has developed a unique way to share resources with its neighbors through utilization
of effluent for snow making on the Soda Springs Ski Resort property and possibly Boreal Ski
Resort. During the winter of 2015/16 the District, in partnership with Soda Springs Ski Resort,
became the first agency in California to offer recycled water for snowmaking. This benefits the
District by reducing the amount of effluent that is discharged directly to local surface waters
during the winter season.
9 http://www.ciscogrove.com/
10 http://plavada.com/
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 7, Donner Summit PUD 7-36
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
7.11: DETERMINATIONS
GROWTH AND POPULATION PROJECTIONS
1. The population served by the Donner Summit Public Utility District is largely seasonal
and comprised of second homes and vacation rentals. However, the District notes that
there are 93 registered voters within their boundaries.
2. DSPUD currently serves 232 residential sewer service connections and 331 water
connections. Assuming overlap of service connections and an average household size of
2.56 in Placer County, the estimated total population including both permanent
residents and visitors served is 737 people for the year 2015. This number may be higher
in the winter ski season, which is the peak season for habitation of the area, and lower
in the summer season.
3. The District previously had the capacity to serve 1,736.5 EDUs and since the treatment
plant upgrade was completed in 2015, the capacity increased to 2,136.5 EDUs. The
capacity of the new sewage treatment plant was designed to serve existing vacant lots
which have development potential.
4. The District has a very low growth rate for the resident population, coupled with a
projected increase in the visitor/vacation population. Since the 2004 MSR, the only new
construction has been a new subdivision of 25 homes at Sugar Bowl (“Summit Crossing”),
and a recreation center for skateboarders and acrobat snowboarders at Boreal. An
average annual growth rate is calculated for DSPUD, assuming a rate of one-half percent
as shown in Table 7-3. This leads to a projected 2040 population of 835 persons which
is 13 percent higher than the 2015 population of 737 persons.
DISADVANTAGED UNINCORPORATED COMMUNITIES
5. The District’s boundaries and SOI include areas that qualify as a disadvantaged
unincorporated community because the median family income less than 80% of the state
median family income. The area does receive sufficient water, wastewater, and fire
protection services.
PRESENT AND PLANNED CAPACITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES
6. DSPUD was originally established in 1948 to provide sewer and water facilities for
military encampments, civilian repair crews, and tourist facilities, and to allow for
public financing of the water and sewer facilities given the high cost of such
infrastructure in the mountainous terrain of the Donner Summit area.
7. The District currently provides wastewater service to its customers in addition to
potable water.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 7, Donner Summit PUD 7-37
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
8. Repairs and replacements will be necessary on an ongoing basis for both water
treatment and delivery infrastructure, as well as wastewater collection and treatment.
9. The dam and reservoir at Lake Angela were recently inspected by the Department of
Water Resources Division of Safety of Dams and found to be safe for continued use.
10. The District’s existing wastewater treatment plant was recently inspected by the
Central Valley RWQCB and found to be generally in compliance.
11. The District expanded its wastewater treatment facility in 2015 and has worked with
the SLCWD during that expansion to ensure customer service in both districts.
12. The District’s water supply comes from Lake Angela. Water rights to Lake Angela allow
for the use of up to 310 acre-feet per year. Historic water demand from 2005 to 2012
has been 262.7 acre-feet per year. Counter-intuitively, demand for water service rises
in the winter months due to the seasonal ski resort population.
13. The District serves customers inside and outside the service area. The District should
consider adopting a policy to give preference to adding new customer connections in
locations where the required infrastructure already exists or will become available.
14. To ensure that capacity is provided concurrent with need, the District should continue
to work closely with the SLCWD to resolve technical issues.
15. DSPUD should examine the provision of service in conjunction with SLCWD, Nevada
LAFCo, Placer LAFCO and other service providers to determine if infrastructure needs
can be addressed more efficiently.
FINANCIAL ABILITY OF AGENCY TO PROVIDE SERVICES
16. DSPUD’s operations and maintenance activities are funded through service charges,
fees, and taxes.
17. Upgrades and expansion projects, including the current wastewater treatment plant and
the future modifications to the water treatment plant, are funded through grants and
loans. Loans are repaid through service charges to customers and through a voter-
approved special tax.
18. DSPUD has received grants from state and federal agencies.
19. The DSPUD Board started work on a CIP in 2015. The CIP will mostly focus on smaller
projects and will allow the District to accurately budget for future needs and ensure
that infrastructure and facilities can be replaced and repaired when necessary.
20. The District reported that the current (as of 2013) financing level is adequate to deliver
services presently.
21. Rates should continue to be reviewed and adjusted as necessary to fund District costs
and provide for capital improvements as needed.
STATUS OF, AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR, SHARED FACILITIES
22. The District should examine joint arrangements for services that can be provided on a
regional or localized area.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 7, Donner Summit PUD 7-38
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
23. The District fees are set through a public process, with past and current practice to use
a nexus study to link new fees to the cost of providing services. No nexus study was
requested or provided as part of this service review.
24. The District is currently sharing facilities with SLCWD. While both agencies own and
maintain their own collection systems, they jointly use the DSPUD treatment plant.
25. The District should continue to explore opportunities to share facilities, staff, and
infrastructure with other wastewater providers in the area.
26. The District should continue to work with SLCWD. Future collaboration opportunities
could potentially include sharing professional consultant expertise for joint projects
with SLCWD, such as the development GIS maps of their respective boundaries.
27. The revenue per EDU for DSPUD is high due in part to increased costs associated with
operating and maintaining a small district in a challenging high elevation environment.
For smaller agencies, it is generally more difficult to reach economies of scale and still
comply with regulatory requirements. The District should consider studying possible
changes in the governmental structure to result in fewer elections, simplified provision
of service, and the regional coordination of services. The study should be completed
prior to consideration of any LAFCo proposal during the 6-20 year planning horizon for
the SOI.
28. Service provision might be improved if the governance structure for DSPUD were
examined. DSPUD and SLCWD, as noted in previous LAFCo staff reports, should examine
their current government structure to determine if efficiencies could be gained by
reorganizing the agencies.
29. The District may wish to consider participating in an Integrated Regional Water
Management Plan to continue/improve access to future grant opportunities and to
improve relationships with stakeholders.
ACCOUNTABILITY FOR COMMUNITY SERVICE NEEDS, INCLUDING
GOVERNMENTAL STRUCTURE AND OPERATION EFFICIENCIES
30. In July of 2006 the Truckee Fire Protection District annexed the DSPUD fire department.
31. In June 2013 DSPUD annexed the Big Bend Mutual Water Company, and in 2008 annexed
the remaining territory of Sugar Bowl.
32. Local accountability and governance might be improved through a reorganization of
service providers in the area or through more explicit joint agreements such as the
“Interim Service Agreement” recently signed by the DSPUD and SLCWD. Additionally,
alternatives to the current government structure in the Soda Springs/Sierra Lakes area
should be explored by Nevada and Placer LAFCos, DSPUD and SLCWD.
33. In the long-term future, the District could explore the use of new technology to develop
and capture renewable energy to reduce its annual expenditures on utility costs. The
DSPUD budgeted $214,549 for its utility, communications, and telemetry expenses in
the FY 2012-2013 budget. This amount accounted for 10.6 percent of the District’s
expenses. In the FY 17/18 budget, the utility line item increased to $327,594. The
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 7, Donner Summit PUD 7-39
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
District should investigate efficiencies in its electricity use, which will require proper
budgeting for energy efficiency consultation.
34. The DSPUD is locally accountable through adherence to applicable government code
sections, open and accessible meetings, and dissemination of information and
encouragement of participation in their process.
35. DSPUD demonstrated accountability through its prompt disclosure of information
requested by Placer LAFCo for preparation of an older iteration of this MSR.
36. Board meetings are publicly noticed and comply with the Brown Act, California’s open
meeting law. They are held every month.
37. The District practices cost reduction through careful purchasing, bidding processes, staff
workload reductions, applications for grants and other mechanisms.
38. No boundary changes are pending or proposed at this time.
39. The District follows standard accounting procedures.
40. Transparency is a key value for the PUD and all Board members have access to District
data, records and information.
41. The District has good public outreach, with a public website featuring Board agendas
and meeting minutes, fiscal information, staff contact information, general information
about services provided, rates, environmental compliance documents, planning
documents, and news stories about its current projects.
42. The District does not currently have a strategic plan that outlines its mission statement,
vision statement, and goals and objectives. Such a strategic plan could help the District
improve upon planning efforts, accountability, and transparency.
7.12: REFERENCES
California Environmental Protection Agency, State Water Resources Control Board, Division of
Water Rights. Permit for Diversion and Use of Water, Permit 21118. February 8, 1994.
California Legislature – 1950 First Extraordinary Session. Senate Bill No. 35: An Act to Create
the Donner Summit Public Utility District. 24 March 1950.
Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (CVRWQCB). Compliance Evaluation
Inspection, Donner Summit Public Utilities District, Wastewater Treatment Plant,
Nevada County. 21 May 2013.
Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (CVRWQCB). June 4, 2015. Order No. R5-
2015-0068, NPDES No. CA 0081621, Waste Discharge Requirements for the Donner
Summit Public Utility District. Rancho Cordova, CA. 118 pages. Available on-line at:
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/board_decisions/adopted_orders/neva
da/r5-2015-0068.pdf. Accessed 5Nov2015.
Department of Public Health, Division of Drinking Water and Environmental Management. Small
Water System Inspection Report. September 13, 2012.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 7, Donner Summit PUD 7-40
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
Department of Water Resources (DWR), Division of Safety of Dams. Inspection of Dam and
Reservoir in Certified Status. 16 August 2013.
Department of Water Resources (DWR). 2015. Website entitled: “Resources - Disadvantaged
Communities (DAC) Mapping Tool”. Available on-line at: http://www.water.ca.
gov/irwm/grants/resources_dac.cfm. Accessed 5November2015.
Donner Summit Public Utility District Board of Directors. Ordinance 01-2012 to Amend and
Modify Ordinance 2008-01, Setting Sewer Rates and Charges. February 14, 2012.
Donner Summit Public Utility District Board of Directors. Ordinance 2008-02 to Amend and
Modify Ordinance 2007-04, Setting Water Rates and Charges.
Donner Summit Public Utility District. Financial Statements (With Independent Auditor’s Report
by Gibson & Company, Inc., Certified Public Accountant) For Fiscal Year 14/15.
November 17, 2015. 40-pages. Available on-line at:
<http://www.dspud.com/assets/fiscal_info/audit-06302015.pdf>. Retrieved August
28, 2016.
Donner Summit Public Utility District. Fiscal Year 2012/2013 Operating Budget Summary.
Approved June 19, 2012.
Donner Summit Public Utility District. http://www.dspud.com/about.php. Accessed 15 October
2013.
Donner Summit Public Utility District. Placer Local Agency Formation Commission: 2013
Municipal Service Review Update: Districts/Agencies in North Tahoe & Martis Valley:
Information Request, 2013.
Donner Summit Public Utility District. 2009. “Reason for Proposal: Donner Summit Public
Utility District to Annex the Big Bend Mutual Water Company.” 2 pgs. (Estimated date
of writing 2009 – 2010.) Available on-line at: http://www.dspud.com/assets/pdf/Big-
Bend-Annex.pdf. Accessed April 26, 2015.
Dudek & Associates, Inc. Final Municipal Service Review Report: Nevada County Western Region
Wastewater Service Agencies. January 2004.
Gibson & Company Inc. CPA. Sacramento. Donner Summit PUD. Financial Statements. June
30, 2011. 33 pages.
Gibson & Company Inc. CPA. Sacramento. Donner Summit PUD. Financial Statements. June
30, 2012. 33 pages.
Hansford Economic Consulting. Donner Summit Public Utility District: Wastewater Treatment
Plant Upgrade and Expansion Project Financing Plan and Wastewater System Cost of
Service Study. October 2011.
Jordan, Frank. State of California, Secretary of State. Certification of Donner Summit Public
Utility District. 27 August 1948.
Nevada County LAFCo. Staff Report: Truckee Fire Protection District and Donner Summit Public
Utility District—Sphere Updates. March 17, 2005.
Placer County LAFCo. Placer LAFCo Agency Profile: Donner Summit Public Utility District. 8
February 2012.
Placer Local Agency Formation Commission. 2013 Municipal Service Review Update.
Districts/Agencies in North Tahoe & Martis Valley. Information Request. August 2013.
Skjelstad, Tom. Interview with Kateri Harrison, Principal, SWALE. 11 September 2013.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 7, Donner Summit PUD 7-41
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
Skjelstad, Tom. Email with Jessica Hankins, SWALE. 23 October 2013.
US Department of Commerce. <www.census.gov>. Accessed 23 October 2013.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 7, Donner Summit PUD 7-42
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
C 8
HAPTER
McKinney Water District
Photo courtesy of Placer County e-newsletter November 2015
This Municipal Service Review (MSR) describes the McKinney Water District. This District was
originally formed in 1961 and currently provides domestic water within its service area.
Table of Contents
8.1 Agency Profile ..................................................................................................... 8-2
8.2 Overview of District ............................................................................................. 8-2
8.3 Formation and Boundary ........................................................................................ 8-3
8.4: Accountability and Governance ............................................................................... 8-5
8.5: Management Efficiencies and Staffing ....................................................................... 8-5
8.6 Population and Growth ......................................................................................... 8-6
8.7: District Services ................................................................................................. 8-11
8.8 Infrastructure and Facilities .................................................................................. 8-14
8.9: Financing ......................................................................................................... 8-16
8.10: Service Adequacy .............................................................................................. 8-21
8.11 Determinations .................................................................................................. 8-22
8.12: Bibliography ..................................................................................................... 8-25
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 8, McKinney Water Dist. 8-1
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
8.1 AGENCY PROFILE
McKinney District
Type of District: Water District
Enabling Legislation: The California Water District Law: Water Code sections 34000-38501
Functions/Services: Domestic water
Date of Formation: 1961
Main Office: 103 Simmons Way, Folsom, CA 95630
Mailing Address: Same
Phone No.: (916) 987-7130
Fax No.: None
Web Site: www.MckinneyWaterDistrict.com
Email: kgunter@mckinneywaterdistrict.com
General Manager: Karla Gunter, Secretary/Treasurer
District Agent: Graham Payne
Phone: ( 530) 307-9032
Governing Body: Elected Board of Directors (Land-owner-voter) Term Expires
Tom Waters 12/31/2019
Jerry Swartfager 12/31/2021
Anne Ballard 11/30/2019
Scott Cotner 11/30/2021
Vincent Dangler 11/30/2021
Meeting Schedule: 4th Friday of each month at 8:00 a.m.
Meeting Location: 6575 McKinney Creek Road, Tahoma, CA OR 7017 Bellevue Ave., Tahoma, CA.
Principal County: Placer County
Other: Multi-county district serving Placer County and El Dorado County
Landowner voter district
8.2 OVERVIEW OF DISTRICT
The McKinney Water District provides domestic water service. This is the first full Municipal
Service Review (MSR) for the District. The District was partially described in the previous
2004 MSR for the North Tahoe and Martis Valley area.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 8, McKinney Water Dist. 8-2
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
TYPE AND EXTENT OF SERVICES
The McKinney Water District is a public agency organized in 1961 under California Water Code
sections 34000-38501 (The California Water District Law) for the primary purpose of providing
domestic water service to residences and business within an unincorporated community that
straddles Placer County and El Dorado County. Primary activities of the District include
securing and protecting the water supply and delivery of potable water to customers.
LOCATION AND SIZE
The McKinney Water District serves residents and business in both unincorporated Placer
County and El Dorado County. MWD is located immediately west of Highway 89 near the
western shore of Lake Tahoe, along the border between Placer County and El Dorado County.
See Figure 8-1 for District boundary. The District encompasses approximately 266 acres (0.4
square miles) and elevation ranges from 6280 ft. to 6440 ft. above sea level. The community
of Tahoma is the socioeconomic center of the District area.
8.3 FORMATION AND
BOUNDARY
CONTACT INFORMATION:
The McKinney Water District originally started
in 1961 as an independent water district. The Karla Gunter, Manager
District’s boundary encompasses portions of 103 Simmons Way, Folsom, CA
both unincorporated Placer County and El 95630
Dorado County.
BOUNDARY HISTORY
LAFCo’s records do not indicate any changes to the boundary since the District’s original
formation in 1961.
SPHERE OF INFLUENCE
LAFCo’s records do not show a Sphere of Influence (SOI) for the McKinney Water District. It is
possible that a SOI was established in the past, but not noted in LAFCo’s files. If MWD and
LAFCo would like to establish a SOI in the future, Tahoe City PUD should be consulted since its
boundaries overlap and surround McKinney Water District.
EXTRA-TERRITORIAL SERVICES
The District does not provide water service outside its formal boundaries.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 8, McKinney Water Dist. 8-3
d.
R
d. s
R g
Grouse Dr. bi n pri n
E
M
m e
c
r
K
a
i
l
n
d
n
C
ey
ir
C
cl
r
e
e
C
e
a
M
k
s
a
c
r
R
a
la
d
d
C
e
t
.
. Mc
Ki n n e
R
y
o
C r e e k
M c ki n
n e y R u
bicon
M
B ll e e v
u e v A e
.
S
cKinne
M ia m
i A
y
v e
. Rd.
.e
v A s iw e L .e v A y a r G .e v A re e D
.e
v A r a e B .tS m lE
.tS
r e c a lP
D
r.
McKinney
Ct.
Dr.
si d e Springs Ct.
d
o
o
W
Evergreen Way
PLACER COUNTY
.d
R
n
ip
a
EL DORADO COUNTY k
n
ih
C
y
a W
e
p
o
S
prings
Rd. le
tn
A
n
o
Rubic
Kinney
c
M
McKinney Water District
County Boundary
0 500 1,000
Parcels
Feet
Roads
Parcel, Roads and District Boundary from Placer County GIS.
District Boundary in El Dorado County from El Dorado County GIS.
Figure 8-1 MCKINNEY WATER DISTRICT
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
AREAS OF INTEREST
No specific areas outside the District boundaries have been identified that require services
from the District.
8.4: ACCOUNTABILITY AND GOVERNANCE
The District is governed by a five-member Board of Directors, who are elected by registered
voters within the District boundaries. Regularly scheduled meetings are usually held on the
fourth Friday of the month at 8:00 p.m.; although, sometimes the meeting date may be
changed. Meetings are held at a residence located in McKinney Estates and the particular
residence sometimes varies. Recently, the meetings have been held at 6575 McKinney Creek
Road, Tahoma, CA.
The current Board members and Manager are as follows:
Name Term Expires
Tom Waters 2019
Jerry Swartfager 2021
Anne Ballard 2019
Scott Cotner 2021
Vincent Dangler 2021
A review of the meeting minutes from January to May 2015 shows that Board members
regularly attend each meeting. Local residents can attend meetings either in person or via
teleconference. The teleconference option is useful for those second homeowners whose
primary residence is located out of town. All meetings are publicly posted at least three days
prior to Board meetings. The District’s website is utilized to post agendas in advance of
meetings1. Postings are located on a public information board on the pump house within the
District. Additionally, residents may call the district and request that copies of agendas
and/or minutes be sent to them via US mail or email. The District publishes an annual
newsletter which describes the meeting schedule and access to the teleconference. The
District coordinates with the local radio station KAHI to advertise candidate filing
opportunities when open seats on the Board of Directors become available.
8.5: MANAGEMENT EFFICIENCIES AND STAFFING
Day-to-day operations are managed primarily by the Board of Directors who work in concert
with the District Manager (i.e. the Board’s Secretary/Treasurer) and the District’s Agent. The
District reports a total of six “employees” to the State Controller’s Office compensation
databases2 and this includes the five Board members and one District Agent. The reported
“employees” are not typical employees; rather the Board members receive a small stipend3
1 See: http://www.mckinneywaterdistrict.com/agenda.html
2 State Controller’s Office database at: http://www.publicpay.ca.gov/Reports/SpecialDistricts
/SpecialDistricts.aspx#Pa05c8cd8820d48f1a25c469a3bfb558c_2_24iT0
3 . Each Director receives $100 per meeting.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 8, McKinney Water Dist. 8-5
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
for a portion of their time preparing for and
participating in the meetings. The District’s Agent is
MWD Mission Statement
a part-time position. There are no full-time
employees at the District. Salary information is
To furnish our customers with
available at this website:
reliable high quality drinking
http://transparentcalifornia.com/. water in a fair, open, and
cost effective manner; in
accordance with standards set
8.6 POPULATION AND GROWTH
for public health, safety, and
the environment.
POPULATION
Population characteristics throughout the MWD
service area are substantially affected by seasonal
variations, distinct user groups and the abundance of
second homes. There are seasonal variations in demand for water services, due to the
popularity of skiing/winter recreation and summer lake visitation in the area. Determining
the existing population for the District is a challenge because many of the established census
tracts and blocks do not match up with the MWD boundaries. In some census measurements
the community is “lumped” with adjoining areas, for example:
• The community of Tahoma is census designated place #77728 and is formally referred
to as “Tahoma CDP – El Dorado and Placer”. The US Census 2010 Demographic Profile
reports that this census designated place has a population of 1,191 persons4 (USDC,
2010). This census designated place encompasses MWD and is much larger than MWD.
• Zip Code 96142 encompasses the MWD. The US Census 2010 Demographic Profile
reports that this zip code has a population of 1,037 persons5 (USDC, 2010). This zip
code encompasses MWD and is much larger than MWD.
The census tracts and blocks that comprise MWD are shown in Figure 8.2, below. The census
tracts/blocks shown in Figure 8.2 correlate to Table 8.1 (next page).
Figure 8.2: Census Tracts and Blocks within MWD
U.S. Census Tracts/Blocks from : http://www.census.gov/2010census/popmap/
4 http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/community_facts.xhtml
5 http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/community_facts.xhtml
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 8, McKinney Water Dist. 8-6
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
Table 8.1 Approximate Permanent Population
Census Tract Block Group Permanent
Population within
MWD
223 2009 6
2011 16
2014 5
2017 8
2019 39
2020 2
2063 6
2064 18
2065 2
2066 8
2067 1
320 1015 5
1016 35
1017 2
1069 3
Total 156
Data Source: U.S. Census 2010. Tracts/Blocks from
http://www.census.gov/2010census/popmap/
Based upon the data presented in Table 8.1 above, MWD serves a total of 156 permanent
residents within its boundaries.
MWD’s boundaries encompass 325 parcels; however several parcels remain vacant and a few
single family homes are built on “double” lots. MWD serves 267 customers (i.e. households).
Assuming that each of the 267 customers represents a single family dwelling and assuming an
average occupancy of 2.55 persons per household, MWD would serve a total of 680 persons at
its peak. This is less than the 1,000 persons served that the District estimated (MWD, 2014c).
Like all districts in the Tahoe Basin, there is a large influx of tourists that add to the daily
peak service demands. All of this translates into service demands for the MWD. The following
excerpts are taken from the Travel Industry Assessment:
Second Homeowner Trends: The Travel Industry Assessment reports that
within the High Country Region, a large percentage of the housing units
serve as private vacation homes and/or vacation rental properties, most
notably for the communities of North Lake Tahoe. ….nearly two-thirds (67
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 8, McKinney Water Dist. 8-7
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
percent) of all single family homes, condominiums, and time-shares are not
owner-occupied (Dean Runyan Associates, 2009).
Table 8.2 Single-Family Residential, Condominium, and Time-Share
Housing Units, 2008
Owner- Absentee Percent
Location Zip Area Total Units
Occupied Owner Absentee
Homewood 96141 128 900 1,028 88%
Tahoma 96142 41 166 207 80%
Table 8.3 Existing Population in MWD
Year Permanent Seasonal/Visitor Total Population
Population Population
2010 156 524 680
PROJECTED GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT
Projections for future development and hence increased service demands within the MWD’s
service area are based on information provided in the 1994 Placer County General Plan and
related area plans, 2004 El Dorado County General Plan6, Tahoe Regional Planning Agency
documents and other sources. Future population growth within the MWD is dependent upon
land availability and upon zoning and general plan policies in the region.
The primary land use within the District is single family residential. There are no proposed
changes to the land uses within the district (MWD, 2014c). The District is largely built out and
does not have a significant amount of vacant land available for new construction or expansion
of existing uses.
The Lake Tahoe area is under the jurisdiction of several agencies, including the Tahoe
Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) and Placer County. Since the Lake straddles both California
and Nevada, there are several state agencies with jurisdiction over the water and shoreline.
TRPA was jointly created in 1969 as a bi-state compact by the states of California and Nevada
in the late 1960s to meet Lake Tahoe basin-wide planning needs, including the development
of general plans and other planning documents. TRPA is the agency responsible for regional
planning, development and redevelopment oversight, regulatory enforcement, and
implementation of environmental protection and restoration of Lake Tahoe and the
surrounding region. Areas over which the TRPA has authority include new construction,
erosion control, storm water runoff, shore-zone development and protection, road
construction, land use, and tree conservation and harvesting. Through its 1987 General Plan,
TRPA provides environmental quality standards and ordinances designed to achieve these
thresholds. The Code of Ordinances within the 1987 General Plan regulates land use, density,
6 El Dorado GP at: https://www.edcgov.us/Government/Planning/Adopted_General_Plan.aspx
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 8, McKinney Water Dist. 8-8
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
land coverage, excavation, and scenic impacts with the intention of bringing the region into
conformance with specified environmental thresholds.
In December 2012, the TRPA Governing Board adopted the Lake Tahoe Regional Plan Update.
The Regional Plan Update leaves many of the policies of the 1987 Regional Plan in place while
providing more autonomy to local governments through adoption of Area Plans. The 2012
Regional Plan identifies goals and policies to guide decision making as it affects the Tahoe
Region’s resources and environmental thresholds. Goals and policies are addressed in six
major elements including land use, transportation, conservation, recreation, public services
and facilities, and implementation. The Regional Plan Update initiated a Region-wide
transition to a planning and permitting system where all requirements—TRPA, local, state,
and federal—are addressed in coordinated Area Plans.
The Placer County General Plan serves as the County’s vision for long-term land use
development and conservation. Placer County’s General Plan, adopted on August 16, 1994
and updated May 21, 2013, provides a series of goals, policies, standards and implementation
programs to guide the land use, development, and environmental quality of the County. The
County’s General Plan is generally consistent with TRPA planning documents. While the
General Plan was updated in 2013, the area plans in the Tahoe Basin were not.
In 2014 and 2015, Placer County embarked on a more compressive planning update for the
Tahoe basin area plans. In an effort to develop more cohesive, user-friendly Planning
documents for the Tahoe Community/General Plan Update, the nine Tahoe basin plans are
consolidated into a single over-arching Community Plan policy document with four sub-
planning areas each with their own zoning ordinances and design standards specific to each
Plan Area. Each of the major communities in the Lake Tahoe area is also covered by area or
community plans, which are incorporated into the Proposed/Review Draft Tahoe Basin Area
Plan, June 2015.
In MWD’s vicinity, the only proposed development project on the horizon is at the Homewood
Ski Resort. The Homewood Mountain Resort Master Plan was approved by the Placer County Board
of Supervisors in 2011. The project approval was subject to litigation which was settled out
of court in January 20147. Under the Master Plan, the resort will redevelop mixed-uses at the
North Base area, residential uses at the South Base area, and a lodge at the Mid-Mountain
Base area. The 17-acre North Base area will include six new mixed-use buildings and eight
new townhouse buildings to provide 36 residential condominiums, 16 townhouses, 20
fractional ownership units, 75 traditional hotel rooms, 40 two-bedroom for sale
condominium/hotel units, 30 penthouse condominium units, 25,000 square feet of
commercial floor area (CFA), 13 affordable housing units and a 30,000 square foot skier
services lodge. The 6-acre South Base area will be converted to 95 ski-in/ski-out residences
in a series of clustered chalets and one centralized condominium lodge. Please note that the
7 Legal settlement was described in the Tahoe Daily Tribune newspaper at:
http://www.tahoedailytribune.com/news/9992880-113/homewood-resort-ski-tahoe
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 8, McKinney Water Dist. 8-9
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
total number of residential units was reduced by 13, consistent with the 2014 legal
settlement. The Mid-Mountain Base area will include a new 15,000 square foot day-use lodge
with a detached gondola terminal linked to the lodge by a covered passage, a new learn-to-
ski lift, an outdoor swimming facility for use during the summer months by West Shore
residents, a new snow-based vehicle (e.g., grooming equipment) maintenance facility, and
two water storage tanks. The Homewood Ski Resort is located north of MWD. MWD will not
provide water service to the Ski Resort since the resort is not within MWD’s boundaries. As
noted above, all future development must be in conformance with the TRPA, 2012, Lake
Tahoe Regional Plan Update. The 2004 MSR predicted a 1% growth rate for MWD and this
growth rate was not realized. Based upon this context, the population within MWD’s
boundaries is not expected to grow in the future. This stable population estimate is detailed
in Table 8.4 below.
Table 8.4 Projected Population Growth in MWD
Year Estimated Future Estimated Future Estimated Future
Permanent Seasonal/Visitor Total Population
Population Population
2010 156 524 680
2020 156 524 680
2030 156 524 680
2040 156 524 680
DISADVANTAGED UNINCORPORATED COMMUNITIES
State law (adopted per Senate Bill [SB] 244) requires LAFCo to identify and consider
disadvantaged unincorporated communities (DUCs) when preparing MSRs and Sphere updates
for cities and special
districts that provide
sewer, water, or
structural fire
protection services.
A small portion of
MWD‘s service area
that lies in El Dorado
County has been
identified by the CA
Department of Water
Resources as a
Disadvantaged
Unincorporated
Community 8 as
shown in Figure 8.3,
8 DUC’s are mapped at: https://gis.water.ca.gov/app/boundaries/
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 8, McKinney Water Dist. 8-10
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
above. This identification was made based upon data from the US Census ACS 2009-2013
showing census tracts identified as disadvantaged communities (less than 80% of the State's
median household income) or severely disadvantaged communities (less than 60% of the
State's median household income) (DWR, 2015). Fire service in the El Dorado portion of the
district is provided by the Meeks Bay Fire Protection District. In the Placer County portion of
MWD, fire protection is provided North Tahoe Fire Protection District. Wastewater collection
service is provided by Tahoe City PUD. As discussed in this MSR, the area is well-served with
basic infrastructure and no health or safety issues have been identified.
8.7: DISTRICT SERVICES
SERVICE OVERVIEW
The District operates water system # CA3110022 to provide domestic water services within its
boundary area9. MWD defines a customer as the property owners within the boundaries of
McKinney Water District. The District has maintained a steady rate of 267 customers during
the years 2003 to 2012. The system contains two pressure zones.
SUPPLY/DEMAND
Supply: The primary source of domestic water for MWD is groundwater supplied via two
metered wells. Well #1 is approximately 355 feet deep and is equipped with a 40 h.p. motor
driving the turbine pump. It has capacity to supply 600 gpm. It was originally drilled in 1963.
Well #1 is utilized on a standby basis only (i.e. during emergencies or during peak demand)
because it produces water containing a fine sand when pumping over 200 gpm. A propane
auxiliary motor is used for emergency use during power outages. Well #2 is equipped with a
submersible pump with a 400 gpm capacity. It has a hydropneumatic tank and booster pump.
Well #2 was was drilled in 1982 (Placer County, 1992).
A water supply source assessment was prepared for well #2 in 2003. This paragraph
summarizes information from this study and it is acknowledged that the information is 12
years old. Well #2 has a maximum pumping rate of 100 gallons per minute. It pumps
approximately 161 acre feet per year. The aquifer that is accessed by Well #2 is an
unconfined or semi-confined fractured rock aquifer. Since the primary land use in the District
is residential, there are no commercial uses that could potentially contaminate the local
groundwater supply. Other potential sources of contamination noted in the assessment
include the sewer collection system, local fire station, above ground storage tanks,
transportation corridors (i.e. roads/highways), managed forests, and McKinney Creek (CDHS,
2003).
9 Water system details available at: https://sdwis.waterboards.ca.gov/PDWW/JSP/WaterSystemDetail.
jsp?tinwsys_is_number=3434&tinwsys_st_code=CA&wsnumber=CA3110022 .
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 8, McKinney Water Dist. 8-11
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
The availability of ground water is partially dependent upon long term climate that could
affect local hydrology. Although it is not clear how climate change will affect the District’s
water supplies, it is an issue that the District should consider in its own water planning
efforts.
Water Quality: The District prepares a consumer confidence report on an annual basis which
informs its customers of the results of water quality testing. Water quality constituents that
are tested for include lead, copper, sodium, hardness, bicarbonate, calcium, magnesium,
specific conductivity, sulfate, chloride, and arsenic. Arsenic naturally occurs in many
groundwater sources in California. Although the District’s test results show arsenic was below
the 10 ppb Maximum Contaminant Level set by the EPA, the level was above the public health
goal of 0.4 ppb. At 4.0 ppb, the arsenic level will continue to be monitored by the District.
The 2013 consumer confidence report was reviewed for this MSR and data shows that there
were no violations of state and federal water quality standards for any constituent tested
(MWD, 2014a).
The Environmental Working Group posts water quality data for all public water suppliers on
its website. Data 10 for the McKinney Water District
indicates that for one month the health guidelines for
radiu-228 and radium-226 were exceeded. “Guidelines”
sometimes have higher criteria than health “standards”.
Additionally nitrate and nitrite were detected. Radium
and nitrate/nitrite are naturally occurring in the Tahoe
area; however they may be exacerbated by urban sprawl,
pollution, or as a chemical by-product. Both radium and
nitrate/nitrite should continue to be monitored. Data
indicates that MWD’s water quality meets federal and
state health standards. Exceedance of guideline criteria or minimal detection for one test
does not necessarily indicate that the system is out of compliance (EWG, 2015).
Demand: Water service demand for the five-year timeframe from 2009 to 2013 are shown in
Figure 8.4 (next page). Projections of future water service demands are based upon the
number of connections the District is expected to serve. Since it is projected that the District
will see no future growth and the number of customers served will remain stable at 297, it is
projected that future water service demand will be similar to that shown in Figure 8.4 (next
page).
10 MWD data available at: http://www.ewg.org/tap-water/whatsinyourwater/CA/Mckinney-Water-
District/3110022/
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 8, McKinney Water Dist. 8-12
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
3,500,000
3,000,000
2,500,000
2,000,000
1,500,000
1,000,000
500,000
0
Source: MWD, 2014c
Water Conservation: Water conservation has risen in importance during the 2011-2015
drought throughout the state. On March 17, 2015 the State Water Resources Control Board
(State Water Board or Board) adopted an expanded emergency conservation regulation11 to
safeguard the state’s remaining water supplies. McKinney Water District Board of Directors
has declared a Stage 2 Drought Response and both the District and its customers have
implemented several water conservation practices during the past few years including the
following:
• Residents are asked to not use irrigation systems during the hours of 10am – 4pm each
day.
• Residents are asked to voluntarily reduce water usage by 20%.
• Landscaping at new construction sites is limited and must comply with Tahoe regional
Planning Agency’s Best Management Practices.
• MWD website maintains up to date information on the District’s Stage 1 Water Alert
and Water Conservation Ordinance 2010-2.
The District does not participate in the local Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
(MWD, 2014c) and may therefore miss a few grant opportunities to partially fund water
conservation measures.
11 Details available on SWRCB website at: http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/waterrights/
water_issues/programs/drought/emergency_regulations.shtml
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 8, McKinney Water Dist. 8-13
snollaG
Figure 8.4. Mckinney Water District Monthly Production
2009-2013
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Month
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
8.8 INFRASTRUCTURE AND FACILITIES
The McKinney Water District owns and operates several key infrastructure and facilities
including two wells and several thousand feet of water pipelines. The State Water Board,
Drinking Water Branch last conducted an inspection of MWD’s facilities on 08-16-2012 and
found no deficiencies12. Well #1, originally drilled in 1963, is 355 feet deep. This well has a
40 horsepower motor driving the turbine pump and it can supply 600 gpm to the system.
However, Well 1 is used only for emergency purposes because it produces water containing a
fine sand when pumping over 200 gpm. It is also equipped with a propane auxiliary motor for
emergency use during power outages.
Well #2, originally drilled in 1982, is equipped with a submersible pump having capacity of
400 gpm. This well is also equipped with a hydropneumatic tank and booster pump.
TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION INFRASTRUCTURE
MWD’s distribution system is composed of 1400 ft. of 4 inch and 15.100 ft. of 6 inch diameter
pipe. Primary pipe material is composed of wrapped or dipped steel pipe. System pressures
range from 45 to 70 psi. All dead ends are equipped with blow-off valves for flushing
purposes. Water storage is provided via a 50,000 gallon redwood storage tank located in the
upper portion of the system. The wells pump directly into the tank and in-tum the tank
supplies the system by gravity (Placer County, 1992).
At one time, MWD maintained an interconnection with the Tahoe Cedars domestic water
supply system for purposes of providing an emergency water supply. It is not clear whether
this interconnection still exists.
12 Data source: https://sdwis.waterboards.ca.gov/PDWW/JSP/SiteVisits.jsp?tinwsys_
is_number=3434&tinwsys_st_code=CA&counter=1
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 8, McKinney Water Dist. 8-14
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
WATER STORAGE
MWD maintains a 50,000 gallon water storage tank. Title 22, Chapter 16, California
Waterworks Standards13, requires a public water system to supply maximum day demand with
all sources operations, including adequate fire flow storage and peak hourly flow.
Fluctuations in water demand exceeding maximum day demand are supplied from storage
tanks. Storage requirements are as follows: fire protection at 3,000 gpm for three hours,
operation storage at 25 percent of maximum day demand, and emergency storage totaling 25
percent of fire and operational storage. MWD has indicated it has sufficient storage for
current and projected needs.
CROSS CONNECTION CONTROL PROGRAM
The District has a Cross Connection Control Program which facilitates the installation and
testing of backflow prevention device(s). This program is mandated by the California
Department of Public Health (CPDH). The MWD has contracted with a private company called
“B&L Backflow” to administer this required program.
WATER TREATMENT
The California Department of Health Services (DHS) has standards that typically necessitate
the treatment of domestic water supply. Since MWD’s water supply naturally has good water
quality, minimal water treatment is needed; however details regarding water treatment were
not readily available from MWD.
INFRASTRUCTURE DEFICIENCIES
Although the District does not have an adopted capital improvement plan, it has noted that
outdated pipelines will need to be replaced within the next 10 years (MWD, 2014c).
OPPORTUNITIES TO SHARE FACILITIES
The District does not have any capital facilities or services that are jointly owned or shared
with other agencies. The District does not maintain mutual aid or automatic aid agreements
with another agency. The District does not belong to or participate in any joint power
authorities (JPAs) or joint decision-making efforts (MWD, 2014c). However, the District does
have a water supply purchase agreement with TCPUD, allowing TCPUD to purchase water, in
the event of an emergency (MWD, 2014c).
13 Title 22 is available at:
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/drinking_water/certlic/drinkingwater/Lawbook.shtml
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 8, McKinney Water Dist. 8-15
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
8.9: FINANCING
The financial analysis in this MSR for all the districts studied (except MWD) relied upon
audited financial statements. Audited financial statements are the preferred source of data
for financial analysis because:
• audits are completed by independent third-party experts who can provide unbiased
recommendations;
• there is significant variation in the approach to budgeting among the 13 districts
included in this MSR and audits are performed according to specific standards; and
• audits are part of best management practices for all government agencies.
Generally, if audited financial statements are not made readily available to LAFCo and/or its
MSR consultants it raises a concern about the ability of the district to follow standard
accounting procedures and to provide transparency in financial transactions to the general
public. MWD was not able to provide audited financial statements to LAFCo for this MSR
financial analysis. Additionally, MWD has asked the Placer County Auditor/Controller to waive
audits for Fiscal Years 2005 – 2010. Significant concern is not warranted at this time because:
1) this is the first full MSR for MWD; 2) MWD is a very small district; 3) MWD does share its
annual budget with the public via its website in a timely manner; and 4) financial information
is reviewed by the Board at its regular monthly meetings and that information is included in
the meeting minutes which are also posted on the website. Nevertheless, it is recommended
that when the next MSR for MWD is completed in five years, that MWD have audited financial
statements for at least two fiscal years prepared and ready to share with LAFCo.
Disclaimer: The financial information provided in this MSR section was accurate as of its
writing in 2014. However, the District updates its financial information on an annual basis.
Therefore, the financial information in this MSR has been superseded and readers are
encouraged to read the newer financial statements and budgets published by the District on
their website at: http://www.mckinneywaterdistrict.com/about.html .
The District has no outstanding debt (MWD, 2014c). The District does have liability insurance.
However, it does not maintain insurance for misc. professional activities nor does it
participate in pooled insurance coverage with other agencies (MWD, 2014c). The District does
not charge any special parcel taxes and this was verified through the California Tax
Foundation’s study of California parcel taxes at: http://www.caltaxfoundation.org/special-
taxes/.
REVENUES
MWD’s receives revenue from three sources:
• charges for water service.
• portion of the base property tax collected by Placer County and El Dorado County on
parcels within the District boundaries.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 8, McKinney Water Dist. 8-16
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
• Supplemental standby (Wholesale sale of water to neighboring districts [usually in the
event of drought or emergency]).
MWD supplies financial data, including revenue information to the CA State Controller’s Office
who shares information via an on-line state database14. This database was queried and
showed that average total revenue for the District between 2007 to 2013 was $205,002. See
Figure 8.5 below for details.
Figure 8.5: MWD Revenues
300000
250000
200000
150000
100000
50000
0
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Total operating revenue is money received as a result of fees for service. Customers receive
a monthly water bill and the funds collected are accounted for as “operating revenue”. Non-
operating revenue is the funds received as a result of property taxes. Each parcel located
within the geographic boundaries of the District pays property taxes to Placer County and El
Dorado County and a small percentage of these taxes are forwarded to MWD to support the
budget for the District. All property taxes received by MWD are utilized to operate the water
system. 2007 saw the lowest total revenue into the District at $165,190. The highest annual
revenue received (of the seven years studied) was in 2011 at $266,844.
The District’s annual budget provides more detailed information about the District’s financial
planning and about sources of revenues and expenditures and this information is shown in
Figure 8.6 below. MWD’s total projected revenue for 2015 is $317,736 which includes
$160,450 in Water Service Fees; $20,800 in Supplemental Standby - Ordinance 2008-2; and
$136,486 in Allocations from Placer County and El Dorado County (MWD, 2014b15).
14 Database is at: <https://bythenumbers.sco.ca.gov/Special-Districts-Enterprise-Activities/Special-
Districts-Water-Enterprise-Revenues-Expens/ef32-d5sy>.
15 The MWD 2015 Budget is available at: http://www.mckinneywaterdistrict.com.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 8, McKinney Water Dist. 8-17
$
SU
ni
seuneveR
Revenues for MWD 2007 - 2013
Total Non-Operating
Revenue
Total Operating
Revenue
Data Source: CA State Controller's Office
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
Figure 8.6. MWD 2015
Proposed Budget
$500,000
Cash on hand
$450,000
Tax Allocation
$400,000
Supp Standby
$350,000
$300,000 Water Service
Fees
$250,000
Operation and
$200,000 Maintenance
Administrative
$150,000
$100,000 Safe Place
Storage
$50,000
Employee
$0 Compensation
Expenses Revenues Funds
FUNDS
Figure 8.6 above shows a third column labeled “funds” which reflects MWD’s 2015 Projected
Budget of $438,530.42. This “Funds” category represents cash on hand in checking, savings,
and wealth management accounts (MWD, 2014b).
EXPENDITURES
MWD’s projected budget for 2015 indicates expenditures will total $193,688. The largest
expenditure of $90,605 is for Administrative expenses such as office supplies, liability
insurance, payroll tax, regulatory fees, and professional fees for contract engineer,
accountant, and legal advisor. Operation and Maintenance costs are $44,695 in 2015.
Employee Salaries are expected to total $57,740 (MWD, 2014b). Figure 8.7 below depicts
annual expenditures for MWD from 2007 to 2013 as reported to the CA State Controller’s
Office. Average wages in 2013 were $2,662 and total wages paid was $15,970 (State
Controller, 2015). Total wages paid is budgeted to increase in the 2015 budget to a total of
$57,740. The Board’s Secretary/Treasurer functions as the District’s General Manager and is
the highest paid employee (State Controller, 2015).
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 8, McKinney Water Dist. 8-18
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
Figure 8.7: MWD Annual Expenditures
600000
500000
400000
300000
200000
100000
0
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Comparing revenues (Figure 8.5) to expenditures (Figure 8.7) shows that expenditures
exceeded revenues for several years including 2009, 2011, and 2012. In these cases, MWD
utilized its “fund” account to pay for the additional CIP expense.
RATE RESTRUCTURING
Rate information from the McKinney Water District was not readily available for this MSR. It
is recommended that MWD provide LAFCO with a copy of its standard water rates, prior to
preparation of the next MSR. MWD does bill for water service on an annual basis and those
bills for users (and standby connections) are mailed in April of every calendar year. Payment
is due no later than June every
calendar year. Any late or non-
payments is assessed with a penalty
(10% for users and $10.00 for standby
connections) on the County Tax Roll.
COST AVOIDANCE
MSRs describe measures that districts
take to avoid unnecessary costs
because it is important for the public
sector to avoid waste and to be
financially efficient. The District
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 8, McKinney Water Dist. 8-19
$
SU
ni
sesnepxE
Total Operating Expenses for
MWD 2007 - 2013
Total Operating
Expenses
Data Source: CA Controller's Office
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
does not maintain a permanent office or public meeting space and therefore does not pay
rental fees. The avoidance of rental fees does save money. The District does pay a small
annual stipend of $540 to a local “host” for use of a space for the regular meetings of the
Board. The District staffing is minimal and all serve on a part-time basis. This approach to
staffing also saves money.
PERMITS, MOU’S, AND AGREEMENTS
McKinney Water District has a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the Tahoe Regional
Planning Agency (TRPA) which guides water supply activities, erosion control and restoration
activities, treatment, signs, and roads (TRPA, 1999). To streamline the permit process, TRPA
and MWD entered into the exempt MOU, allowing the District authority to review their own
projects for conformance with TRPA standards.
McKinney Water District has participated in a Reimbursement Agreement with the Tahoe City
PUD on the Transmission Pipeline Project, Phase 2, associated with TCPUD’s provision of
service to Tahoma Meadows (TCPUD, 2013). Since both the MWD and the TCPUD have areas
where the pipelines are congruently located, collaboration on construction and upgrades
makes sense.
The system is operating under a California drinking water supply permit issued in 1964 and an
amendment granted in 1979. The District also receives permits from Placer and El Dorado
Counties for repair and/or replacement of District infrastructure (MWD, 2014a). There is no
outstanding litigation facing the District at this time (MWD, 2014c).
CHALLENGES
The District anticipates completing pipeline repairs within the next 5 years (MWD, 2014c).
Paying for the repairs and managing the pipeline installation/construction will be a demand
on MWD’s resources. No other challenges have been identified by the District at this time.
Across California, small-sized districts that are similar to MWD face obstacles due to their
small-size16 (Susman et.al, 2006) including:
• Fiscal constraints:
Statutory restrictions on revenue (Prop. 218)
Lack of State and federal grant programs (enjoyed in the past)
Fiscal constraints sometimes result in deferred maintenance and an inability to
finance upgrades to meet more rigorous state and federal regulations.
Increasing costs
• Governance:
Increasing State and Federal regulatory requirements
16 Indicators of a small-sized district described in presentation at:
<www.calafco.org/docs/2006_Conference.../TooSmallPresentation.ppt>.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 8, McKinney Water Dist. 8-20
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
Difficulty maintaining continuity of management and elected representation
Lack personnel that could help small districts expand their revenue sources
through grants or loans, or to raise assessments or taxes
Difficulty meeting reporting requirements including state filings, local and
public requests for information
Difficulty filling board member seats
Inability to provide adequate training
Potential conflicts of interest
Small pool of potential elected officials
MWD has worked diligently to overcome these types of challenges. MWD has demonstrated
adequate fiscal resources as described in the “Financing” Section above. MWD’s governance
structure seems to be working and it has not been subject to lawsuits or ethics violations. All
five seats on the Board are filled and Board members regularly attend meetings. MWD seems
to be responsive to its constituents.
Balancing the future challenges MWD may face with its diligent work to overcome these
challenges is a matter of assessing future risk. The risk is that a District that serves only 267
customers (i.e. 156 permanent residents) may not be sustainable over the long-run.
Therefore, it is recommended that prior to the year 2021, when LAFCO prepares the next MSR
for MWD, MWD should produce a study that outlines various options for ensuring the long term
and sustainable provision of water service to customers within MWD’s boundaries. Those
options may include maintaining MWD’s governance and organizational structure as is (i.e.
status quo), merging with a nearby water district, or other potential solutions. The results of
this study should be presented to LAFCO.
8.10: SERVICE ADEQUACY
Since larger-sized districts can distribute costs among a large pool of customers, it is
generally more cost efficient on a per-capita basis for larger districts to comply with state
regulations, install needed capital improvements, and maintain the administrative structure
to manage a district as compared to smaller-sized districts. However, MWD has managed to
overcome these hurdles, keep its costs low, and still provide good service to its customers.
MWD has consistently delivered high quality water to its customers. There have been no
structural reorganizations such as consolidations or reorganizations identified that would
benefit recipients of services or improve the provision of services to residents within MWD’s
boundaries in the near-term (MWD, 2014c). However, options for the long-term provision of
water service should be studied as described in the “Challenges” section, above.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 8, McKinney Water Dist. 8-21
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
8.11 DETERMINATIONS
GROWTH AND POPULATION PROJECTIONS
1. The McKinney Water District (MWD) served a permanent population of 156 residents as
of 2015; however, the population served by the District is predominantly seasonal,
with approximately 80 percent of residents occupying their homes only during peak
seasons (summer and winter) months.
2. The number of residential connections in the District in 2015 was 297. With an average
household size of 2.55 in Placer County, the estimated maximum population during the
peak winter/summer season is 680 people.
3. Given that no population growth occurred in the District during the 2009 to 2013
timeframe, it is assumed that growth will not occur in the near term future.
4. There are no plans for expansion of the service area, and nearly all large surrounding
parcels are zoned for conservation or recreation uses, or are already constructed with
existing residential subdivisions.
5. The District has the capacity to provide water for year-round residents and seasonal
residents.
DISADVANTAGED UNINCORPORATED COMMUNITIES
6. A small portion of MWD‘s service area that lies in El Dorado County has been identified
by the CA Department of Water Resources as a Disadvantaged Unincorporated
Community. The area is well-served with basic infrastructure and no health or safety
issues have been identified.
PRESENT AND PLANNED CAPACITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES
7. The District was established in 1961 to provide domestic water service, including
protection of water supply and water delivery, to the McKinney Estates subdivision.
8. Since the District is mostly built-out, there is limited future growth potential. No
annexation proposals have been brought before Placer LAFCo since the inception of
the District.
9. Repairs and replacements of water pipeline will be a necessary and ongoing issue for
water delivery infrastructure.
10. Although the District does not have a capital improvement plan, it is aware of the
need to repair and update pipeline infrastructure. The District’s annual budgets
consider these infrastructure improvements within the service area. However, the
cost for needed pipeline repair/replacement has not yet been detailed. A cost
estimate for infrastructure needs and deficiencies would allow the district to better
prepare assessments and budgets. It is recommended that the District consider
preparation of a multi-year capital improvement plan.
11. Water is pumped from one active well, while another well is used only on a backup
basis.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 8, McKinney Water Dist. 8-22
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
12. Water supply regularly exceeds the amount needed for the service area.
13. Water conservation is important to the District and it has recently taken several
measures to support customer water conservation including declaration of a Stage 2
Drought Response by the McKinney Water District Board of Directors with restrictions
on water usage.
14. Water delivery appears to be adequate in the foreseeable future.
15. The District may wish to consider how climate change may affect the District’s water
supplies, in its own water planning efforts.
16. The District may wish to consider participating in regional water planning efforts such
as an integrated regional water management plan or the Truckee Watershed Council in
order to optimize its ability to apply for grants.
FINANCIAL ABILITY OF AGENCY TO PROVIDE SERVICES
17. On an annual basis, the McKinney Water District adopts a comprehensive budget. The
FY 2015 budget is available to the general public via the District’s website. This
budget demonstrates adequate finances for the continued ability of the District to
provide services.
18. The District is funded through
service charges, fees, and
taxes.
19. MWD was not able to provide
audited financial statements to
LAFCo for this MSR financial
analysis. It is recommended
that when the next MSR for
MWD is completed in five years,
that MWD have audited financial statements for at least two fiscal years prepared and
ready to share with LAFCo.
20. The District has no outstanding debt.
21. Within the next several years, the District plans to implement several modest and
specific capital improvements to maintain and support its infrastructure. It is
recommended that any capital improvements be considered in light of available
revenues and other potential funding sources to ensure that the scope of the proposed
projects is congruent with funding availability.
22. A formal Schedule of Rates was not readily available for this MSR. It is recommended
that rates be reviewed during a public meeting and adjusted as necessary to fund
District costs and provide for capital improvements as needed. The schedule of rates
should be provided to LAFCO when the next MSR is prepared.
23. Utility bills are not detailed out as a separate line item in MWD’s annual budget.
Electricity is utilized to power the well pump(s). Utility costs could be one area in
which the District may wish to consider implementing projects to improve energy
efficiency and thus lower utility bills. Within the next ten years, it is suggested that
the MWD develop a plan to utilize green technology, energy efficient pumps, or other
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 8, McKinney Water Dist. 8-23
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
mechanism to lower utility bills or to balance the use of fossil fuel sourced energy with
renewable sourced energy.
24. The District practices cost reduction through careful purchasing, bidding processes,
and other mechanisms.
25. In the short-term, no additional cost-avoidance opportunities have been identified at
this time.
STATUS OF, AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR, SHARED FACILITIES
26. No opportunities for facility sharing have been identified.
ACCOUNTABILITY FOR COMMUNITY SERVICE NEEDS, INCLUDING
GOVERNMENTAL STRUCTURE AND OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCIES
27. The District demonstrated accountability through its prompt disclosure of information
requested by LAFCo for preparation of this MSR.
28. Board meetings are publicly noticed and comply with the Brown Act, California’s open
meeting law. They are held every other month.
29. No boundary changes are pending or proposed at this time.
30. All Board members have access to District data, records and information.
31. The District has adequate public outreach, with a public website featuring meeting
minutes, and general information.
32. The District does not currently have a strategic plan that outlines its mission
statement, vision statement, and goals and objectives. Such a strategic plan could
help the District could improve upon 1) planning efforts, 2) accountability and
transparency.
33. MWD’s boundaries overlap with the Tahoe City Public Utilities District.
34. There is a risk is that a District that serves only 267 customers may not be sustainable
over the long-run. It is recommended that MWD produce a study that outlines various
options, including reorganization of its government structure, for ensuring the long
term and sustainable provision of water service to customers within MWD’s
boundaries. The results of this study should be presented to LAFCO prior to the year
2023, when LAFCO prepares the next MSR for MWD.
35. LAFCo’s records do not show a Sphere of Influence (SOI) for the McKinney Water
District. It is possible that a SOI was established in the past, but not noted in LAFCo’s
files. If MWD and LAFCo would like to establish a SOI in the future, Tahoe City PUD
should be consulted since its boundaries overlap and surround McKinney Water
District.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 8, McKinney Water Dist. 8-24
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
8.12: BIBLIOGRAPHY
California Department of Health Services (CDHS), Drinking Water Field Operations Branch,
DHS Sacramento District. Drinking Water Source Assessment. McKinney Water
District. Well 02. May, 2003. 10-pages. Available on-line at:
<http://nebula.wsimg.com/a40639a9f46f7a5ea4c00fc9634d4921?AccessKeyId=97D2349
FFA78894894FE&disposition=0&alloworigin=1>
California State Controller’s Office. Government Compensation in California Database. 2013.
Accessed in July 2015. Available on-line at: <http://publicpay.ca.gov/>.
Dean Runyan Associates, 2009. Placer County Travel Industry Assessment and Detailed
Economic Impact Estimates, 2002-2008. March 2009.
CA Dept. of Water Resources (DWR). Water Management Planning Tool. Accessed 7/7/2015.
Available on-line at: < https://gis.water.ca.gov/app/boundaries/>.
Environmental working Group. National Drinking Water Database for years 2005 to 2009.
Accessed 8/7/2015. Available on-line at: <http://www.ewg.org/tap-water/whats-in-
yourwater.php>.
McKinney Water District (MWD). Proposed 2015 Budget. December 2014-b Excel format.
Available on-line at: <http://www.mckinneywaterdistrict.com>. Accessed June 15,
2015.
McKinney Water District (MWD). Consumer Confidence Report (CCR) 2013. January 1, 2014-a.
4 pages.
McKinney Water District (MWD). Response to LAFCO’s Request for Information. 2014-c. 22
pages. (Available in LAFCO’s file).
Susman, Josh; Kampa, Peter; Kieser, Walter ; and Jones, SR. “Creating & Restoring
Sustainable Public Agencies”. PowerPoint Presentation to CALAFCo Conference 2006.
<www.calafco.org/docs/2006_Conference.../TooSmallPresentation.ppt>.
Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA). Memorandum of Understanding between TRPA and
McKinney Water District. May 23, 1999. 4 pages. Available on-line at:
<http://www.trpa.org/wp-content/uploads/Appendix-II_McKinney-MOU-Apx-II.pdf>.
Tahoe City PUD (TCPUD). Tahoma Meadows Mutual Water Co. Transmission Pipeline Project,
Phase 2, Reimbursement Agreement between the TCPUD and the McKinney Water
District. June 27, 2013. 11 pages. Available on-line at:
<http://tahoecitypud.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=2&event_id=27&meta_i
d=17919 >.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 8, McKinney Water Dist. 8-25
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
Placer County. General Plan Update. General Plan Background Report, Technical Appendices,
Appendix A: Large Water Systems. September 25, 1992. Contributing authors include
Crawford Multari & Starr, DKS Associates, Psomas and Associates, et. al. 382 pages.
U.S. Department of Commerce (USDC), United States Census Bureau. 2010 Demographic
Profile. American Fact Finder Website. Accessed on 5July2015. Available on-line at:
<http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/community_facts.xhtml>.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 8, McKinney Water Dist. 8-26
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
Chapter 9
North Tahoe Fire Protection District
Photo courtesy of http://www.ntfire.net/fire-rescue/.
This Municipal Service Review (MSR) describes the North Tahoe Fire Protection District. This
District was originally formed in 1993 and currently provides fire and emergency response
services, including fire suppression and prevention, public education, advanced life support,
ambulance/emergency service, hazardous materials mitigation, and rescue services within its
service area.
Table of Contents
9.1: Agency Profile ...................................................................................... 9-2
9.2: Overview of District ............................................................................... 9-2
9.3: Formation and Boundary .......................................................................... 9-3
9.4: Accountability and Governance .................................................................. 9-5
9.5: Management Efficiencies and Staffing .......................................................... 9-6
9.6: Population and Growth ............................................................................ 9-8
9.7: Financing ...........................................................................................9-13
9.8: Fire and Emergency Services ....................................................................9-16
9.9: Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies .........................................................9-19
9.10: Cost Avoidance and Facilities Sharing .........................................................9-20
9.11 Determinations ....................................................................................9-22
9.12: Bibliography .......................................................................................9-24
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 9, North Tahoe FPD 9-1
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
9.1: Agency Profile
North Tahoe Fire Protection District
Type of District: Fire Protection District
Enabling Legislation: The California Fire Protection District Law of 1987 (also known as Health and
Safety Code § 13800-13970).
Functions/Services: Fire suppression and prevention, public education, advanced life support,
ambulance/emergency service, hazardous materials mitigation, rescue
services.
Main Office: 222 Fairway Drive, Tahoe City, CA 96145
Mailing Address: PO Box 5879, Tahoe City, CA 96145
Phone No.: (530) 583-6913
Fax No.: (530) 583-6909
Web Site: www.ntfire.net
General Manager: Michael Schwartz
Email: Schwartz@ntfire.net
Governing Body: Board of Directors Term Expires
Mike Baffone, Area 1 2020
Russ Potts, Area 2 2018
Dennis Correa, Area 3 2020
Luke Ragan, Area 4 2018
Richard Loverde, Area 5 2020
Meeting Schedule: 3rd Wednesday of the month at 4:30 p.m.
Meeting Location: 222 Fairway Drive, Tahoe City, CA
Date of Formation: June 29, 1993
Principal County: Placer County
9.2: Overview of District
The North Tahoe Fire Protection District (NTFPD) provides structural and wildland fire
protection and suppression and emergency medical services. The proximity of the NTFPD to
Lake Tahoe and area skiing and hiking resorts has led to the provision of several unique
additional services, including support for back country rescues, boating/swimming distresses,
avalanche extrications, snowmobile accidents, rope rescues, hillside rescues, and searches.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 9, North Tahoe FPD 9-2
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
Type and Extent of Services
The North Tahoe Fire Protection District is a public agency organized in 1993 under
California’s Fire Protection District Law1 of 1987 (i.e. Health and Safety Code § 13800-13970).
Primary activities of the District include fire and emergency response services within its
service area, including fire suppression and prevention, public education, advanced life
support, ambulance/emergency service, hazardous materials mitigation, and rescue services.
This is the second full Municipal Service Review (MSR) for the District as it was described in
the previous 2004 MSR for the North Tahoe and Martis Valley area.
Location and Size
The North Tahoe Fire Protection District is located along the northern shore of Lake Tahoe,
from the Washoe County (State of Nevada) line southwest to El Dorado County. The NTFPD
encompasses all property along Lake Tahoe, including along Highway 89 to Alpine Meadows.
The service area includes the communities of Kings Beach, Tahoe Vista, Carnelian Bay, Tahoe
City, Dollar Point, Homewood, Tahoe Point, Tahoma and Meek’s Bay.
9.3: Formation and Boundary
The NTFPD was formed by consolidation with Tahoe City Fire Protection District, effective
June 29, 1993.
Boundary History
The District’s boundary encompasses approximately 31 square miles of the North Tahoe areas
of Placer County, from the El Dorado County line to the Nevada State line as shown on Figure
9.1. This boundary includes the areas of the Tahoe City Public Utilities District and North
Tahoe Public Utilities District. LAFCo files indicate there have been no changes to the
District’s boundaries since its formation.
Additionally, NTFPD provides services to the Alpine Springs County Water District area and the
Meek’s Bay Fire Protection District (located in El Dorado County) via service contracts.
Sphere of Influence
The Sphere of Influence (SOI), which is coterminous with the District boundaries, has
remained unchanged since the District’s formation in 1993. District staff has indicated that
the District’s SOI is not adequate for projected future needs with potential development in
the Brockway Summit, Alpine Meadows, and Homewood Mountain Resort (NTFPD, 2013c, p.
4). Specifically, NTFPD indicates that Alpine Springs County Water District area and the
Meek’s Bay Fire Protection District area should be considered for inclusion in their SOI.
1 Details at: http://sgf.senate.ca.gov/thefireprotectiondistrictlawof1987
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 9, North Tahoe FPD 9-3
267
Kings Beach
Dirt Rd
Tahoe Vista
89
28
Dollar Point
Sunnyside-Tahoe City Lake Tahoe
89
North Tahoe FPD and
Sphere of Influence
County Boundary
Communities 0 1 2
Miles
Roads
District Boundary and Roads from Placer County GIS
Figure 9-1 NORTH TAHOE FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
Extra-territorial Services
The NTFPD provides fire protection services to the Alpine Springs County Water District and
provides management services to Meeks Bay Fire Protection District area under contract.
Areas of Interest
No specific areas outside the District’s current service area have been identified that require
services from the District. As noted above, the District does provide some services outside its
current boundary to Alpine Springs County Water District and to Meeks Bay Fire Protection
District.
Please also see section 9.6, below, for information on disadvantaged unincorporated
communities within the District’s boundaries.
9.4: Accountability and Governance
The District operates under the leadership of an elected, five-member Board of Directors,
with a Fire Chief providing daily oversight and management of staff and resources. The
District holds regularly scheduled meetings on the third Wednesday of the month, at 4:30
p.m. Board meetings are held in compliance with the Brown Act and all laws governing public
meetings. Agendas are publicly noticed and posted at the District’s two main fire stations, on
their website (www.ntfire.net), provided to the local newspaper and emailed to board
members and District staff (NTFPD, 2013c, p. 2). Public comment is allotted at every
meeting for items on the agenda and items not on the agenda. Agendas, meeting minutes,
and board packets are posted on the District website.
The District and its activities undergo public review procedures, including financial review by
independent auditors. There are sufficient mechanisms in place to ensure that actions and
operating procedures of the District are open and accessible to the public. The District
maintains a website as noted in the Agency Profile, above, where residents can obtain District
news, water and sewer rates, District meeting information, etc.
The District utilizes a formal complaint process utilizing the NTFPD complaint form and
Complaint Standard Operating Procedures. Additionally, customers may send comments or
complaints to the District office in-person, by letter, or use the District’s website contact
page. No formal complaints were received in either 2011 or 2012 calendar years (NTFPD,
2013c, p. 3).
Directors are elected to four-year terms, the last election having occurred in 2014 (See
District Profile above for list of current Directors). As of December 2014, there were no
vacancies on the Board. The next election will be November 2016 for the three seats that
will expire at the end of 2016. Each Director is compensated $187.33 per day for each day’s
attendance at meetings of the Board or for each day’s service rendered as a member of the
Board by request of the Board (NTFPD Ordinance No. 01-2012). Alternatively, Board members
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 9, North Tahoe FPD 9-5
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
may elect to receive $20 per day for meeting attendance days and be provided health care
coverage by the District on terms comparable to those offered a full time administrative
employee of the District (NTFPD, 2012).
9.5: Management Efficiencies and Staffing
The organization of the North Tahoe FPD is comprised of the Board of Directors, the Fire
Chief, and Division Chiefs, which specialize in administration, operations, and prevention.
The Fire Chief works directly for the Board of Directors under a separate employment
agreement. The Fire Chief receives general policy direction from the Board of Directors and
exercises direct supervision over management, supervisory, safety and clerical support staff
including compliance with the District Rules and Regulations by all employees. The primary
function of this position is to plan, direct, coordinate, organize and oversee the activities of
the District, including but not limited to: changes or revisions to the District Rules and
Regulations, development and implementation of administrative and operational policies and
procedures; financial management of the annual expenditure plan; provision for emergency
medical services, emergency management, general administration, and other required
services; to ensure aggressive fire suppression, fire prevention, hazardous fuels reduction and
public education programs; and coordination with other fire departments/districts and
outside agencies on matters of mutual interest. The Fire Chief shall bear full responsibility for
appointment, promotion, demotion, discipline, discharge, reclassification and reinstatement
of all employees in accordance with District Rules and Regulations and Memorandum of
Understanding. As a safety employee, the Fire Chief may respond to emergencies and other
incidents assume command of any incident, establish the Incident Command System per
District standard operating procedures (SOP), may operate apparatus and perform emergency
activities including wildland and structural fire suppression, EMS services, rescue and salvage
operations and hazardous materials mitigation (NTFPD, 2013c, p. 2).
District operations are organized into Administration and Operations (see Figure 9.2 below).
The District employs a total of 58 full time equivalent employees, a 14 FTE increase from
2008 levels (NTFPD, 2013c, p. 16) (personal communication Steve McNamara, 2016).
Contract Services
North Tahoe Fire Protection District has the exclusive right to serve specific areas of
operation within Placer County as the sole 9-1-1 emergency ambulance provider. This
Exclusive Operating Area, (EOA) includes the area along the north and west shores of Lake
Tahoe from the California / Nevada border to the Placer / El Dorado County line, California
State Route 267 extending from the intersection at State Route 28 in Kings Beach to the
intersection at Northstar Drive in Truckee, and north on California State Route 89 to Midway
Bridge, which includes all of Alpine Meadows. The EOA is secured by contact with the Sierra-
Sacramento Valley EMS Agency which is the governing authority for Emergency Medical
Services and ambulance transport in Placer County.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 9, North Tahoe FPD 9-6
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
Figure 9.2: North Tahoe FPD Organizational Chart
The District also provides prehospital advanced life support and dispatch services to portions
of County Service Area 3 in El Dorado County. These contracted services with El Dorado
County include ambulance transportation and are provided to the west shore of Lake Tahoe
from the Placer / El Dorado County line to Emerald Bay.
The District provides contracted fire department management and support services to two
separate districts, the Alpine Springs County Water District and the Meeks Bay Fire Protection
District. These services include administration and operations, fire prevention, training, fire
suppression and rescue, equipment and apparatus maintenance, and emergency medical
services. Although Alpine Springs County Water District retains ownership of the fire station
on Alpine Meadows Road, NTFPD provides all other fire protection related services to this
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 9, North Tahoe FPD 9-7
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
area. NTFPD’s Meeks Bay service area extends along the west shore of Lake Tahoe from the
Placer / El Dorado County line to Emerald Bay.
Technology/Management
Operations of the NTFPD are fully computerized. NTFPD’s dispatch services are provided by
the Grass Valley Emergency Command Center in Grass Valley, CA. The dispatch center uses
computer-aided dispatching to ensure optimal resource monitoring and management utilizing
the closest resource backed up by station cover assignments in a multi-tiered alarm structure.
The District relies on a robust computer network for communication, record keeping, and
training. The District currently utilizes an outside contractor for IT/IT services.
9.6: Population and Growth
Population
It is important for LAFCo to analyze population and growth because it is required to make a
determination on population in the MSR and because population relates directly to the
capacity and need for service provision. Estimating the current population for a large
unincorporated area such as the NTFPD boundaries is a challenge because there is not an
existing data set to draw from.
Over the past two decades, the population of Placer County as a whole has increased;
however, the High Country Places (based on census data) in the Tahoe basin saw declining
population during the 1990-2010 time frame with a notable reduction from 2000 to 2010. In
the four communities of Dollar Point, Kings Beach, Tahoe City, and Tahoe Vista, there was an
11 percent reduction in permanent population2. This population reduction may be partially
attributable to the economic recession that began in 2008.
Since the geographic boundary of the North Tahoe Fire Protection District encompasses both
the North Tahoe PUD and the Tahoe City PUD, the population estimates for these districts
presented in Chapters 10 and 14 of this MSR, respectively, were combined to estimate the
population of NTFPD, as shown in Table 9.1, below.
2 Data source for High County Places population: Center for Strategic Economic Research, April 2011
and U.S. Census Bureau, Census 1990, 2000, and 2010.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 9, North Tahoe FPD 9-8
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
Table 9.1: Estimated Permanent Population of North Tahoe Fire Protection District
Estimated Estimated Total Peak
MSR Permanent Visitor Population
Chapter #Housing Units Population Population Served
North Tahoe PUD 10 6,519 5,486 11,138 16,623
Tahoe City PUD 14 10,130 8,524 17,307 25,831
North Tahoe Fire
PD 9 16,649 14,010 28,445 42,454
Based on the information presented in Chapters 10 and 14 of this MSR, it is estimated that the
NTFPD provides fire protection services to 16,649 housing units, 14,010 permanent residents,
and 28,445 peak overnight visitors. This does not include day-use only visitors. The
population estimates in Table 9.1 above only include the boundary (proper) and do not
include the District’s contract areas of Meeks Bay area and Alpine Springs County Water
District.
Seasonal population peaks can significantly increase fire and emergency medical service
demands during summer and winter seasons. The non-resident population is comprised of a
variety of users from absentee owners, vacation rentals, camping and day visitors. The Placer
County Office of Economic Development, Placer Valley Tourism, Placer County Visitors Bureau
and North Lake Tahoe Resort Association commissioned a study in 2009 to document the
tourism impact in the county as a whole. Information was also collected for the high country
and particularly the Tahoe Basin. While this study does not specifically project the seasonal
population peaks associated with tourism and recreational uses it does demonstrate the
emphasis on seasonal uses that accommodate the visitors to the area. All of this translates
into increased service demands for the NTFPD.
The following excerpts are taken from the Travel Industry Assessment:
Second Homeowner Trends
The Travel Industry Assessment reports that within the High Country Region, a large
percentage of the housing units serve as private vacation homes and/or vacation
rental properties, most notably for the communities of North Lake Tahoe. As shown in
Table 9.2 below, almost three-fourths (72 percent) of all single family homes,
condominiums, and time-shares are not owner-occupied.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 9, North Tahoe FPD 9-9
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
Table 9.2: Single-Family Homes, Condominium, and Time-Share Housing Units,
2008
Owner- Absentee Total Percent
Location Zip Area Occupied Owner Units Absentee (%)
Carnelian Bay 96140 4,381 3,529 7,910 45
Homewood 96141 128 900 1,028 88
Tahoma 96142 41 166 207 80
Kings Beach 96143 419 1,682 2,101 80
Tahoe City 96145 4,105 7,443 11,548 64
Tahoe Vista 96148 161 501 662 76
Combined Total 9,235 14,221 23,456 72
Commercial Lodging Properties
Within Placer County, there are a wide variety of lodging accommodation rooms
distributed among hotels, motels, bed & breakfasts, rented condominium “villages”,
and single-family vacation homes throughout Placer County. Table 9.3, below reflects
those larger facilities in the Tahoe Basin near the service area of NTFPD. In addition to
these lodging accommodations, property management companies operate vacation
rental activity for many single-family vacation homes throughout North Lake Tahoe.
Table 9.3: Larger Accommodations (50 rooms and above) in Placer County High
Country
Resort Units
Granlibakken Resort, Tahoe City 165
Tahoe Inn, Brockway 100
Franciscan Lakeside Lodge, Tahoe Vista 64
Tahoe Sands Resort, Tahoe Vista 61
Pepper Tree Inn, Tahoe City 51
In addition to lodging properties and second home rentals there are a variety of other smaller
inns and camping accommodations to meet the visitor overnight needs.
The 23,456 total housing unit estimate presented in Table 9.2 is much larger than the 16,649
units estimated in Table 9.1. This is because different methods were utilized to estimate the
number of housing units. The 2009 Travel Industry Assessment utilized data from a private
company called “Data Quick” which was not property referenced in the Assessment.
However, it is included in this MSR because it presents a potential upper range of population
and housing estimate. In Table 9.1, the number of wastewater connections, based on data
from T-TSA, was extrapolated to estimate the number of housing units. The MSR authors
believe the data in Table 9.1 is a more accurate estimate of population and housing.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 9, North Tahoe FPD 9-10
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
Projected Growth and Development
Land Use Planning Documents
Future population growth within the North Tahoe and Martis Valley region is dependent upon
zoning and general plan policies and land-use designations in the region. Regional population
and zoning/general plans are described in detail in the Introduction (Chapter 3) of this MSR.
The Lake Tahoe area is under the jurisdiction of several agencies, including the Tahoe
Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) and Placer County and, as well as various State agencies due
to the fact that the lake straddles California and Nevada. TRPA was jointly created in 1969 as
a bi-state compact by the states of California and Nevada to meet Lake Tahoe basin-wide
planning needs, including the development of general plans and other planning documents.
TRPA is the agency responsible for regional planning, development and redevelopment
oversight, regulatory enforcement, and implementation of environmental protection and
restoration of Lake Tahoe and the surrounding region. Areas over which the TRPA has
authority include new construction, erosion control, storm water runoff, shore-zone
development and protection, road construction, land use, and tree conservation and
harvesting. Through its 1987 General Plan, TRPA provides environmental quality standards and
ordinances designed to achieve these thresholds. The Code of Ordinances within the 1987
General Plan regulates land use, density, land coverage, excavation, and scenic impacts with
the intention of bringing the region into conformance with specified environmental
thresholds.
In December 2012, the TRPA Governing Board adopted the Lake Tahoe Regional Plan Update.
The Regional Plan Update leaves many of the policies of the 1987 Regional Plan in place while
providing more autonomy to local governments through adoption of Area Plans. The 2012
Regional Plan identifies goals and policies to guide decision making as it affects the Tahoe
Region’s resources and environmental thresholds. Goals and policies are addressed in six
major elements including land use, transportation, conservation, recreation, public services
and facilities, and implementation. The Regional Plan Update initiated a Region-wide
transition to a planning and permitting system where all requirements—TRPA, local, state,
and federal—are addressed in coordinated Area Plans.
The Placer County General Plan serves as the County’s vision for long-term land use
development and conservation. Placer County’s General Plan adopted on August 16, 1994,
and updated May 21, 2013, provides a series of goals, policies, standards and implementation
programs to guide the land use, development, and environmental quality of the County. The
County’s General Plan is generally consistent with TRPA planning documents. While the
General Plan was updated, the area plans in the Tahoe Basin were not.
Placer County has embarked (2011) on a more compressive planning update for the Tahoe
Basin area plans. In an effort to develop more cohesive, user-friendly Planning documents for
the Tahoe Community/General Plan Update, the nine Tahoe basin plans will be consolidated
into a single over-arching Community Plan policy document with four sub-planning areas each
with their own zoning ordinances and design standards specific to each Plan Area.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 9, North Tahoe FPD 9-11
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
A Technical Advisory Committee comprised of the special districts have been meeting on an
on-going basis to ensue services can be provided to support the concentrated, more intensive
land use pattern anticipated by the TRPA Regional Plan. The Public Review Draft of the
Tahoe Basin Community Plan Policy Document should become available in May, 2014. It is
expected that the area plan will be ready for adoption in 2015.
The Existing Conditions Report indicated that the TRPA Regional Plan Update prioritizes
redevelopment and infill of existing Town Centers at higher intensities than exist in other
areas of the Region. The overall concept to be employed by the area plans is to concentrate
growth in the town center (Tahoe City and Kings Beach) while stabilizing land uses outside of
the two town centers. During the next 20 years, much of the projected residential and non-
residential development is expected to occur in mixed-use developments within these
centers. Chapter 31 of the TRPA Code of Ordinances establishes the maximum multi-family
residential density at 15 units per acre. Based on the existing capacity of vacant parcels
located throughout the Plan Area, and TRPA policies focused on high-intensity mixed use
development within centers (primarily Tahoe City and Kings Beach), there appears to be
sufficient land to accommodate the projected 580 new housing units and 900,000 square feet
of commercial space within the Plan Area.
Potential Future Development
The primary land uses within the service area are residential, commercial and recreation.
There are some proposed and current commercial projects that would impact the district but
with limited zoning changes. Since the 2004 MSR, all new development has consisted of infill
small residential projects except for Domus Kings Beach Affordable Housing at 91,000 sq.
feet. Homewood Mountain Resort and the Kings Beach downtown core development are in
varying stages of progress at this time. The following new major projects are in the planning
stages within the District:
Homewood 799,000 square feet of mixed occupancy
Kings Beach Town Center 95,000 square feet of mixed occupancy
Carnelian Bay Vista Village 65,000 square feet of mixed occupancy
In general, new development must conform to the Tahoe Basin Regional Planning Agency plan
requirements. New development cannot exceed the limitation of the regional plans for the
basin. The emphasis on the new Tahoe basin plan being prepared by Placer County will be to
conform to the TRPA plan while emphasizing infill in the major communities.
Projected Population Numbers
Future population growth within the boundaries of NTFPD is only one indicator of future
service demand within the District. However, it is important to analyze this indicator since
understanding trends in future population growth will help the district assess and plan for fire
station locations, emergency services, community risk, and response time. The District
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 9, North Tahoe FPD 9-12
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
estimates its current growth rate to be 1.5 percent. Population projections for the current
district boundary are shown in Table 9.4 as follows:
Table 9.4: Projected Population Within Existing Boundaries in Year
Year 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035
Population 14,010 15,093 16,259 17,516 18,869
The projected population estimates in Table 9.4 above only include the boundary (proper)
and do not include the District’s contract areas of Meeks Bay area and Alpine Springs County
Water District. Growth can be cyclic, especially in resort communities. In view of the cyclic
nature and fluctuations in resort communities, it is reasonable to project an annual
population increase over the next twenty years for planning purposes.
Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities
By state definition, a disadvantaged unincorporated community (DUC) has a median household
income (MHI) less than 80 percent of the statewide average. According to 2010 Census data,
California’s MHI is $60,883, which qualifies any community with a MHI less than $48,706 as a
DUC. Within the District, the communities of Kings Beach, Carnelian Bay, and neighborhoods
within Tahoe City are classified as DUCs (CDWR, 2015). As described in this MSR, the
communities do receive water, wastewater, and fire protection services. No public health
and safety issues have been identified. For additional information, please refer to Chapter 3,
Section 3.6, Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities, in this MSR.
9.7: Financing
This section evaluates the factors affecting the financing of operations and improvements for
North Tahoe FPD. Information on District financing is derived from audited financial
statements for the Fiscal Year 2013-2014, as well as information provided by District staff.
These statements represent the financial statements of the District’s consolidated services,
and follow Government Accounting Standards Board (GASB) method of Accrual accounting.
The District is required to adopt a final budget prior to October 1st of each year.
Disclaimer: The financial information provided in this MSR section was accurate as of its
writing in 2014. However, the District updates its financial information on an annual basis.
Therefore, the financial information in this MSR has been superseded and readers are
encouraged to read the newer financial statements and budgets published by the District on
their website at: http://www.ntfire.net/.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 9, North Tahoe FPD 9-13
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
District Revenues and Expenditures
Recurring Revenues
The District’s largest revenue source is property taxes, which include a voter-approved
special tax and property owner-approved fire suppression assessment. After three consecutive
years of declining property tax revenues, these revenues increased 3.3 percent in fiscal year
2013-2014. The special tax and benefit assessment have been programmed with a 3 percent
increase. Even with the dissolution of California Redevelopment Agencies (RDA) in 2011(AB26
and AB27); significant revenues are still shifted from the District’s property tax revenues with
each fiscal year. The District may receive monies each year from the former RDA; however
these revenues are inconsistent and unpredictable.
The fire suppression assessment began in fiscal year 2008/2009 and is used to obtain, furnish,
operate and maintain fire suppression services and apparatus and to pay the cost of
firefighting personnel as to assure that there are always enough personnel available to
respond to emergencies during peak demand. Contract revenue includes service provision to
Alpine Springs County Water District, Meek Bay Fire Protection District, and El Dorado County
(NTFPD, 2013b, p. 5).
Table 9.5: Revenues and Expenditures Statement of Activities (June 30,
2014)
Source Actual Amount ($)
Revenues
Taxes 7,844,557
Ambulance Services 1,544,968
Service and contract fees 787,480
Grants 263,918
Mitigation fees 73,783
Other 214,075
Interest 38,577
Total Revenues $10,767,358
Expenditures
Salaries and wages 4,562,061
Employee benefits 3,125,121
Maintenance and operations 510,424
General and administrative 296,770
Uniforms and supplies 307,956
Utilities 112,081
Professional fees 304,756
Bad Debt 410,650
Depreciation 702,161
Grant Expense -37,971
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 9, North Tahoe FPD 9-14
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
Capital outlay 1,660
Debt services
Principal 0
Interest 281,314
Total Expenditures $10,576,983
Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures $190,375
Source: NTFPD Independent Auditor’s Report, June 30, 2014; page 13.
Recurring Expenditures
The District’s biggest expense is salaries and benefits. As a result of increased property tax
revenues, receipt of a FEMA Staffing for Adequate Fire & Emergency Response (SAFER) grant
and the general state of improvement in the economy, the District has programmed a 4.8
percent increase in these expenses (NTFPD, 2013b, p. 4).
District Assets and Liabilities
On June 30, 2014, the District had $16,078,046 invested in capital assets. There were
approximately $400,000 purchases of fixed assets made during the 2014 fiscal year. Fixed
asset additions made during the 2014 year included an ambulance remount/replacement, new
CAT loader for snow removal, and UTV Ranger with trailer for back country rescues (NTFPD,
2014b, p.6).
Table 9.6 Statement of Net Assets (June 30, 2014)
2014 2013
Land $ 73,455 73,455
Buildings and 10,569,918 10,56,526
improvements
Equipment 5,407,673 5,010,180
CIP -
Total 16,078,016 15,650,161
Source: NTFPD Independent Auditor’s Report, June 30, 2014; page 6.
Long Term Liabilities and Debt
The majority of the District’s long-term obligations consist of the financing obligation for the
new fire station, long-term post-retirement benefits, leases and accrued leave payouts. The
debt was obtained from the California Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank to
finance the construction of the headquarters fire station. The District is using general funds
to retire the debt. The total long-term liability at June 30, 2014 was $11,910,461 (NTFPD,
2014b, p.6).
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 9, North Tahoe FPD 9-15
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
The District provides an annual contribution to the State Education Revenue Augmentation
Funds (ERAF). In fiscal year 2013/2014 the contribution was $595,921 and the amount
projected for FY 2014/2015 is $610,203 (NTFPD, 2014b).
Asset Maintenance and Replacement
The District continues its effort to renovate aging infrastructure by relocating the Tahoe City
headquarters fire station. This project was designed to meet the District’s needs for the next
50 years, increasing capacity for equipment, sleeping quarters, administrative space and
emergency management. Most District fire stations were built in the 1950s and 1960s and are
not sufficient facilities for current equipment sizes, seismic safety, and gender inclusive
amenities. The special tax and assessment were approved by voters and property owners to
help the District in addressing these needs (NTFPD, 2013b, p. 6).
Cost Avoidance
In addition to standard mutual and automatic aid agreements with all of North Tahoe Fire
Protection Districts local-government neighboring agencies, state (CAL FIRE) and federal
partners (USFS), the District maintains a five-party boundary drop whereby the closest most
appropriate emergency units are always utilized. This type of agreement insures the best
possible emergency service delivered by the most efficient means possible and disregards
geographic and political boundaries. The NTFPD maintains an MOU with the Tahoe City Public
Utilities District (TCPUD) to share fueling facilities. Additionally, in 2007 the District entered
into a TCPUD property lease agreement on which the District’s new Fire Station No. 51 is
located, as well as administrative offices (NTFPD, 2009).
North Tahoe FPD participates in pooled programs for both liability and workers compensation
insurance for the purposes of cost reduction. Medical insurance is obtained at a reduced rate
through a State program with law enforcement agencies. The District participates in
competitive bidding and interagency agreements and operations whenever possible.
9.8: Fire and Emergency Services
Service Overview
District services include structural and wildland fire prevention and suppression, emergency
medical services, ambulance/emergency service, hazardous materials mitigation, and rescue
services. The proximity of the North Tahoe FPD to Lake Tahoe and area skiing and hiking
resorts has led to the provision of several unique additional services, including support for
back country rescues, boating/swimming distresses, avalanche extrications, snowmobile
accidents, rope rescues, hillside rescues, and searches.
Fire and Emergency Response
The District maintains automatic aid and mutual aid agreements with numerous agencies for
mutual aid fire suppression and emergency incident management services, including CAL FIRE,
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 9, North Tahoe FPD 9-16
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
USFS, Meeks Bay FPD, Northstar FPD, North Lake Tahoe FPD, Truckee Fire Protection District,
and the Lake Tahoe Basin Fire Protection Agencies.
As noted above, in addition to standard mutual and automatic aid agreements with all of
North Tahoe Fire Protection Districts local-government neighboring agencies, state (CAL FIRE)
and federal partners (USFS) the District maintains a five-party boundary drop whereby the
closest most appropriate emergency units are always utilized. This type of agreement
insures the best possible emergency service delivered by the most efficient means possible
and disregards geographic and political boundaries.
North Tahoe Fire Protection District has the exclusive right to serve specific areas of
operation within Placer County as the sole 9-1-1 emergency ambulance provider. This
Exclusive Operating Area, (EOA) includes the area along the north and west shores of Lake
Tahoe from the California / Nevada border to the Placer / El Dorado County line, California
State Route 267 extending from the intersection at State Route 28 in Kings Beach to the
intersection at Northstar Drive in Truckee, and north on California State Route 89 to Midway
Bridge which includes all of Alpine Meadows. The EOA is secured by contact with the Sierra-
Sacramento Valley EMS Agency which is the governing authority for Emergency Medical
Services and ambulance transport in Placer County.
The District also provides prehospital advanced life support and dispatch services to portions
of County Service Area 3 in El Dorado County. These contracted services with El Dorado
County include ambulance transportation and are provided to the west shore of Lake Tahoe
from the Placer / El Dorado County line to Emerald Bay.
The District provides contracted fire department management and support services to Alpine
Springs County Water District. These services include administration and operations, fire
prevention, training, fire suppression and rescue, equipment and apparatus maintenance, and
emergency medical services within the boundaries of the Alpine Springs County Water
District.
The District provides contracted Chief Officer and management services to the Meeks Bay Fire
Protection District. The Meeks Bay Fire Protection District Service area extends along the
west shore of Lake Tahoe from the Placer / El Dorado County line to Emerald Bay.
The District maintains an Insurance Services Office (ISO) rating of 4/4Y for its residents
(NTFPD, 2013b, p. 7). The ISO is an independent company that collects and evaluates
information from communities on their fire suppression capabilities and assigned a Public
Protection Classification (PPC) number of 4/4Y to the District. Class 4 applies to properties
within 5 miles of a fire station and 1000 feet of a fire hydrant. The remainder of the District
is Class 4Y; Class 4Y is a special classification that recognizes a superior level of fire
protection services, but no credible water supply (hydrants). Class 4 puts the District
amongst the top 25 percent of all California fire agencies (NTFPD, 2014).
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 9, North Tahoe FPD 9-17
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
Land use within the District is diverse with areas of residential, commercial and recreation.
To meet the emergency response needs within the District, firefighters are proficient in
wildland firefighting, structural firefighting, back country/technical rescue, swift water
rescue, hazardous materials mitigation, and emergency medical services.
Under the 1994 Placer County General Plan Policy 4.I.2, the County strives to meet the
following response time standards for calls for emergency and fire protection services:
• 4 minutes in urban areas
• 6 minutes in suburban areas
• 10 minutes in rural areas
Additionally, the 1994 Placer County General Plan Policy 4.I.1 states that the County strives
to maintain the following minimum fire protection standards based on ISO PPC program
ratings:
• ISO PPC Class 4 in urban areas
• ISO PPC Class 6 in suburban areas
• ISO PPC Class 8 in rural areas.
Table 1.7: North Tahoe FPD
Emergency Response, 2012
According to the District, staff responded to 1,208
Number of
calls for emergency services, the majority of which
Emergency Calls
were for medical aid (Table 9.7). The NTFPD Fire Suppression 38
indicates 2012 had a 9.03 minute response time for EMS/ALS 1077
Rescue 0
emergency and non-emergency response, which falls
Hazardous Materials 93
within the 10 minute standard identified in the 1994
Total 1,208
Placer County General Plan for rural areas. The Calls outside district 605
response time data does not cover IFT, auto/mutual Total 1813
aid, and strike team/overhead. These calls for Source: (NTFPD, 2013c, p. 9)
service totaled 605 for 2012. In general, industry
standards applicable to the NTFPD are established by the National Fire Protection Agency
(NFPA), the Insurance Services Office, Cal OSHA, and District ordinances. All of these
agencies, as well as many others, directly and/or indirectly affect the type of services, the
quality and development of those services, expansion, reliability, facility design, and
construction and environmental issues that the District provides. North Tahoe FPD meets all
applicable industry standards. This is achieved through extensive effort, sound fiscal
practices, and good training/cross training practices.
NTFPD is also involved in education and planning in fire prevention. The District has a
defensible space and chipping program that helps educate the public on defensible space in
the Tahoe basin. This program helps educate and assists the homeowner in making homes
more defendable in the presence of wildland fire. The District also is involved with fire
prevention week activities in the local schools. The district utilizes a Community Wildfire
Protection Plan to illustrate the needs and reality of wild land fire safety in the district. This
plan helps shape operation and planning for both the district and the
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 9, North Tahoe FPD 9-18
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
public: (http://www.trpa.org/wp-content/ uploads/CWPP_CA_Basin.pdf) (NTFPD, 2013c, p.
8).
9.9: Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies
The District operates out of six stations within the District, which are located in Alpine
Meadows, Tahoe City, Homewood, Dollar Hill, Carnelian Bay
Fire Station 51 in Tahoe City
and Kings Beach. The newest station, Station 51, was
constructed in 2012, is Gold LEED certified, and provides administrative space as well as
equipment and staff housing.
There are many separate water purveyors, two public and several private, that provide water
service within NTFPD’s service area. Generally, the public water purveyors have master plans
that address pipeline replacement, minimum capacity, and adequate distribution. There are
also some areas within the District’s service area which are equipped with fire hydrants, but
have inadequate fire flow and water storage is limited. North Tahoe FPD maintains a good
working relationship with the public water purveyors. In 2013, NTFPD prepared a four-page
report on the adequacy of water supply to meet the 2013 California Fire Code fire flow
requirements as stated in Section 8105 Fire Flow Requirements for Buildings. This report
contained the following recommendation “Local water purveyors shall begin the upgrade
process to improve respective storage capacities, flow rates, and emergency back up power
to maintain the requirements set forth in the 2013 California Fire Code. Rural firefighting
operations, water tenders, and the addition of a fire boat should be considered to support
and provide adequate water supply when needed.” Since many of the water purveyors are
private water companies, it is not clear whether the water purveyors will implement this
recommendation in a timely manner.
Approximately 1,062 Hydrants are positioned throughout the District. However, some areas
within the District’s service area are not equipped with fire hydrants because they are under
the control of private water
companies. The NTFPD’s
ability to serve these areas is
hindered by lack of fire
hydrants. It is suggested that
NTFPD prepare a map (1-page)
to show the geographic
distribution of fire hydrants in
relation to water service
purveyor and disadvantaged communities and submit the map to LAFCo prior to the year 2021
when the next MSR for the District is scheduled.
Additionally, numerous other secondary water sources are available for fire suppression
activities. The District also has a 2,500-gallon water tender for emergency water supply. The
public and private water purveyors in NTFPD have varied capacities and capabilities. Placer
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 9, North Tahoe FPD 9-19
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
County Building Code 15.04.710E requires a
minimum or 6-inch lateral water main and
California Fire Code requires the availability
of 1,500 gallons per minute (gpm) for 2 hours
for residential water supply. However, this
requirement is not typical for occupancies
within NTFPD. Therefore, in numerous areas
of the District the water supply does not meet
current standards and would be considered
insufficient. A recent classification by ISO
gave the district a score of 33.10 out of 50 on
water supply capability.
The District has prepared a capital improvement plan (CIP) entitled the “North Tahoe Fire
Protection District Capital Facilities and Mitigation Fee Expenditure Plan”. This 14-page plan
was prepared in March 2015 and describes planned facility and equipment upgrades. For the
Alpine Springs service area, the County Water District has prepared a 10-page plan that
details expected improvements to the fire station facilities, vehicles, and other equipment
(ASCWD May 2015). The CIPs for NTFPD and ASCWD are available upon request from each
district. Fire Department vehicles are replaced according to replacement schedules and are
considered “out of service” if repairs are required. It appears that there are sufficient types
and quantities of vehicles under control of the District to maintain service.
9.10: Cost Avoidance and Facilities Sharing
The NTFPD and Truckee Fire Protection District provide automatic and mutual aid paramedic
ambulance services to one another (NTFPD, 2013a, p. 2). The District maintains an
agreement with CAL FIRE for dispatch services from the CAL FIRE Fire/Emergency Command
Center in Grass Valley, CA. Automatic aid and/or mutual aid agreements exist for all Lake
Tahoe and Eastern Nevada area fire agencies. Further, the California Master mutual aid
agreement has the ability to commit NTFPD resources anywhere in the state. NTFPD also has
ambulance contracts with Sierra Sacramento EMS Agency and El Dorado County/Meeks Bay.
NTFPD also provides all emergency fire and EMS service in the Alpine Meadows area through a
contractual agreement (NTFPD, 2013c, p. 6).
Possible opportunities for reduced overhead and operational costs include consolidations,
annexations, and cooperative agreements that increase efficiencies in service delivery. North
Tahoe FPD meets on an as-needed basis with other fire districts to facilitate activities such as
joint training and volume discount purchases.
The North Tahoe FPD has automatic aid agreements with Meeks Bay FPD and North Lake
Tahoe FPD in Nevada. The primary function of both agreements is to augment staffing on the
outskirts of the District, between Stations 52 and 53 and the District boundaries.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 9, North Tahoe FPD 9-20
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
North Tahoe FPD currently shares a fueling facility with the Tahoe City PUD. Placer County
Sheriff’s Department provides the District’s dispatch services. Costs for operations of the
joint Hazardous Materials Response Team are also reduced through sharing with other
districts. Also, the District is a member of a joint powers authority in El Dorado County to
provide ambulance service, which positively affects the District’s revenue. Additionally, fees
that are billed for ambulance services are reduced because the use of the service is shared by
several fire departments.
Annexation of the Alpine Meadows Fire Department has the potential to increase service and
cost efficiencies among those receiving services. Likewise, annexation of Meeks Bay Fire
District, in neighboring El Dorado County, could also provide the same benefits. The provision
of ambulance services along the Highway 267 corridor is also justification for consideration of
extension of the District’s Sphere of Influence to include this area.
The NTFPD has the ability to serve additional populations, but this would require new
developments to pay fees in order for the District to purchase additional equipment required
to serve new constituents. Most development in the District’s service area is infill because
there are a limited number of buildable lots left in the District. Adopted fire-safe and fire-
prevention ordinances require that new development be constructed with fire sprinklers, fire
resistant roofing, and other components that mitigate impacts related to growth in the area
and increased costs related to that growth.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 9, North Tahoe FPD 9-21
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
9.11 Determinations
Population and Growth
1. The permanent population of the North Tahoe Fire Protection District (NTFPD) was
14,010 persons as of 2015.
2. Demand for services within the District can fluctuate greatly based on second home
occupancy, tourism and seasonal activities. The peak number of overnight visitors is
estimated to be approximately 28,445 persons.
3. There were a number of developments proposed (as of 2015) within the District’s SOI
and District Contract Areas that may affect service delivery, including: Homewood,
Kings Beach Town Center, and Carnelian Bay Vista Village.
4. Based on proposed new residential and commercial development, the permanent
population growth rate within the District is expected to be approximately 1.5
percent.
Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities
5. Within the District, the communities of Kings Beach, Carnelian Bay, and neighborhoods
within Tahoe City meet the State’s standard for DUCs of 80 percent of the State
median family income. These areas do receive sufficient water, wastewater, and fire
protection services as documented in this MSR. No public health and safety issues
have been identified within the DUCs.
6. Grant funding is available for disadvantaged unincorporated communities. Please see
Chapter 3 for a general list of potential grants.
Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities
7. The NTFPD provides fire and emergency services within its boundaries, as well as the
Meeks Bay area and Alpine Springs County Water District.
8. With the completion of the District’s new station in Tahoe City (Station No. 51), the
District has sufficient facilities for administration, equipment, and staff to serve
existing customers.
9. Aging stations and equipment (aside from the new station in Tahoe City) have not
been upgraded in recent years due to the economic conditions affecting special
districts statewide, particularly loss of property tax revenue.
10. Some areas within the District’s service area are not equipped with fire hydrants
because the areas are served by private water companies. It is suggested that NTFPD
prepare a map (1-page) showing the geographic distribution of fire hydrants in relation
to water service purveyor and disadvantaged communities and share this with LAFCo
prior to the year 2023 when the next MSR for the District is scheduled.
11. The District utilizes two capital improvement plans (CIPs) for facility and equipment
upgrades, one for NTFPD and the second for ASCWD. The CIPs for NTFPD and ASCWD
are available upon request from each district.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 9, North Tahoe FPD 9-22
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
12. The District maintains its ISO rating of 4/4Y, indicating a high level of excellent
service within service areas.
13. NTFPD facilities and infrastructure are currently sufficient to allow for the efficient
provision of services. Analysis for pending development projects will assess the need
for additional facility and infrastructure that may be required to support added
demand.
14. NTFPD has historically met or exceeded all applicable industry standards related to
the provision of fire and emergency services, and meets the Placer County General
Plan response time standard of less than 10 minutes.
Financial Ability of District to Provide Services
15. The District struggled with the loss of property tax revenue during the 2008-2009
recession. However, the financial position of the District indicates that it will be able
to meet its financial obligations as they become due and that it will continue to be
able to provide service obligations to its constituencies.
Status and Opportunities for Shared Facilities
16. NTFPD collaborates with other agencies for automatic and mutual aid emergency
services, including regional emergency planning efforts.
17. Through service contracts with Alpine Springs County Water District and Meek’s Bay
Fire Protection District, NTFPD provides fire protection services including
administration and operations, fire prevention, training, fire suppression and rescue,
equipment and apparatus maintenance, and emergency medical services to the these
areas. Inclusion of these two service areas within the NTFPD’s SOI and possible future
annexation for the purpose of providing fire services could alleviate some duplication
in costs through sharing of administrative staff, repair facilities, and various other
items.
Accountability for Community Service Needs, Including Governmental
Structure and Operation Efficiencies.
18. An elected five-member Board of Directors oversees the management of the District’s
resources. NTFPD meets its statutory financial reporting requirements that ensure its
operations are conducted in an open and transparent manner. NTFPD meets its fiscal
accountability requirement to its customers through budgetary and financial reporting
using its website as a communication channel. The District provides public notice of
meetings, and posts agendas and minutes online.
19. A Fire Chief oversees the District under the direction of the elected Board of
Directors. The Board and management work together in the identification of goals and
issues and assignment of staff as appropriate for each type of service provided. The
District has adopted policies to guide District operations. NTFPD uses annual budgets
to plan for and carry out operations and capital programs.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 9, North Tahoe FPD 9-23
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
20. The NTFPD has an extensive mutual aid network with numerous federal, state, and
local emergency service providers in the region.
21. District staff has indicated that the District’s SOI is not adequate for projected future
needs with potential development in the Brockway Summit, Alpine Meadows (ASCWD),
Homewood Mountain Resort, and Meek’s Bay. It is recommended that Placer LAFCo
considering reviewing the SOI for this District.
9.12: Bibliography
Alpine Springs County Water District (ASCWD). May 2015. Capital Facilities and Fire Mitigation Fee
Expenditure Plan. 10-pages
CDWR. (2014). DWR Disadvataged Community Mappying Tool. Retrieved December 27, 2014,
from DWR IRWM Resources: http://www.water.ca.gov/
irwm/grants/resourceslinks.cfm.
California State Dept. of Finance; State of California Employment Development Department
Wage and Salary survey data for Placer County, 2008 Benchmark; Willdan Financial
Services.
North Tahoe Fire Protection District (NTFPD). (2009, December 18). Memorandum of
Understanding Regarding Fire Station 51 Cooperative Use of Facilities.
North Tahoe Fire Protection District (NTFPD). (2012, May 23). Ordinance No. 01-2012.
North Tahoe Fire Protection District (NTFPD). (2013a, May). Boundary Drop Area Plan and
Mutual Aid.
North Tahoe Fire Protection District (NTFPD). (2013b, June 30). Independent Auditor's
Report. Retrieved December 26, 2014, from NTFPD:
http://www.ntfire.net/Images/Images/fye%202013%20audit%20rpt.pdf.
North Tahoe Fire Protection District (NTFPD). (2013c, July 31). Placer LAFCO Request for
Information, District Response. CA.
North Tahoe Fire Protection District (NTFPD). (2014). NTFPD Home. Retrieved December 27,
2014, from NTFPD: http://www.ntfire.net/.
North Tahoe Fire Protection District. March 2015. Capital Facilities and Mitigation Fee
Expenditure Plan. 14-pages.
North Tahoe Fire Prevention Bureau. June 23, 2015. Staff Report from Firefighter Gilley to
Chief Alameda. Providing for the adequate water supply to meet the 2013 California
Fire Code fire flow requirements as stated in Section 8105 Fire Flow Requirements for
Buildings. 4-pages.
Placer County Economic and Demographic profile, Center for Strategic Economic Research,
April, 2011 (http://www.placer.ca.gov/~/media/ceo/ecd/documents/2011
%20Placer%20County%20Economic%20%20%20Demographic%20Profile.ashx.)
Placer County Office of Economic Development. (2011). Placer County Economic and
Demographic Profile. Retrieved October 22, 2014, from Placer County:
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 9, North Tahoe FPD 9-24
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
http://www.placer.ca.gov/~/media/ceo/ecd/documents/2011%20Placer%20County%2
0Economic%20%20%20Demographic%20Profile.ashx.
Placer County Office of Economic Development, Placer Valley Tourism, Placer County Visitors
Bureau, and North Lake Tahoe Resort Association. March, 2009. Placer County Travel
Industry Assessment and Detailed Economic Impact Estimates, 2002-2008. Dean
Runyan Associates. 69-pages. Available on-line at:
<http://www.placer.ca.gov/departments/CEO/Econdev> (note, click on “quick-links”
at the bottom, left).
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 9, North Tahoe FPD 9-25
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
C 10
HAPTER
North Tahoe Public Utility District
Photo courtesy of http://northtahoeparks.com/
This Municipal Service Review (MSR) describes the North Tahoe Public Utility District. This
District was originally formed in 1948 and currently provides water treatment and
distribution, wastewater collection, maintenance and operation of recreational and
conference facilities.
Table of Contents
10.1 Agency Profile .....................................................................................10-2
10.2 Overview of District ..............................................................................10-2
10.3: Formation and Boundary ........................................................................10-3
10.4: Accountability and Governance ...............................................................10-5
10.5: Management Efficiencies and Staffing ........................................................10-6
10.6: Population & Growth ............................................................................10-8
10.7: Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities .............................................. 10-14
10.8: Water Service .................................................................................. 10-15
10.9: Wastewater Service ........................................................................... 10-25
10.10: Recreation and Parks ......................................................................... 10-31
10.11: Financing ....................................................................................... 10-37
10.12: Challenges ..................................................................................... 10-45
10.13: Determinations ................................................................................ 10-46
10.14: References ..................................................................................... 10-50
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 10, North Tahoe PUD 10-1
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
10.1 AGENCY PROFILE
North Tahoe Public Utility District
Type of District: Public Utility District
Enabling Legislation: Public Utility District Act: Public Utilities Code §§ 15501-18055
Functions/Services: Water treatment and distribution, wastewater collection, maintenance
and operation of recresueational and conference facilities.
Main Office: 875 National Avenue, Tahoe Vista, CA 96148
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 139, Tahoe Vista, CA 96148
Phone No.: (530) 546-4212
Fax No.: (530) 546-2652
Web Site: www.ntpud.org and http://northtahoeparks.com/
General Manager/CEO: vacant
Board Secretary: Marianne Potts Email: mpotts@ntpud.org
Governing Body: Elected Board of Directors – 4-year terms
Name Role Term Ends
S. Lane Lewis Director 12/31/2018
Sarah Coolidge Director 12/31/2020
Sue Daniels Vice President 12/31/2018
Tim Farrell President 12/31/2020
Phil Thompson Director 12/31/2020
Meeting Schedule: Second Tuesday of each month, 2:00 p.m.
Meeting Location: North Tahoe Event Center, 8318 North Lake Blvd., Kings Beach, CA 96143
Date of Formation: 1948
Principal County: Placer County
10.2 OVERVIEW OF DISTRICT
The North Tahoe Public Utility District (NTPUD/District) provides water treatment and
distribution, sewer collection, and recreational and conference facilities to customers within
its service area. This Municipal Service Review (MSR) is the second for the District.
TYPE AND EXTENT OF SERVICES
The District was initially formed in 1948 to provide wastewater services. Responsibility for
water service was added in November 1967 with the initial acquisition of the Brockway Water
Company and since then several other small water companies have been acquired. The
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 10, North Tahoe PUD 10-2
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
Recreation and Parks Department was added in 1968. Today, the District provides
wastewater, water, recreation, services to residents of the north shore of Lake Tahoe.
Historically, the District did fund street lighting via payment of the electricity bill for 96
street lights serving residential and commercial neighborhoods within the District boundary.
In October of 2015, the District decided to no longer subsidize this unfunded provision of
service. Placer County and Caltrans have agreed to assume responsibility for most of the
street lights.
The District currently serves 3,828 metered water connections and 5,524 sewer connections
(with 5,524 actual customers). The District’s operating budget for FY 2014 is $10,141,076. In
addition to providing sewer, water, and recreation services, the District also performs all
maintenance and repair activities, maintains its State permits, and provides for operational
utility needs. NTPUD is also part Community Facilities District (CFD) 94-1, the Mello-Roos
district that funds the North Tahoe Recreation and Parks Department, and 5,456 parcels
contribute to CFD 94-1. The District manages and maintains most of the public beaches in the
service areas, as well as the North Tahoe Regional Park in Tahoe Vista and the North Tahoe
Event Center in Kings Beach.
LOCATION AND SIZE
The District is located in the unincorporated eastern area of Placer County, adjacent to the
Tahoe City Public Utility District along the western boundary, US Forest Service land along the
northern boundary, the State of Nevada along the eastern boundary, and Lake Tahoe on the
southern boundary. The Lake is flanked by the Carson Range to the west and the Sierra
Nevada range to the east, and is drained by the Truckee River. The service area for sewer and
recreation services encompasses approximately 6.5 square miles (4,160 acres), whereas the
service area for water services encompasses only 3.4 square miles (2,186 acres) since some
areas of the District are served by the Agate and Fulton Water Companies. The District
boundaries extend from the Nevada State line in Crystal Bay in the east to Carnelian Bay in
the west. The service area includes the communities of Brockway, Kings Beach, Tahoe Vista,
Agate Bay, and Carnelian Bay. See Figure 10.1 for a map of the service boundaries and
significant District features.
10.3: FORMATION AND BOUNDARY
NTPUD is a public agency that was formed on July 23, 1948, by a Certificate of Incorporation
approved by the Secretary of State under the provisions of Public Utility District Act §§ 15501-
18055. The District was originally formed to provide sewer services to the residents of the
Lake Tahoe’s north shore. In November 1967, water services were added to the District’s
responsibilities, and in 1968 the District added the Recreation and Parks Department.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 10, North Tahoe PUD 10-3
267
S
ta
te
L
in
e
Tahoe Vista
Kings Beach
28
Lake Tahoe
North Tahoe Public Utility District
North Tahoe PUD Sphere of Influence
Dollar Point
Tahoe Regional Planning Agency Boundary
Towns/Communities
County Boundary
Roads
0 0.5 1
Miles
District Boundary from Placer County GIS, SOI from Placer County LAFCo
Figure 10-1 NORTH TAHOE PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
BOUNDARY HISTORY
LAFCo files indicate there have been no changes in the District’s boundary since the 2004 MSR
was published.
SPHERE OF INFLUENCE
The District’s Sphere of Influence (SOI) encompasses approximately 6,500 acres. Given the
size of the SOI compared to the District’s boundary, it seems that the SOI is adequate for
projected future needs.
EXTRA-TERRITORIAL SERVICES
The District does not provide any services outside its boundaries. However, it is recognized
that the recreation facilities the District provides are utilized by a diversity of residents and
visitors and a percentage originate from areas outside the district boundaries.
AREAS OF INTEREST
No other areas outside the District boundaries have been identified that require services from
the District.
10.4: ACCOUNTABILITY AND GOVERNANCE
The District is governed by a five-member elected Board of Directors, which oversees the
Chief Executive Office (CEO) and administrative staff. The CEO is also the General Manager
and provides daily oversight and management of staff and resources. Regularly scheduled
meetings are held on the second Tuesday of the month at 2:00 p.m. Meetings are located at
the North Tahoe Event Center, 8318 North Lake Blvd., Kings Beach, CA 96143.
The current Board members are as follows:
Name Role Date Term Ends
S. Lane Lewis Director 12/31/2018
Sarah Coolidge Director 12/31/2020
Sue Daniels Vice President 12/31/2018
Tim Farrell President 12/31/2020
Phil Thompson Director 12/31/2020
In accordance with Government Code §54954, all meetings are publicly posted on the
District’s website, at the District office, and at the local post office a minimum of three days
prior to regular Board meetings. Agendas for special meetings are posted in the same
locations at least 24 hours prior to the special meeting. Agendas are posted on the District’s
website prior to regular meetings, and meeting minutes are posted after meetings. For all
meetings considered out of the ordinary, including those on proposed projects that may result
in rate increases or Proposition 218 issues, an extra notification step is taken.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 10, North Tahoe PUD 10-5
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
The agenda for each Board meeting includes a public comment period during which customers
may comment or complain. Contact information for the District is posted on the District’s
website, and customers may submit comments or complaints via email or to the District’s
mailing address.
Budgets are adopted in public meetings and are available on the District’s website for FY
2008-2009 through FY 2013-2014. The last independent auditor’s report addressed fiscal years
ending June 30, 2013 and June 30, 2014. The audit found that there were no issues of
noncompliance with financial regulations and that the District’s financial statements were in
conformity with generally accepted accounting practices.
10.5: MANAGEMENT EFFICIENCIES AND STAFFING
Day-to-day operations are managed by the full-time General Manager (GM)/CEO. The GM/CEO
is appointed by and serves the Board of Directors. The GM/CEO is responsible to and receives
policy direction from the Board of Directors. The GM/CEO is responsible for the enforcement
of all District rules and regulations, ordinances, and contracts authorized by the Board of
Directors. This position also oversees and directs the development of the $10.5 million annual
operating budget and the $10 million Capital Improvement Program. He is also responsible for
the 44 full-time employees and all part-time employees. The GM/CEO oversees all the
functional departments of the District, including the Board of Directors’ committees and
commissions; administrative departments such as human resources and payroll; the utility
operations department, which maintains the water, sewer, and fleet operations; the planning
and engineering department; and the parks and facilities department. An organizational chart
is provided in Figure 10.2.
In the past, NTPUD studied the option to merge with the TCPUD and this issue continues to be
raised periodically1. There is not an immediate need for these two independent districts to
merge; however, they may wish to reconsider the issue when the next MSR is prepared by
LAFCO. Potential economic and social costs and benefits of such a merger would need to be
carefully studied. NTPUD partners with a number of government, non-profit, and private
organizations. Please section on page 10-22 of this MSR entitled “Opportunities to Share
Water Facilities” (below) for more information.
1 Data source: NTPUD Board meeting notes, March 2015. Available on-line at:
http://ntpud.org/sites/default/files/board/packets/20150508164437206.pdf
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 10, North Tahoe PUD 10-6
CURRENT
ORGANIZATIONAL CHART
General Manager/CEO
2016/2017
BUDGET
0 Management ---------- -------------,
D Union
I
0 Temporary I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~-------
U:\BUDGET\2016 2017 Budget\2017 Budget Worksheet ver 04 for 20160614 Adopted Final Summary A Sheets.xlsmOrg Chart 8/2/2016 28
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
NTPUD Vision
STRATEGIC PLAN
NTPUD provides the highest
NTPUD adopted a strategic plan in January 2016 and it is
quality water and sewer
available on the District’s website. A strategic plan is very
systems, efficiently and
helpful to local government agencies such as NTPUD
economically managing for
because it facilitates alignment of vision, mission,
future demands, and we
objectives and actions across departments. When written
in a public document, the strategic plan aids in provide outstanding
transparency and management efficiency because it recreational facilities and
contributes towards common expectation of business services that are responsive to
operations. NTPUD’s 2016-2018 Strategic Plan includes the our community, while
following Strategic Objectives: fostering positive long-term
relationships with employees,
1. Provide quality recreation and event facilities and
customers, suppliers and
activities.
2. Maintain highest level of safe, sustainable sewer partner agencies.
and water service.
3. Provide exceptional District Governance.
4. Empower trained professional staff.
5. Ensure financial sustainability.
6. Maintain operational excellence
10.6: POPULATION & GROWTH
The District encompasses an unincorporated area that includes Kings Beach on the eastern
end and Dollar Point on the western end. Kings Beach, where the District office is located,
contains commercial and residential uses, including both seasonal and perennial residents.
The District serves 5,524 sewer connections and 3,828 water connections. Additionally,
recreation services are supported by 5,456 Parcels which contribute to CFD 94-1.
EXISTING POPULATION
Lake Tahoe experiences huge swings in population throughout the year. Generally, the
population swells significantly during the popular summer and winter tourist months.
According to the Existing Conditions report for the Placer County Tahoe Basin Policy
Document, prepared by Dyett and Bathia, (September 2013), the Plan Area has experienced a
17 percent decline in its permanent resident population between 2000 and 2010, while
second-home demand has intensified.
The NTPUD service area includes the communities of Brockway, Kings Beach, Tahoe Vista,
Agate Bay, and Carnelian Bay. The US Census does not provide specific demographic
information for the Brockway and Agate Bay communities, but does designate Kings Beach,
Tahoe Vista, and Carnelian Bay as census-designated places (CDP). The 2010 US Census
reported a population of 3,796 in Kings Beach, a decrease from the population of 4,037 during
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 10, North Tahoe PUD 10-8
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
the 2000 Census. In 2010 the population density was 1,103.7 people per square mile in the
3.4-square-mile area. The average household size was 2.73 and there were 1,362 households
and 2,372 housing units, of which 40.5 percent were owner-occupied and 59.5 percent were
renter-occupied.
Like Kings Beach, Tahoe Vista is a Census Designated Place (CDP), and demographic statistics
are available within the discrete boundaries of the community. The 2010 US Census reported
that the population was 1,433, down from 1,668 during the 2000 Census. Tahoe Vista has an
area of 2.7 square miles and a population density of 530 people per square mile. Average
household size was reported to be 2.28, and there were 628 households. There were 1,446
housing units at an average density of 532.5 units per square mile, of which 63.4 percent
were owner-occupied and 36.6 percent were renter-occupied.
Carnelian Bay had a population of 524 and an area of 1.3 square miles at the 2010 Census,
with a population density of 400 people per square mile. Average household size was 2.05,
and 256 households were reported. Housing units totaled 947, of which 66.8 percent were
owner-occupied and 33.2 were occupied by renters.
To refine and verify the data used for this MSR analysis, service connection data are analyzed.
The water and wastewater connections included in Table 10.1 reflect the demand presented
by permanent residents, seasonal uses and/or demands as well as visitor uses.
Table 10.1: NTPUD Service Connections
Service #Customers in
2013-2014
Water 3,828
Wastewater 5,524
Recreation 5,456
(# of contributing
parcels)
As shown in the above table, NTPUD services significantly more wastewater connections, as
compared to water service connections. This is because other private water companies
provide water service to customers within NTPUD’s boundaries. Therefore, the number of
wastewater connections is a better indicator of population. For purposes of this MSR analysis,
it is assumed that the wastewater connections are distributed among residential, commercial,
visitor serving motels, and government/institutional uses as shown in Table 10.2 below.
Table 10.2: Estimated Distribution of 5,524 Wastewater Connections
Estimated # of
Estimated Percentage
wastewater connections
Single Family Residential 82% 4,530
Multi-family Residential 12% 663
Commercial 4% 221
Visitor Serving Motels etc. 1.5% 83
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 10, North Tahoe PUD 10-9
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
It is noted that one wastewater connection to a visitor serving motel or inn can serve many
visitor rooms. Additionally, each “connection” to a multi-family structure may serve many
housing units. For example, a wastewater connection to a triplex would serve three families.
For purposes of this MSR analysis, it is assumed that each connection to a multi-family
structure serves an average of three housing units. The number of multi-family units within
the PUD’s boundaries is estimated to be 1,989 units. The total number of housing units is
estimated to be 6,519 units.
Table 10.3: Estimated Existing Population in NTPUD
Visitor
Housing Persons per Total Permanent Overnight
Units Household Population Population Population
6,519 2.55 16,623 5,486 11,138
Based on Table 10.3, above, the existing population of NTPUD is estimated to be 5,486
permanent residents and 11,138 peak overnight visitors. The permanent resident population
represents a small part (33 percent) of the total population (visitors and vacationers) that the
District serves. Day-use only visitors are not included in this estimate.
PROJECTED GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT
The Lake Tahoe area is under the jurisdiction of several agencies, including the Tahoe
Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) and Placer County and, as well as various State agencies due
to the fact that the Lake straddles California and Nevada. TRPA was jointly created in 1969 as
a bi-state compact by the states of California and Nevada in the late 1960s to meet Lake
Tahoe basin-wide planning needs, including the development of general plans and other
planning documents. TRPA is the agency responsible for regional planning, development and
redevelopment oversight, regulatory enforcement, and implementation of environmental
protection and restoration of Lake Tahoe and the surrounding region. Areas over which the
TRPA has authority include new construction, erosion control, storm water runoff, shore-zone
development and protection, road construction, land use, and tree conservation and
harvesting. Through its 1987 General Plan, TRPA provides environmental quality standards and
ordinances designed to achieve these thresholds. The Code of Ordinances within the 1987
General Plan regulates land use, density, land coverage, excavation, and scenic impacts with
the intention of bringing the region into conformance with specified environmental
thresholds.
In December 2012, the TRPA Governing Board adopted the Lake Tahoe Regional Plan Update.
The Regional Plan Update leaves many of the policies of the 1987 Regional Plan in place while
providing more autonomy to local governments through adoption of Area Plans. The 2012
Regional Plan identifies goals and policies to guide decision making as it affects the Tahoe
Region’s resources and environmental thresholds. Goals and policies are addressed in six
major elements including land use, transportation, conservation, recreation, public services
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 10, North Tahoe PUD 10-10
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
and facilities, and implementation. The Regional Plan Update initiated a Region-wide
transition to a planning and permitting system where all requirements—TRPA, local, state,
and federal—are addressed in coordinated Area Plans.
The Placer County General Plan serves as the County’s vision for long-term land use
development and conservation. Placer County’s General Plan adopted on August 16, 1994,
and updated May 21, 2013, provides a series of goals, policies, standards and implementation
programs to guide the land use, development, and environmental quality of the County. The
County’s General Plan is generally consistent with TRPA planning documents. While the
General Plan was updated, the area plans in the Tahoe Basin were not.
Placer County has embarked (2011) on a more compressive planning update for the Tahoe
basin area plans. In an effort to develop more cohesive, user-friendly Planning documents for
the Tahoe Community/General Plan Update, the nine Tahoe basin plans will be consolidated
into a single over-arching Community Plan policy document with four sub-planning areas each
with their own zoning ordinances and design standards specific to each Plan Area. The Public
Review Draft Tahoe Basin Area Plan and an updated Notice of Preparation became available
for a 60 day public comment period via Placer County in June 2015. A revised Draft Tahoe
Basin Area Plan was published in April 2016. A Draft EIR/EIS per CEQA is expected to be
published in the Summer 2016. Thereafter, the next steps include refining the Plan,
publishing a final EIR/EIS, review and adoption of the Plan and EIR/EIS by the Placer County
Board of Supervisors, and a TRPA Submittal and Conformance Review2.
The TRPA Regional Plan Update prioritizes redevelopment and infill of existing Town Centers
at higher intensities than exist in other areas of the Region. During the next 20 years, much of
the projected residential and non-residential development is expected to occur in mixed-use
developments within these centers. Chapter 31 of the TRPA Code of Ordinances establishes
the maximum multi-family residential density at 15 units per acre. Additionally, compliant
affordable housing projects are provided a 25 percent density bonus; 100 percent within the
Kings Beach Commercial Community Plan Area. Based on the existing capacity of vacant
parcels located throughout the Plan Area, and TRPA policies focused on high-intensity mixed
use development within centers (primarily Tahoe City and Kings Beach), there appears to be
sufficient land to accommodate the projected 580 new housing units and 900,000 square feet
of commercial space within the Plan Area. However, the housing unit allocation from TRPA
through the year 2032 is 506 units.
The North Tahoe PUD District area falls into two of the new North Tahoe sub-planning areas.
The two sub-planning areas include the North Tahoe East and the North Tahoe West sub-
planning areas. The overall concept to be employed by the area plans is to concentrate
growth in the town center (Tahoe City and Kings Beach) within these two sub area plans while
stabilizing land uses outside of the two town centers. The following tables summarize
2 For more details see County website at: http://www.placer.ca.gov/departments/
communitydevelopment/planning/tahoebasinareaplan
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 10, North Tahoe PUD 10-11
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
recently approved residential (Table 10.4) and commercial (Table 10.5) projects in NTPUD
service area.
Table 10.4: Current Residential Development Projects in NTPUD
Total Density
Name / Site Area Single
Lots or Multifamily (du/gross Status
Description (acres) Family
Units acre)
6731 Tahoe 5.5 25 3 22 5 Approved
Timeshare
Tahoe Vista
Grey Lane 0.8 16 16 20 Approved
Townhomes
Tahoe Vista
Tahoe Vista 6.2 55 55 9 Approved
Partners LLC
(Sandy Beach)
Tahoe Vista
Kings Beach #1 0.8 18 18 23 Approved
Kings Beach
Kings Beach #2 0.3 5 5 17 Approved
Kings Beach
Kings Beach #3 0.4 12 12 28
Kings Beach Approved
Kings Beach #4 1.5 40 40 27
Kings Beach Approved
Total 15.5 181 19 152 9.8
Source: Placer County, 2013.
Table 10.5: Current Commercial Development Projects
Site Area Retail/Commercial FAR
Name / Description
(acres) (SF) Status
Kings Beach Gas 0.43 2,640 0.1 Approved
Station
Olson Construction 0.65 6,376 0.2 Approved
Headquarters Kings
Beach
Total 1.08 9,016 0.3
TRPA uses a rating program called Individual Parcel Evaluation System (IPES) to determine
which vacant sites are buildable in the Tahoe Basin. The IPES system evaluates vacant sites
for land capability and scored based on eight elements under TRPA’s. Any site that receives a
core greater than 726 is considered to be buildable based on the remaining in land use density
and intensity factors within the governing land use plans. The majority of parcels—69
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 10, North Tahoe PUD 10-12
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
percent—are located north of the SR 28 and SR 89 intersection in the communities of
Carnelian Bay, Tahoe Vista and Kings Beach. The largest parcels are located in Carnelian Bay,
while the smallest parcels are primarily located in Kings Beach. The vacant land development
potential within the town centers within the NTPUD service area is provided in Table 10.6
below. Other than increasing development density to create a more compact urban form
through the community plan update, overall development potential in the basin will not
increase significantly.
Table 10.6: Vacant Parcels with IPES >726
Community Parcels Acres
Carnelian Bay 84 57.7
Tahoe Vista 100 34.8
Kings Beach 89 18.5
Dollar Point 26 8.9
Total 299 77.9
Source: Placer County, 2013; TRPA, 2013.
Table 10.7 summarizes the status of existing development rights within the Region. The
majority of development in the Tahoe Region occurred prior to adoption of the 1987 Regional
Plan. Since 1987 new development has been limited to about 14 percent of total housing
units, 6 percent of total commercial floor area, and 0.5 percent of total tourist
accommodation units.
Table 10.7: Status of Existing Development Rights, 2011
Development Under Estimated
Pre-1986
the 1987 Regional Existing
Development
Plan Development
Residential Units 40,865 6,527 47,392
Commercial Floor Estimated at 416,421 6,416,421
Area 6,000,000
Tourist 12,341 58 12,399
Accommodation Units
Source: Ascent Environmental, TRPA, 2011.
As noted in the District’s Urban Water Management Plan (July 6, 2013), it can be safely
assumed that development under the State of California’s Lake Tahoe Basin Water Quality
Management Plan (under section 208 of the federal Clean Water Act, 33 USC 466 et seq.) is
the maximum which will occur over the next 20-year period. Future improvements to the
District’s sources, supply, transmission and distribution and storage facilities are based on the
development scenario. The maximum additional development within the District boundaries is
1,002 dwelling units.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 10, North Tahoe PUD 10-13
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
Population estimates within the District’s service area were initially estimated using US
Census Bureau data. The District’s service area boundary was overlaid on the North Tahoe
Census Block Map to identify the Census Tracts within the District’s service area. Four Census
Tracts partially fall within the District’s service area, including Census Tracts 201.04, 201.05,
201.06 and 201.07. Even though these four Census Tract areas are greater in size than the
NTPUD service area, they provide actual data for 1990, 2000, and 2010. This Census Tract
data was used to calculate the 20-year compound annual growth rate 0.74 percent. The 20-
year compound annual growth rate of 0.74 percent was used to project the District’s
population base for the next 20 years, over 5-year increments, as shown in the following
table.
Table 10.8: Projected Permanent Population to 2030 within NTPUD Service Area1
Year 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035
Census Based Population Estimate 6,125 6,355 6,594 6,841 7,098 7,365
MSR Service Connection Based n/a 5,486 5,692 5,906 6,128 6,358
Population
1 compound year annual growth rate based on historical 20 year Census trend
2 2010 Population Data in Table 10.8 is from http://www.census.gov/2010census/popmap/
10.7: DISADVANTAGED UNINCORPORATED COMMUNITIES
DISADVANTAGED UNINCORPORATED COMMUNITIES
By state definition, a disadvantaged unincorporated community (DUC) has a median household
income (MHI) less than 80 percent of the statewide average. According to 2010 Census data,
California’s MHI is $60,883, which qualifies any community with a MHI less than $48,706 as a
DUC. Within the District, the community of Kings Beach is classified as DUCs because the
median income for this area is $41,323. As described in this MSR, Kings Beach does receive
water, wastewater, and fire protection services. No public health and safety issues have
been identified. Please see the report from Community Fact Finder for the Kings Beach area
shown in Figure 10.3. For additional information, please refer to Chapter 3, Section 3.6,
Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities, in this MSR.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 10, North Tahoe PUD 10-14
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
10.8: WATER SERVICE
WATER SERVICE OVERVIEW
The District’s watershed is fed by several streams that begin in the upper alpine area and
empty into Lake Tahoe. The entire watershed is within California’s jurisdiction, excluding
Lake Tahoe, which shares boundaries with California and Nevada. The District relies mostly
on surface water for its water supply; although it does have two wells sourced from
groundwater. NTPUD supplies potable water to approximately 5,300 people via approximately
3,828 metered connections and three separate and independent water systems: Dollar Cove,
Carnelian Bay, and the Tahoe Main system. The District serves the communities of Kings
Beach, Tahoe Vista, Brockway Vista, Carnelian Bay, Cedar Flat, and Agate Bay. The service
area ranges from the Nevada State line on the east to Dollar Point on the west. Highway 267
bisects the area. The service area is approximately 3.4 square miles.
The District’s 3,828 metered water connections range from single-family dwellings to business
and tourism-based establishments. Separate irrigation and fire systems are also served. Of the
water service accounts, 221 were commercial establishments as of December 2010, while
approximately 40 percent of the 221 were commercial tourist services for resorts and motels.
The remaining 60 percent (of the 221) were general commercial accounts such as shops, local
restaurants, and laundries. The majority of the commercial establishments are located in the
lower zone of the Kings Beach service area, with 23 in the Carnelian Bay service area and
three in Dollar Cove. See Figure 10.4 for the District’s water system map.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 10, North Tahoe PUD 10-15
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
WATER SUPPLY/DEMAND
Supply and demand for water districts are typically impacted by development occurring
within the District that could result in an increase in the demand for these services and the
need for additional infrastructure. Due to the large size of the Lake, supply of water in Lake
Tahoe is typically not impacted by drought as other surface waters can be. The maximum
development projected within NTPUD is 1,002 new units at buildout.
In 1990 the Truckee-Carson-Pyramid Lake Water Rights Settlement Act (“Settlement Act”)
(Public Law 101-618) required that the total annual gross diversions within the Lake Tahoe
basin, including groundwater, could not exceed 34,000 acre-feet per year. Of this total,
23,000 acre-feet per year were allocated to the State of California and 11,000 acre-feet per
year were allocated to the State of Nevada (Section 204(b)(1)). There was no diversion
amount specifically allocated to the District’s service area. In 1999 Brown and Caldwell
Engineers recommended an allocation of 3,920 acre-feet per year to the District's service
area, but that figure was subject to review and reconsideration. Section 205(a) of the
Settlement Act required the Secretary of the Interior to negotiate an Operating Agreement
(the “Truckee River Operating Agreement” or “TROA”). The TROA was signed on September
6, 2008 and passed major legal milestones in November 2015. TROA increases drought
protection for all Truckee River water users by facilitating the use of credit water storage and
cooperative exchanges of this credit water between basin reservoirs to maintain the most
beneficial flows and reservoir levels.
WATER SUPPLY
Rights from surface water diversions are subject to the State of California, Division of Water
Rights permit process for surface waters. Routine monitoring and additional monitoring under
the Compliance Order are performed as required by the California State Department of
Health to verify the quality of the water for chemical, physical, and bacteriological
constituents.
Three categories of water rights are applicable to the District: appropriative rights, which are
defined through a permit and license procedure of the Division of Water Rights, State Water
Resources Control Board (SWRCB); pre-1914 appropriative rights, which are for claims of
water prior to December 19, 1914; and riparian use rights, which apply to lands adjacent to
surface waters. The District presently has five permits, three licenses and three pending
applications for appropriative water rights. In addition to these rights, the District has filed
two statements of diversion for riparian and pre-1914 rights.
The State of California Urban Water Management Planning Act requires that water suppliers
with 3,000 or more connection submit Urban Water Management Plans (UWMP) to the
California Department of Water Resources every five years. With 3,828 connections, NTPUD is
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 10, North Tahoe PUD 10-16
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
required to prepare a UWMP and adopted its most recent UWMP on July 9, 20133. The UWMP
describes and evaluates water deliveries and uses, water supply sources, efficient water uses,
and demand management measures. The purpose of the UWMP is to determine whether a
water supplier can meet the water demands of its customers as projected over a 20- or 25-
year period.
The District currently uses Lake Tahoe, a high-quality and very reliable water supply, for
approximately 90 percent of the water it produces. The remaining 10 percent is supplied via
groundwater through District-owned wells. Even during drought years, the District is able to
continuously supply the required amounts of water to its customers as well as maintain a high
degree of water quality. The UWMP found that water supply in the forecast period was
reliable both in normal and dry years due to the fact that 90 percent of the water comes from
Lake Tahoe. In 2008, the average daily flow was 1.46 million gallons per day (mgd). During
the eleven year period from 2000 to 2010, the District supplied an average of 519 million
gallons (mg) (i.e. 1,593 af) during a year (PRDE Inc.4, 2013).
WATER DEMAND
The Lake Tahoe region is a destination area driven by a tourist-based economy. An influx of
tourists and second homeowners surges into the area during the high seasons of summer and
winter. The tourist population increases the water demand both in their residential
occupancies as well as their impact on commercial connections such as hotels and
restaurants. Additionally, large variations in demand occur due to the different types of
communities in the service area. For example, increases in occupancy and landscape
irrigation, especially at the larger condominium complexes, result in demand fluctuations,
whereas the greater number of full-time residents in the Kings Beach system dampens out this
effect, resulting in moderate variations in use.
The District’s Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP)5 describes the actual water use and
projected water demands from 2010 to 2030. The District began metering its water in 1984,
so the UWMP uses water production data from 1984 through 1997 to evaluate past and
present trends of water use within the District’s service area. As of 2014 the District had
approximately 3,828 water service connections6 and this includes 3140 single family, 255
multi-family, 245 commercial, 72 irrigation, and 116 fire service connections.
The District’s total water deliveries of 1,485 acre-feet per year in 2010 and 1,299 acre-feet
per year in 2014 (NTPUD7, 2015). This demand for water is projected to increase to 3,079
acre-feet per year in 2030. The UWMP states that the supply will meet this demand in normal
and dry years because Lake Tahoe provides a readily available source of water, and
3 The UWMP is available on the District’s website at: <http://ntpud.org/sites/default/files/
docs/engineering/NTPUD %20UWMP%20Adopted%20July%209%202013.pdf>.
4 See Table 2-1a on page 9 of the UWMP.
5 PRDE Inc. 2013
6 Per NTPUD’s website at http://ntpud.org/utility-operations
7 Per NTPUD’s website at http://ntpud.org/utility-operations
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 10, North Tahoe PUD 10-17
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
groundwater wells are typically unimpacted by dry years. The number of water accounts is
projected to increase to a total of 4,478 in 2030, using the population growth rate of 0.74
percent. As noted previously, the UWMP assumed that the maximum additional development
within the NTPUD boundaries is 1,002 dwelling units over the next 20-year period (PRDE Inc.,
2013).
Billing records in 2010 indicate that the District’s system losses are 35 percent of overall
production, while the industry average is 10 percent. Unaccounted-for water can be caused
by unauthorized users, malfunctioning systems controls, inaccurate meters, system flushing,
leak repair flushing, hydrant leaks, street sweeping system flushing, leak repair flushing,
hydrant leaks, street sweeping or leaking pipes. Unaccounted-for water is expected to be
reduced by operative measures such as the active water main replacement project, meter
replacement plan, passive leak detection programs, and other water conservation efforts.
In order to meet the State’s minimum water use reduction requirements, water districts are
asked to develop per capita water use targets for 2015 and 2020. These targets are intended
to meet the goal of reducing statewide per capita water consumption by 20 percent by the
year 2020. The District is committed to meeting the 2015 and 2020 targets for demand
reduction and has already seen a decrease in the annual daily per capita water use from 2008
to 2010. Additionally, due to the on-going drought, in 2015 Governor Brown issued Executive
Order8 B-29-15 declaring a state of emergency due to drought and requiring a statewide
statewide 25% reduction in potable urban water use. The installation of residential water
meters, dedicated irrigation meters for commercial and institutional water accounts,
residential plumbing retrofits, the new 2010 California Building Code, and the 2009 Uniform
Plumbing Code requirements will continue to result in reductions in water demands. The
District has also implemented a portion of system water audits and leak detection, and
repairs for their entire water system. The focus now will be completing the implementation
of the water loss management strategies and addressing the best management practices
discussed in the UWMP.
WATER DISTRIBUTION AND TRANSMISSION
The District water distribution system is comprised of 45 miles of water lines with pipes range
from one to 14 inches in diameter. The District operates three separate and independent
water systems: the Tahoe Main, Carnelian Bay, and the Dollar Cove system. The Tahoe Main
water system draws water from Lake Tahoe through an intake at the end of National Avenue
in Tahoe Vista, as well as a single groundwater well located in the North Tahoe Regional Park
at end of Donner Road. The water pumped from Lake Tahoe is treated at the National Avenue
Water Treatment Plant using both ultraviolet and chlorine disinfection processes, and
provides water to the communities of Kings Beach and Tahoe Vista. The Carnelian system
serves the community of Carnelian Bay and receives its water from a well. This system is also
tied into the Agate Bay Water Supply Company for emergency uses in case of well failure or
8 The Executive Order is available on this website: http://gov.ca.gov/docs/4.1.15_Executive_Order.pdf
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 10, North Tahoe PUD 10-18
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
repair. The Dollar Cove system purchases treated water from the Tahoe City Public Utility
District and serves the Dollar Cove community. The water received from the Tahoe City Public
Utility District is a well blend that is comprised of five separate wells.
WATER INFRASTRUCTURE AND FACILITIES
The District began providing water treatment, distribution, and operation services in 1967 by
acquiring several privately owned water systems from local developments. The District serves
water to approximately 3,828 water connections and produces an average of 1.1 million
gallons (3.6 AF) of potable water daily9. Its storage capacity of 4.15 million gallons is held in
seven water tanks. There are six pressure zones and three booster systems. Water is
supplied to the District via two wells and three lake intakes (NTPUD, 2015). Only one of the
three lake intakes, the National Ave intake, is currently in operation. The 45 miles of water
lines have an average age of 32.1 years. Much of the water distribution system was built in
the 1960s and 1970s and was built for part-time ownership.
The District operates three separate and independent water systems, the Tahoe Main,
Carnelian Bay, and the Dollar Cove system. The Tahoe Main water system draws water from
Lake Tahoe through an intake at the end of National Avenue in Tahoe Vista, as well as a single
groundwater well located in the North Tahoe Regional Park at end of Donner Road. The Main
system serves the communities of Kings Beach and Tahoe Vista. The Main system has 3,326
connections and serves between 5,000 and 10,000 customers, which fluctuates on a seasonal
basis due to tourism. The water pumped from Lake Tahoe is treated at the National Avenue
Water Treatment Plant using both ultraviolet and chlorine disinfection processes, and
provides approximately 90 percent of the water produced by the District (PRDE Inc., 2013).
The Carnelian system serves the community of Carnelian Bay and receives its water from a
well. This system is also tied into the Agate Bay Water Supply Company for emergency uses in
case of well failure or repair; however, the unreliability of the source and unsuitability of the
adjoining system as a backup underscore the need for an additional water source. The
Carnelian system has 273 connections and serves between 600 and 900 customers, a number
fluctuates on a seasonal basis due to tourism (PRDE Inc., 2013).
The Dollar Cove system serves the community of Dollar Cove and purchases its water from the
Tahoe City Public Utility District. With a contract for supply, including the jointly developed
well and other TCPUD sources, NTPUD has a reliable source capacity. With respect to
emergency reserves, the existing lake source is inactive, but upon reactivation could supply
240 gpm, if necessary. The water received from the Tahoe City Public Utility District is a well
blend that is comprised of five separate wells. The Dollar Cove system also has a lake intake
that is no longer in use. The Dollar Cove system has 273 connections and serves between 800
and 1,600 customers depending on the season. Together, the three combined systems
supplied just over 483 million gallons of water to customers in 2010 (PRDE Inc., 2013).
9 NTPUD’s website at <http://ntpud.org/utility-operations> indicates 423.3 MG per year and divided
by 356 equals 1.1 MG per day on average.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 10, North Tahoe PUD 10-19
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
The District’s 1999 Master Water Plan10 provides a full detailed study with costs concerning
the interconnection of the District’s internal water systems. Interconnection of the three
water systems would be beneficial from a redundancy and reliability standpoint and source
capacity at one site could be used as backup capacity to other sources. For example a second
well within the Carnelian system would provide enough capacity to supply Dollar Cove and
provide a backup to the Kings Beach system, thereby lowering the treatment capacity
required to be developed at the National Avenue lake intake. If either source serving the
Kings Beach/Tahoe Vista municipal area were to fail during a period of above average usage,
water outages and public health issues could be experienced (NTPUD, WMP, 1999).
The District owns and maintains a water treatment plant that uses a SWTR Filtration
Avoidance Criteria whereby potential pathogens are not physically filtered from raw water.
Instead, the pathogens are inactivated using two disinfection barriers. Chlorine is the first
barrier used and it provides 4 log virus inactivation and 0.5 Giardia inactivation. UV
disinfection is the second barrier used and it provides 0.5 log virus inactivation, 3 log Giardia
inactivation and 2 log Cryptosporidium inactivation (TWSA, 2009).
WATER IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
Every year, NTPUD updates its Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and shares it with the
public via its website11. The purpose of the CIP budget document is to serve as a planning tool
that coordinates the financing and scheduling of major projects undertaken by the District.
These projects include design, construction, or rehabilitation of District buildings or facilities;
public infrastructure design and construction; and park design and construction projects.
10 The NTPUD Water Master Plan is available on the District’s website at: http://ntpud.org/master-
plans.
11 The current Capital Improvement Plan may be viewed on-line at: http://ntpud.org/financial-
information .
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 10, North Tahoe PUD 10-20
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
The District’s goal in providing a CIP budget is to develop a five-year plan for capital
improvements that will follow needs identified within the Sewer and Pump Station, Water,
and Parks and Recreation Master Plans. These documents identify needs for infrastructure
replacement and/or rehabilitation, along with maintenance and operations records that
detail current impacts of system deficiencies. In determining the relative merit of a proposed
project, key management team members evaluate projects for feasibility, community
enhancement, infrastructure and historic preservation, and safety.
A total of 17 water improvement projects are listed in the FY 14/15 CIP; although only four of
those projects received funding in FY14/15. The four capital improvement projects include
Kings Beach Commercial Core Waterline Relocations, Kingswood 500 Tank, 120 Booster Demo
& Griff Creek Restoration, Canterbury Water Main Replacement Project Phase 1, and the
Kings Beach Water Storage Tank Rehabilitation for a total of $1,110,000 in expenditures.
Some of the District’s future improvement projects for water include:
• Dolly Varden Water Main Replacement Project
• National Avenue Water Treatment Plant Improvements Phases 3 & 4
• National Avenue Water Treatment Plant Third Booster Pump Installation
• Carnelian Woods #1 Water Storage Tank Rehabilitation
• Canterbury Water Main Replacement Project Phase 2
• Carnelian to Watson Creek Water Main Replacement Project
Recently completed water projects include the Kingswood Water Main Replacement Project,
the Secline Pump Station Rehabilitation, the C-1 Wet Well and Dry Well Modifications, the
Carnelian Bay Water West Main Replacement, the Zone 2 Water Tank Project, the Tahoe
Marina Estates Water Line Replacement Project, the Cutthroat Water Main Replacement, the
Kingswood Booster Pump Station Stairs, the Dollar Cove Water Treatment Study, the Lincoln
Green Water Line Replacement, the Kingswood West Tank Security Fence, and the Beaver
Street Water and Sewer Line Replacement Project.
OPPORTUNITIES TO SHARE WATER FACILITIES
NTPUD partners with a number of government, non-profit, and private water organizations to
increase its efficiency in providing water service to its customers. In 1983, the District
entered into an Agreement for Mutual Emergency Aid12 with thirteen special/independent
districts located nearby in both California and Nevada to share personnel who are trained in
the emergency and operation and repair of sewage and water collection, transportation and
treatment facilities, together with equipment, materials and supplies required for such
operation and/or repair as may be necessary during emergency conditions (NTPUD, 2013).
12 A copy of the 1983 Agreement for Mutual Aid is located in an appendix to the 2010 UWMP at:
<http://ntpud.org/sites/default/files/docs/engineering/NTPUD%20UWMP%20Adopted%20July%209%20
2013.pdf>.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 10, North Tahoe PUD 10-22
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
In 1992, the NTPUD and Tahoe City Public Utility District entered into an agreement to jointly
develop a ground water source in the Dollar Hill area, which is located just west of Cedar
Flat. A pipeline interconnection was constructed in 1995 between the TCPUD system in the
Highlands NTPUD On-going Water Systems Improvement Projects subdivision and the Dollar
Cove water tank. The two wells constructed under this agreement were placed into operation
in December 1996. Use of the interconnection began in May 1997 but still awaits the
execution of an operating agreement between the Districts.
NTPUD’s boundaries are geographically laid out linearly along the Lake. As such, access along
the shoreline can be limited by excess traffic during major weekends or inclement weather.
Typically, maintaining one system is more cost-efficient than maintaining three separate
systems as the District does with the Dollar Cove, Carnelian Bay, and Tahoe Main water
systems. However, due to the systems’ geographic location around the Lake, the capital costs
of connecting these systems along with the costs of infrastructure maintenance could exceed
the cost benefits of connecting the system. As a result, the District has created temporary
connections with adjacent independent systems to provide emergency supplies. The adjacent
water systems are Tahoe City Public Utility District (TCPUD), Incline Village General
Improvement District (IVGID), Fulton Water Company (FW), and Agate Bay Water Company
(ABW) (see Figure 10.5). These water systems have their own water treatment and supply
systems. To enable the District to have uninterrupted water service capability, a valve
connection from the District’s water distribution system to TCPUD is in place and is currently
maintained by NTPUD.
Since the interconnections with IVGID, FW, and ABW are not regularly maintained or
necessarily reliable, they are utilized only for temporary and/or partial water service. The
interconnection valves between the District and IVGID, FW, and ABW allow the District to
sometimes serve as an alternate water source for these agencies. The District is currently
planning to undertake a CIP to upgrade the existing facilities, and completion of these
improvements will reduce the need to rely on adjacent systems for emergency support.
NTPUD has indicated that it has no plans to merge with any of the adjacent private water
systems. Nonetheless, a few of the adjacent water service providers have experienced supply
and/or operational problems in the past and acquisition has been tentatively discussed as a
means of resolving these issues. NTPUD would likely wish to analyze the net public benefits
and economic feasibility before furthering future discussions regarding acquisition of adjacent
providers.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 10, North Tahoe PUD 10-23
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
It should also be noted that NTPUD is a member of the Tahoe Water Suppliers Association
(TWSA) which is focused on protecting water quality within the Lake Tahoe basin. The TWSA
was formed in 2003, partially in response to the Surface Water Treatment Rule promulgated
by the 1986 Safe Drinking Water Act. Water suppliers in the Lake Tahoe area who are also a
member of TWSA includes: Douglas County Utilities (Zephyr Cove, Skyland and Cave Rock),
Edgewood Water Company, Glenbrook Water Company, Incline Village General Improvement
District, Kingsbury General Improvement District, Lakeside Park Association, North Tahoe
Public Utilities District, Round Hill General Improvement District, and Tahoe City Public
Utility District. South Tahoe Public Utility District joined as an associate member in 2008.
Together, these water suppliers (under the auspices of TWSA) jointly prepared a very
comprehensive sanitary survey and watershed control plan to protect water quality in Lake
Tahoe and this document is available on-line at: http://ntpud.org/sites/default
/files/docs/conservation/TWSA%20Sanitary %20Survey%202009%20Update%20FINAL.pdf .
NTPUD participates in the Truckee North Tahoe Joint Information Response Team to
coordinate public information and response in the event of a major emergency in the area12.
NTPUD is also exploring a potential future partnership with the North Tahoe Fire Protection
District to explore ways to jointly conduct public outreach and promote public awareness on
water conservation and fire safety awareness13.
WATER SERVICE ADEQUACY
The District’s water facilities are currently sized to adequately serve the existing connections
within the service area. Water supply has historically exceeded demand due to the nature of
water source; however, backup systems are also in place should any of the water systems fail.
Additionally, the District has been working to reduce water demand and has already seen a
decrease in the annual daily per capita water use from 2008 to 2009 and 2010. The
installation of residential water meters, dedicated irrigation meters for commercial and
institutional water accounts, residential plumbing retrofits, the new California Building Code,
and the 2009 Uniform Plumbing Code requirements will continue to result in reductions in
water demands. The District has also implemented a portion of system water audits and leak
detection, and repairs for their entire water system.
10.9: WASTEWATER SERVICE
WASTEWATER SERVICE OVERVIEW
NTPUD began providing sewer service and operations in 1948. The District collects sewage
from connections within its service area and exports the raw sewage to the Tahoe-Truckee
Sanitation Agency (T-TSA) water reclamation facility for treatment. The District has an
13 Source of information: May 2015 NTPUD meeting packet. Available on-line at
<http://ntpud.org/sites/default/files/board/packets/20150508164437206.pdf>.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 10, North Tahoe PUD 10-25
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
interagency agreement with Tahoe-Truckee Sanitation Agency (T-TSA) for T-TSA to treat
NTPUD’s wastewater. NTPUD collects wastewater and conveys it to a connection point with
the T-TSA, and T-TSA conveys the flow through an interceptor pipeline to a treatment plant
in Truckee. The T-TSA was founded in 1972 in response to the Porter Cologne Water Quality
Control Act, which was enacted to protect Lake Tahoe and Truckee River water quality. T-TSA
provides regional wastewater treatment service to several Tahoe-area communities through
the Agency’s five sewage collection districts. NTPUD is a member agency of the T-TSA which
treats and disposes of the wastewater delivered to the facility by the sewage collection
agencies.
NTPUD operated its wastewater collection system during the years 2006 to 2013 consistent
with Statewide General Waste Discharge Requirements from the State Water Resources
Control Board, Order No. WQ 2006-0003-DWQ –for Wastewater Collection Agencies14. In
August of 2012, the NTPUD received a letter from the CRWQCB, Lahontan Region, notifying
the District of non-compliance with the requirements in the Sanitary Sewer Collection System
Order (WDID 6SSO11110)15. The non-compliance was related to a discharge of 129,500 gallons
of untreated sewage into Lake Tahoe on December 19, 2010. The non-compliance resulted in
Administrative Civil Liability Order No. R6T-2012-004016. The District has since produced an
updated Sewer System Management Plan and has taken other corrective actions to address
the concerns of the RWQCB. In 2013 the RWQCB permit was updated and entitled Order No.
WQ 2013-0058-EXEC – Amending Monitoring and Reporting Program for Statewide General
Waste Discharge Requirements for Sanitary Sewer Systems17. NTPUD is enrolled under this
program.
WASTEWATER SUPPLY AND DEMAND
Currently, the District serves 5,524 connections. A "connection" is a single living or
commercial unit which flows into the District's system. Multiple "connections" may be owned
by a single "customer'', and multiple connections may flow into one actual pipe which taps
into the system. NTPUD’s Risk Based Sewer Master Plan provides data and projections for
current and future wastewater flows as shown in Figure 10.6 below:
14 Order No. WQ 2006-0003-DWQ is available from the State Water Board website at:
<http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/board_decisions/adopted_orders/water_quality/2006/wqo/wqo200
6_0003.pdf >.
15 Details about the non-compliance are available on the State Water Board website:
<http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/rwqcb6/board_info/agenda/2012/jul/northtahoepud_acl.pdf>.
16 Administrative Civil Liability Order No. R6T-2012-0040 is available on-line at:
<http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/lahontan/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2012/docs/r6t_2012_00
40.pdf>.
17 The Amended Monitoring and Reporting Program for Statewide General Waste Discharge
Requirements is available on-line at: <http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/board_
decisions/adopted_orders/water_quality/2013/wqo2013_0058exec.pdf>.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 10, North Tahoe PUD 10-26
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
2009 Dry 2009 Wet 2029 Dry 2029 Wet
Weather Weather Weather Weather
Another way to consider future growth in demand for wastewater services is to compare the
existing number of housing units to projected numbers. As of the 2010 Census, it was
estimated that the District contained approximately 6,298 housing units18 and as of 2015,
6,519 housing units are estimated. By the year 2030, it is anticipated that an additional 1,000
units would be constructed. Assuming that each new unit would generate 300 gpd of
wastewater as a dry weather flow19, the calculated demand would be an additional 300,000
gpd or 0.3 mgd. This calculated demand is generally consistent with that shown in Figure
10.6 above. Since the District’s infrastructure was originally designed for a population of
100,000 and daily flow of 11 mgd, no shortage in wastewater transmission capacity exists.
WASTEWATER COLLECTION
NTPUD collects sewage from connections within the service area and exports the raw sewage
to the TTSA water reclamation facility for treatment. According to the District’s website20,
the sanitary sewer collection system consists of approximately 75 miles of gravity sewer pipe,
6.6 miles of force main, 4,699 lower laterals, 1,720 sewer manholes, four main collection
pumping facilities, and 16 satellite pumping facilities. The predominant pipe material is
asbestos cement, clay and PVC pipe. The average age of the lines is 27 years, and the lines
range in size from six inches to 36 inches diameter.
WASTEWATER INFRASTRUCTURE AND FACILITIES
The District maintains an intricate and in some cases rather old sewer collection and pumping
system which includes a 75-mile gravity collection system, seven and a-half miles of force
18 Data source for # of housing units in 2010 is: http://www.census.gov/2010census/popmap/
19 NTPUD’s Sewer System Master Plan, Table 8-4 indicates that a single family home would generate
300 gpd of wastewater as a dry weather flow.
20 http://ntpud.org/utility-operations
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 10, North Tahoe PUD 10-27
yaD
reP
snollaG
noilliM
ni
wolF
Figure 10.6: Design Flow Rates
Average Daily Flow
(MGD)
Peak Hour Flow
(MGD)
Source: NTPUD Sewer System Master Plan, 2013
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
main, and 20 various sewage pumping stations (NTPUD21, 2013). There are four main sewer
pump stations and each station contains several pumps. The most easterly station, Secline,
collects sewer flows from its surrounding tributary area and pumps them west to the National
station. The National station collects sewer flows from its tributary area and the flow from
Secline, and conveys the combined flow to the Carnelian station. Similarly, flows in the area
of the Carnelian station and the flow from the National station are collected at Carnelian,
and the combined flows are pumped to the Dollar station. Dollar then pumps the combined
sanitary sewer flow from the entire District service area, with the exception of a single
satellite pump station, west over Dollar Hill to a gravity interceptor, the North Shore Export
Line, where the wastewater is exported to the TTSA.
Each of the main sewer pump stations was designed for sewage flow rates far in excess of the
actual flows the area produces now and even in excess of flows projected through the year
2029. This situation has resulted in pumping equipment and force mains that are oversized for
current needs. Oversized equipment leads to high energy costs from pump motors that are
too large, do not operate efficiently, and cycle on and off excessively. Oversized force mains
result in low velocities and settling of solids within the pipe, leading to clogging and extended
retention time, which contributes to odor problems. In the years since the main pump
stations were built, the District has retrofitted each station with at least one smaller pump;
however, even these smaller pumps tend to be oversized for existing needs (NTPUD, 2013).
The District’s pipeline preventative operation and maintenance program consists of a system-
wide cleaning/inspection program on a rotating basis, as well as a more frequent
cleaning/inspecting program necessary to target known problem areas. These known problem
areas are commonly referred to as the “holiday lines” because they are scheduled to be
cleaned frequently, generally around major holidays. The cleaning/inspection schedule is
tracked and documented in the District’s asset management software LUCITY. For each
cleaning/inspection, crews are required to document their findings in a sewer cleaning log
and these findings are also used to develop the cleaning schedule (NTPUD, 2013).
Lift stations and force mains are regularly maintained by District staff. All maintenance
activities and their associated schedules are maintained in LUCITY. The District uses Closed
Circuit Television (CCTV) to assess gravity sewer pipe deficiencies and has adopted the
National Association of Sewer Service Companies (NASSCO) Pipeline Assessment and
Certification Program (PACP) standards to perform these assessments and condition grading.
Inspections are scheduled in LUCITY and cover the inspection of all gravity mainline and
manholes in the District over a six-year period, equating to approximately 12.5 miles per year
(NTPUD, 2013).
The sewage export system, including the force mains throughout the District, was installed
between 1968 and 1969. The force mains were installed with no viable way of inspecting the
inside of the pipe. With this in mind, the District verifies the internal condition of the force
21 Sewer System Management Plan is available at the District’s website:<http://ntpud.org/master-plans
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 10, North Tahoe PUD 10-28
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
mains at every given opportunity. In the past, the force main has been accidently damaged
from contractors working around it. When repairs were made, the force main was found to be
in good condition, and the tar wrap and concrete lining showed little to no wear. In the early
1980s, the District undertook the capital project of installing emergency bypass valves along
the length of the National and Carnelian force mains. The bypass valves provide an above-
ground emergency bypass provision in the event of a failure or accident affecting the use of
the main. At the time these valves were cut in, the physical condition of the force mains was
good. Routine maintenance on the force mains consists of exercising, rebuilding and/or
replacing the emergency bypass and the air release valves when needed. Scheduling of
service on these assets is based on observed operation noted while making the rounds per the
District’s Preventative Maintenance program.
The NTPUD has prepared a Main Sewer Pump Station Master Plan (2009) that evaluates and
recommends improvements for the four main sewer pump stations. Included in the Master
Plan are a CIP and Implementation Plan for the recommended improvements and suggested
installation priorities. Minor repair and replacement decisions for pipes, manholes, and lift
stations are made by the operations group and are scheduled according to priority. Major
repair and replacement projects are typically prioritized based on observed deficiencies,
failure events, and/or amount of crew time delegated to the asset. Significant improvements
requiring capital funding are reviewed with all District management and scheduled within the
capital planning process. Please see the section below entitled “Wastewater Improvement
Projects” for more information on the District’s annual CIP.
Although not part of the District, NTPUD does maintain a close relationship with TTSA, which
is located in Martis Valley, east of the Town of Truckee. Their 9.6-mgd advanced water
reclamation plant provides primary and secondary treatment, phosphorus removal, biological
nitrogen removal, disinfection, and effluent filtration. Because of its location in the Lake
Tahoe-Truckee River area, the plant is required to meet some of the most stringent discharge
requirements in the country. Final effluent polishing is achieved by routing the effluent
through the Soil Aquifer Treatment system, having the soil remove additional constituents as
the effluent percolates through it. Please see Chapter 16 of this MSR for more information on
TTSA.
WASTEWATER IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
As part of the annual budget process, the NTPUD’s engineer and operations managers
prioritize capital projects as necessary. The District’s 5- and 10-year CIP is also reviewed and
updated at this time. These processes are done in close coordination with the District’s CFO
to maintain alignment with resources. With projects, improvements, and funding identified,
staff recommends appropriate amounts for Board approval. Every year, NTPUD updates its
Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and shares it with the public via its website22. Once
authorized by the Board, the funds are available for use. Three recent improvement projects
22 The current Capital Improvement Plan may be viewed on-line at: <http://ntpud.org/financial-
information >.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 10, North Tahoe PUD 10-29
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
for wastewater include 1) the Carnelian & Dollar Sewer Pump Station Design – Phase 1,
completion date in 2014; and 2) the Brook Avenue Sewer Main Replacement Project with a
completion date in 2013; and the Beaver Street Water and Sewer Line Replacement Project.
The five-year CIP for sewer services shows that for FY 12/13 the District spent $1,022,801 on
three improvement projects including the Brook Avenue Sewer Main Replacement Project,
Carnelian/Dollar Pump Station Design, and the SCADA Server Replacement. In FY 13/14
$297,098 was expended on four projects including: Dollar Pump Station Construction Phase
Services; Kings Beach Watershed Improvements Sewer Relocations; New Transformer for
Dollar Sewer Pump Station; and Dollar Hill 22" Force Main Rehabilitation. In FY 14/15, the
District plans to expend $50,000 for the Carnelian Dry Well Repairs project (NTPUD, CIP,
2014).
OPPORTUNITIES TO SHARE WASTEWATER FACILITIES
The District collects wastewater within its service area and exports the raw sewage to the
Tahoe-Truckee Sanitation Agency water reclamation facility (TTSA) in Truckee for treatment,
resulting in the avoidance of needing several small package treatment plants as many other
districts in the area maintain. No opportunities to share wastewater facilities have been
identified by the District at this time.
WASTEWATER SERVICE ADEQUACY
NTPUD’s wastewater systems are adequate to serve the existing connections within the
District. The District has a current Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP) which summarizes
the legal authorization for the District to manage, maintain, and oversee the wastewater
system. Capacity of the system is adequate in that sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs) have not
occurred due to hydraulic limitations. Even though there are no known hydraulic capacity
limitations, the District has developed a Capital Improvement Program (CIP) to improve
reliability and/or operational efficiency. Implementation of the CIP is necessary to facilitate
the continued adequate wastewater service to customers.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 10, North Tahoe PUD 10-30
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
10.10: RECREATION AND PARKS
RECREATION AND PARKS OVERVIEW
NTPUD’s Recreation and Parks Department provides four primary types of recreation and
parks services including:
• Bike trail
• Beaches
• Parks and playgrounds
• North Tahoe Events Center at Kings Beach
Overall, the District owns and operates less than 200 acres of property throughout the North
Tahoe region, including the 108-acre North Tahoe Regional Park, Tahoe Vista Recreation
Area, and the 16,000-square foot North Tahoe Event Center.
Photo courtesy of www.laketahoenews.net
The District has a Recreation
and Parks Master Plan (2006-
2007) that provides goals,
policies, a needs assessment,
and recommendations to meet
public recreation needs over the
next 20 years. The Master Plan
also aids the District in
establishing eligibility for State,
federal, and private funding and
grants that can help to finance
future construction of facilities
and new programs. The Parks
Master Plan is readily available
to the public via the District’s website at: http://ntpud.org/master-plans.
In 1993 the NTPUD eliminated recreation programming along with staff for recreation
programming. Since that time, programs in the District have been limited in number and
scope. The NTPUD has mutually beneficial partnerships with some regional agencies for
funding events and maintenance of facilities, including the North Tahoe Business Association
(NTBA), the California Tahoe Conservancy (CTC), and the Boys and Girls Club of North Lake
Tahoe (BGCNLT). The District collaborates with the NTBA on a July 4 fireworks event, as well
as summer movies and summer concert events. The CTC provided funding for environmental
review of the District’s Dollar Point trail project, and the District maintains a CTC-owned
property. The District allocates a substantial portion of Measure C revenues to the BGCNLT for
youth programming and activities. Additionally, the NTPUD uses Measure C funds to subsidize
complimentary use of the facilities to youth sports leagues and adult softball leagues.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 10, North Tahoe PUD 10-31
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
RECREATION INFRASTRUCTURE AND FACILITIES
The District added Parks and Recreation to its services in 1968 for the residents, property
owners, and visitors of the District. The District owns and operates approximately 200 acres
of property throughout the North Tahoe region, including the 108-acre North Tahoe Regional
Park, Tahoe Vista Recreation Area, the Gentry Property and the 16,000-square foot North
Tahoe Event Center (PRDE Inc., 2013).
BIKE TRAIL AND SKI TRAILS
The District maintains a paved 1.5 mile asphalt bike trail called the Pinedrop Trail. This trail
extends from the North Tahoe Regional Park, through US Forest Service land, to Pinedrop
Lane (close to Highway 267) in the Kings Beach area.
There are proposals to add trail links, including one from Highway 28 to National Avenue and
a second nine-mile trail that will link NTRP to the existing bike trail that currently terminates
northeast of Tahoe City, commonly known as the proposed Dollar Creek Trail23. These
extensions of the bike trail will provide better linkages in the North Tahoe Area. Stakeholders
in the future bike trail extensions include the Tahoe Metropolitan Planning Organization at:
http://tahoempo.org/bike_projects.aspx? SelectedIndex=3; Tahoe Transportation District at
http://tahoetransportation.org/; Tahoe Regional Planning Agency at
http://www.trpa.org/programs/air-quality-transportation/ and Placer County at
http://www.placer.ca.gov/Departments/Works/Projects/ DollarCreekBikeTrail.aspx .
The NTPUD also maintains USFS trails as groomed cross country ski trails for winter recreation
purposes.
BEACHES
Secline Beach/Griff Creek consists of a small beach with amenities limited to picnic tables,
barbecues and a temporary restroom in the summer. Limited parking is available. The Griff
Creek portion of the site is a Stream Environment Zone (SEZ), a special buffer zone of marsh,
grasses, and a pond to protect riparian habitat. Located just south of the junction of Hwy 267
and North Lake Blvd, the beach area and picnic site is comprised of a set of parcels owned
variously by Placer County, the California Tahoe Conservancy, and the NTPUD.
The Tahoe Vista Recreational Area (TVRA), a 2.7-acre park area, is located along Lake Tahoe
in Tahoe Vista and was completed in July 2006. Parking to support this lakeside beach facility
is planned along National Avenue with construction of such dependent upon receipt of grant
funding. The park has a major boat launch facility, picnicking, and 800 feet of lakeshore
frontage. The boat launch includes an area for wash-down prior to launching that serves to
reduce noxious weeds in the lake and at the launch facilities. The park design incorporates
sustainable design features including permeable paving and storm water detention facilities.
23 Details on the proposed Dollar Creek Trail can be found at:
<http://www.tahoedailytribune.com/news/ 13292591-113/property-county-trail-firestone>.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 10, North Tahoe PUD 10-32
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
The 3.6-acre support parcel at the intersection of North Lake Boulevard (Highway 28) and
National Avenue includes automobile parking, boat trailer parking, fee collection facilities,
bicycle trails, a transportation shelter, pedestrian circulation facilities, and landscaping
elements.
The District maintains several beach properties they do not own or lease, but have
contractual maintenance agreements with the owners.
The Coon Street Picnic Area and Dog Park is owned by the California Department of Boating
and Waterways and is maintained by NTPUD. It is approximately one acre on the eastern side
of Coon Street opposite the Coon Street Boat Launch and consists of a patch of green space, a
rocky beach, and a few picnic tables. The boat launch facility, less than one acre in size,
contains a concrete boat launch ramp with adjacent wood dock, restroom, parking and picnic
facilities. The picnic area also serves as an informal dog park. The California State
Department of Boating and Waterways owns this property and contracts the District to
maintain it.
Beaches that are owned by Placer County and maintained by NTPUD include:
• Moon Dunes Beach
• Steamer’s Beach
• Speedboat (formerly known as Buck’s) Beach, and
• several unnamed beaches
Funding for the maintenance of the County owned beaches is provided through an agreement
between NTPUD and Placer County.
Beaches that are owned by the California Tahoe Conservancy and maintained by NTPUD
include:
• North Tahoe Beach
• Sandy Beach
• portions of the aforementioned Secline Beach and
• portions of the aforementioned Moon Dunes Beach
For 36 years, between 1978 to 2014, NTPUD maintained and operated the Kings Beach State
Recreation Area which is owned by the California State Parks. In May of 2014, State Parks
assumed responsibility for maintaining and operating this area. The reasons for this transfer
of responsibility were due to the expiration of the contract between NTPUD and State Parks
and due to the financial investment needed to bring the property into compliance with the
requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Areas identified for work needed to
improve universal access are the picnic and grilling areas; paths; curbs; stairs; and a half-
inch surface differential in paving in some areas. Kings Beach continues to open to the public
and both State Parks and NTPUD have worked out a transition plan to coordinate vehicular for
the property.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 10, North Tahoe PUD 10-33
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
PARKS AND PLAYGROUNDS
NTPUD owns and operates two major parks – North Tahoe Regional Park and the Tahoe Vista
Recreation Area. The 124.5-acre North Tahoe Regional Park (NTRP) has over six miles of
trails and large areas of undeveloped open space that connect into adjacent National Forest
Land and Placer County open space. Park facilities are on three large terraces, the result of
filling and grading for the land’s former use as sewerage ponds. See also the Tahoe Vista
Recreational Area which is described under “beaches” above.
NORTH TAHOE EVENTS CENTER AT KINGS BEACH
Located adjacent to the Kings Beach State Recreation Area (KSBRA), the North Tahoe
Conference Center (NTCC) is a major meeting space for the North Tahoe community. The
16,170-square-foot facility accommodates meetings, conferences, and classes in its eight
meeting rooms and on its outdoor terrace overlooking the Lake. The terrace at the
Conference Center connects to the promenade that runs through KBSRA and provides passive
recreation opportunities, while KBSRA’s sandy beachfront continues past the NTCC. Parking is
available in the adjacent KBSRA parking area. Owned and operated by the District, the Center
is supported variably by user fees, Measure C funds, and Resort Association grants. The Center
is available to the community for rental as well as for community events. The Center’s prime
shoreside location makes it popular for wedding events, which generate the greatest bulk of
rental income. Currently, the Center’s primary community recreation functions are
community meetings and fitness classes. Issues for the exterior spaces include the drop off
from the terrace onto the beach and no detectable warnings at flush walks adjacent to
vehicular routes.
OTHER MISC. PARK RELATED PROPERTIES
The District’s undeveloped property is called the Mogilefsky Property. The 16.5-acre
Mogilefsky property is located north of the NTRP and has potential as a winter sports facility
such as a snow mobile park. This forested property also has modest view opportunities to
Lake Tahoe. Due to its adjacency to US Forest Service land, Mogilefsky provides a vital link in
the regional trail system, as well as providing a suitable space to develop campsites. In 2014,
the NTPUD Board approved a request to transfer ownership of the Firestone property to
Placer County. In addition to the trail, a new community center and swimming pool were
once proposed for the Firestone site; however, the funds could not be raised in the
community after a failed bond measure.
NTPUD maintains the baseball field which is owned by the Catholic Church, leased to Little
League Baseball, and is located adjacent to the Kings Beach Elementary School property. The
Kings Beach Neighborhood Park consists of a multi-use field owned by the Kings Beach
Elementary School, maintained by NTPUD, and located adjacent to the Boys and Girls Club.
(Royston et.al., 2006).
The District also maintains the grounds of the Kings Beach County Library.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 10, North Tahoe PUD 10-34
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
PARK MAINTENANCE AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
The Park Master Plan reported that maintenance of park facilities is an on-going concern,
including accommodation of universal access consistent with the Americans with Disabilities
Act (ADA) and California Title 24 and compliance with safety codes for playgrounds by the
Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). Nearly all play equipment at NTRP is in need of
some repair, upgrade, or replacement for safety and universal access. The District did receive
a grant to improve the surfacing of a park playground. Given the natural topographic
variability in some of the parks, creating universal access for the elderly and/or handicap
remains an issue. Other maintenance concerns include erosion, drainage problems, soil
compaction, and overuse of turf areas. NTPUD maintains most of the public beaches on the
north shore of Lake Tahoe. The NTPUD also maintains USFS trails as groomed cross country ski
trails. Currently, the USFS is working on a Trail Implementation Plan to manage, adopt, build
trails, and close user-made trails. All of this maintenance is the responsibility of a limited
number of full-time maintenance workers which the District employs to handle routine
maintenance. Larger maintenance projects are sometimes deferred until summer when the
District hires additional seasonal workers (Royston et. al., 2006).
Deferred maintenance at NTPUD park and recreation facilities has been cited as a problem in
several local newspaper articles24. For example, it is estimated that the North Tahoe
Regional Park is in need of nearly $1 million in deferred maintenance.
FUNDING FOR PARK MAINTENANCE
Funding for maintenance of park and recreation facilities is provided by a Community
Facilities District (CFD) 94-1 which is a Mello Roos assessment. The assessment was approved
by in 1992. Formation of CFD 94-1 has allowed the District to construct the Tahoe Vista
Recreation Area and to improve the regional park. Funds collected from this assessment also
provide an annual subsidy to local youth organizations focused on youth recreational
programs.
In 2015, CFD 94-1 provides approximately $555,000 for the upkeep, operation and
maintenance of District facilities and youth program subsidies. Daily use fees, parking fees
and rent paid by concessionaires provide a small, but additional amount of revenue for
recreation services. Currently, no property tax money or other funding sources go toward the
operation of these facilities. In order to raise some funds to pay for the deferred
maintenance, the District raised the rates for parking at the North Tahoe Regional Park year
round and it began enforcing (rather than the previous honor system) the parking fee
requirement. In 2014, the parking fee for non-residents during peak season was $10 and
during the off-season (Oct. 1 to May 31) the parking fee was $5. Residents of the District can
park for free, provided they have a PUD sticker.
24 http://www.moonshineink.com/news/state-parks-manage-kings-beach-state-recreation-area
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 10, North Tahoe PUD 10-35
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
The provision of funding for park maintenance continues to be studied by the District. Many
other districts located in popular tourism areas face similar challenges.
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FOR PARKS
NTPUD’s five-year Capital Improvement Program sets forth infrastructure needs and a capital
plan. The projected expenditures for all future projects are provided primarily for planning
purposes and are not a commitment of funds. Expenditure approval will be sought for these
projects during the appropriate Fiscal Year. Operating and maintenance costs can include
labor, materials, equipment, utilities, as well as contracted cost for services. These costs
would vary depending upon the specific project.
The past 2013-14 CIP allocated $100,000 towards the TVRA Lakeside Drainage Detention Pond
Basin. The 2012-13 CIP allocated $30,000 towards the Pine Drop Bike Trail Railings and
Repairs and $2.6 million towards the Tahoe Vista Recreation Area Phase II project.
Funding future capital expenditures for recreation is a challenge for NTPUD. While the
District has been quite successful at finding grant funds and working with partners in the past,
it is not clear that these methods/opportunities will be sufficient for future needs. Also,
funding for operations and maintenance of existing facilities will continue to be a budgetary
concern. According to a recent survey conducted by the NTPUD Recreation and Parks
Department, the majority of park users in the service area are opposed to new fees or taxes
to support park services, and yet the majority of park users at least occasionally utilize the
District’s recreational facilities. Compounding the future funding issue is that park users are a
mix of permanent residents, vacation home-owners, overnight (hotel) visitors, and day-time
visitors. Finding a fair and affordable method for each type of park user to contribute
towards future funding is a recognized challenge.
OPPORTUNITIES TO SHARE RECREATION FACILITIES
NTPUD maintains agreements with several organizations to serve both resident and visitor
recreational services including Placer County, California Tahoe Conservancy, and the Truckee-
Tahoe Unified School District. The sharing of parks and facilities produces cost-saving
measures through a reduction in operating costs and maintenance, which can be shared across
the agencies involved. In most of these cases, the other organization actually owns the
property and/or facilities and invites NTPUD to maintain and operate the property/facility
through contractual arrangements. This allows the property/facility owners to benefit from
the expertise that NTPUD has in maintaining and operating these facilities and in working with
the general public in this region.
RECREATION SERVICE ADEQUACY
NTPUD provides a wide range of recreation services to both residents and visitors of the area
including a bike trail, ski trails, beaches, parks, playgrounds, and the North Tahoe Events
Center at Kings Beach. Recreational opportunities are an attractive feature which draws
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 10, North Tahoe PUD 10-36
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
visitors to the region. Additionally, the Parks Department maintains its own website
(separate from the NTPUD website) that provides up-to-date information to park visitors at:
http://northtahoeparks.com/ .
According to the Parks Master Plan, recreational facilities require upgrading, and expansion is
desirable. However, funding for capital improvements to recreational amenities, as well as
ongoing operations and maintenance of these facilities, is an ongoing issue, with the Parks
Department exceeding its annual budget in FY 2012. Additionally, there has been recent
transition of maintenance and daily operation of Kings Beach State Recreation Area to the
California State Parks Department.
Every year, NTPUD updates its Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and shares it with the
public via its website25. Please see the section above entitled “Park Maintenance and Capital
Improvements” for more information regarding the CIP and regarding deferred maintenance
issues.
The recreational services provided by NTPUD are wide ranging. Although CFD 94-1 and other
user fees provide funding for operation and routine maintenance, the District’s investment in
long-term capital improvements for park facilities seems to remain a challenge.
10.11: FINANCING
NTPUD prepares an annual budget, CIP, and an audited financial statement. All of these
financial documents are readily available to the general public on the District’s website at:
<http://ntpud.org/financial-information>. Budgets are adopted in public meetings on an
annual basis. The fiscal year begins on July 1 and ends on June 30.
Disclaimer: The financial information provided in this MSR section was accurate as of its
writing in 2014. However, the District updates its financial information on an annual basis.
Therefore, the financial information in this MSR has been superseded and readers are
encouraged to read the newer financial statements and budgets published by the District on
their website at: <http://ntpud.org/financial-information>.
It should also be noted that the NTPUD operates the North Tahoe Building Corporation, a
California nonprofit public benefit corporation which serves as a financing vehicle for the
PUD. The Corporation is controlled by the same governing authority, utilizes the same
management, and is financially dependent upon the District. Its operations are influenced by
the District and the District is responsible for its fiscal management, budgetary control,
surpluses and deficits, and provides the sole source of its revenues. As a non-profit entity,
the Corporation provides financing for the District’s renovation of its sewer, water and
recreation systems (Damore et.al., 2015). Additional information about the North Tahoe
25 The current Capital Improvement Plan may be viewed on-line at: http://ntpud.org/financial-
information .
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 10, North Tahoe PUD 10-37
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
Building Corporation is available on the PUD’s website, in the PUD’s audited financial
statement, and from California State Controller’s Office.
REVENUES AND EXPENSES
This section describes sources of revenues and expenses for NTPUD. The District receives
revenue from several sources including fees levied on service connections, funds from
Community Facilities District 94-1 (a Mello-Roos district), property tax, grants and other
sources. Most of these revenues are utilized in the general fund and three major enterprise
funds: sewer fund, water fund, and recreation fund. Grant funds are used for capital
improvements. In the past, the District received several grants for projects identified in its
CIP including: $1,732,000 from the State of California Department of Boating and Waterways
for TVRA Phase II parking lot; $500,000 from Placer County for TVRA Phase II Parking lot; and
$500,000 from the North Lake Tahoe Resort Association for the TVRA Phase II Parking lot
project.
The most recent independent auditor’s report was prepared for FY13/14 and dated February
9, 2015, and was attached to the PUD’s Financial Statements. The audit found that financial
information was presented fairly and in accordance with accounting principles generally
accepted in the United States of America (Damore et. al., 2015). In the two fiscal years
studied (FY 12/13 and 13/14) revenues exceeded expenses in both years, increasing the PUD’s
Net Position. The PUD’s overall Net Position (the difference between assets and liabilities)
was positive at over $5 million for both FY 12/13 and FY13/14) as shown in Figure 10.7, below
(Damore et.al., 2015). The Net Position for the Recreation Fund was just over $40,000 in
both fiscal years; one hundred times less than the water enterprise fund. Given that the
Recreation Department has over $15 million in capital assets, its disparity in annual Net
Position is abstract.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 10, North Tahoe PUD 10-38
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
Figure 10.7: Net Position of Three
Enterprise Funds
$5,000,000
$4,500,000
$4,000,000
$3,500,000
$3,000,000
$2,500,000
FY 12/13
$2,000,000
FY13/14
$1,500,000
$1,000,000
$500,000
$0
sewer water recreation
Source: Damore et. al., 2015
In FY 13/14, revenues for the District exceeded $11 million; well above expenditures
(Damore et. al., 2015). Major sources of revenue is shown in Figure 10.8 below.
Figure 10.8: Revenue Sources FY 13/14
Misc
Grants
1%
2%
Capital Contrib
Invest Income 1%
0%
Prop Tax & CFD
Service charges
94-1
49%
38%
Rec
Events
& Prg
9%
Source: Damore et. al., 2015
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 10, North Tahoe PUD 10-39
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
Expenditures for FY 13/14 were just over $10 million (less than revenues allowing for a
positive net position) (Damore et. al., 2015). Categories for expenditures in FY 13/14 are
shown in Figure 10.9, below.
Figure 10.9: Expense Categories
FY 13/14
Interest
Fiscal Agent
Expense
1%
2%
Depreciation
22%
Operating
Expense
Admin 50%
25%
Source: Damore et. al., 2015.
LONG-TERM LIABILITIES AND DEBTS
Upgrading the water, sewer, and recreation facilities represents a significant capital
improvement. To finance these capital expenditures, the PUD has encumbered loans from a
variety of sources, including the previously described North Tahoe Building Corporation. The
PUD is currently paying off these long term debts. Current Liabilities cay be paid from
“Current Assets” ($1,031,835 as of June 2014) or from “Restricted Assets” ($118,361 as of
June 2014). Noncurrent Liabilities stand at $3,947,528 as of June 2014 (Damore et.al. 2015).
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
The Dollar Pump Station Rehabilitation project was the most significant improvement
projected funded through the Sewer Fund recently, and it accounted for $2,311,789 of the
increase in the Construction in Process portion of fixed assets. The Minnow Water Main
Replacement Project was the most significant improvement projected funded through the
Water Fund last year at a cost of $346,207. Private land developers also contribute capital
improvements to the District to serve new housing and commercial developments (Damore
et.al., 2015). The District regularly updates its capital improvement plan and makes it
available via its website.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 10, North Tahoe PUD 10-40
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
RATE RESTRUCTURING
In 2007, the District passed a rate increase in order to cover the necessary funds for a capital
replacement program, as outlined in the CIP. The CIP projects include design, construction,
or rehabilitation of District buildings or facilities; public infrastructure design and
construction; and park design and construction projects.
Water Department funding comes exclusively from user rates. Water rates are shown below
in the District’s Table 10.9. A typical single-family residential home pays a water service fee
of approximately $65.27 per month and this allows for 6,000 gallons per month and 200
gallons per day, with additional charges with every additional 1,000 gallons used monthly.
Rates for multi-family and mixed-use uses vary depending on meter size.
Sewer Department funding comes primarily from user rates and a portion of the property tax
revenue that is collected by Placer County. A typical single-family residential home pays a
monthly sewer service fee of approximately $19.06. Rates vary for other types of uses
depending on a number of factors, such as type of service connection (i.e. multi-family or
commercial). Commercial rates may vary depending on the type of establishment; for
example, the number of seats in a restaurant, number of service bays at a service station,
etc. Sewer connection charges for residential uses (both single- and multi-family) are $3,619
per unit. Other sewer connection fees vary similar to the sewer rates. Sewer rates are shown
in Table 10.10 below. Sewer connection fees are shown in Table 10.11 below. Water and
sewer rates are updated annually and published on the District’s website at:
http://ntpud.org/rate-information. User fees for recreation facilities are also collected by
NTPUD.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 10, North Tahoe PUD 10-41
North Tahoe Public Utility District
Water Rate Table
January 1, 2015 - December 31, 2015
Includes a Water Rate Increase effective: January 1, 2015 0.00%
Includes a connection fee increase effective: January 1, 2015 1.30%
Includes increase in Installation and Tap fees effective: January 1, 2015 1.30%
Base Charge and Gallons Allowed
Single Family Residence
Base Charge System State/Federal Gallons Allowed
Meter Size per Month Replacement Fee Mandate Fee Monthly Daily
(any meter size) $ 42.02 $ 21.84 $ 1.41 6,000 200
Multi Residential Properties
Base Charge Monthly System State/Federal Gallons Allowed
Meter Size per Month Plus Supplemental Charge Replacement Fee Mandate Fee Monthly Daily
3/4" and 5/8" $ 37.88 + (# SFR) * $ 10.29 $ 21.84 $ 1.41 6,000 200
1" $ 66.31 + (# SFR) * $ 10.29 $ 34.32 $ 1.41 10,500 350
1 1/2" $ 170.53 + (# SFR) * $ 10.29 $ 88.25 $ 1.41 27,000 900
2" $ 257.67 + (# SFR) * $ 10.29 $ 1 33.35 $ 1.41 40,890 1,363
3" $ 454.73 + (# SFR) * $ 10.29 $ 2 35.32 $ 1.41 72,000 2,400
4" $ 708.65 + (# SFR) * $ 10.29 $ 366.73 $ 1.41 112,200 3,740
Mixed Use Properties - Commercial / Industrial
Base Rate Multiplier System Gallons Allowed
Meter Size per month 130% Replacement Fee Monthly Daily
3/4" $ 37.88 $ 49.24 $ 21.84 6,000 200
1" $ 66.31 $ 86.20 $ 34.32 10,500 350
1 1/2" $ 170.53 $ 221.69 $ 88.25 27,000 900
2" $ 257.67 $ 334.97 $ 1 33.35 40,890 1,363
3" $ 454.73 $ 591.15 $ 2 35.32 72,000 2,400
4" $ 708.65 $ 921.25 $ 366.73 112,200 3,740
Common Area Meter
(any meter size) $ 13.84 $ - $ - 0 0
Metered Water Charge - metered use over monthly gallons allowed
Tier One Tier Two
Gallons Allowed Gallons Used Gallons Used Rate per 1,000 Gallons
Meter Size Monthly Daily Over Through Over Tier One Tier Two
Single Family Residence
(any meter size) 6,000 200 6,000 40,500 40,500 $ 3.06 $ 5.24
Common Area Meter
(any meter size) 0 0 0 40,500 40,500 $ 3.06 $ 5.24
All Other
3/4" and 5/8" 6,000 200 6,000 40,500 40,500 $ 3.06 $ 5.24
1" 10,500 350 10,500 45,750 45,750 $ 3.06 $ 5.24
1 1/2" 27,000 900 27,000 115,500 115,500 $ 3.06 $ 5.24
2" 40,890 1,363 40,890 133,500 133,500 $ 3.06 $ 5.24
3" 72,000 2,400 72,000 160,500 160,500 $ 3.06 $ 5.24
4" 112,200 3,740 112,200 260,500 260,500 $ 3.06 $ 5.24
Connection Fees
Effective Jan 1, 2015Effective Jan 1, 2015 Effective Jan 1, 2015 Effective Jan 1, 2015Effective Jan 1, 2015
Connection Fire Service Capacity / Demand
Meter Size Fees Installation Tap Fee & Detector Check Component
Single Family Residence
(any meter size) $ 6 ,817 $ 1,376 $ - - $ 1 0,407
All Other
3/4" or 5/8" $ 1 1,957 $ 1,376 $ - - $ 10,407
1" $ 1 1,957 $ 1,681 $ 5 30 $ 1,023 $ 10,407
1 1/2" $ 3 0,750 $ 2,903 $ 6 98 $ 2 ,679 $ 27,390
2" $ 4 6,470 $ 4,901 $ 7 88 $ 2 ,886 $ 41,500
3" $ 8 2,010 $ 6,151 $ 1 ,391 $ - $ 74,110
4" $ 1 27,801 $ 7,968 $ 1 ,391 $ - $ 115,801
6" - As Determined $ - $ - As Determined
Fire Service
(any meter size) $ 1 ,795 $ - $ - $ - $ -
MONTHLY FEDERAL/STATE MANDATE FEE $ 1 .41
FIRE PROTECTION SYSTEM RATES: $ 3 .60
FIRE HYDRANTS $ 2 .58
MONTHLY COMMON AREA WATER METER RATE $ 1 3.84
WATER DELIVERY CHARGE (1/2 TIER 1) $ 1 .64
K:\Accounting\Rates\Water Rate Schedule January 2015.xls - January 1 2015
EXHIBIT A, TABLE 2
SEWER RATES & FEES EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 2015
EFFECTIVE BEGINNING JANUARY 1, 2010, WITH NO CHANGE IN 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015
CHARGE PER UNIT
TYPE OF CONNECTION CODE UNITS MONTHLY ANNUALLY
RESIDENTIAL RATES
RESIDENTIAL R LIVING UNIT $ 9.50 $ 1 14.00
SYSTEM REPLACEMENT FEE SSR LIVING UNIT $ 8.15 $ 9 7.80
STATE/FEDERAL MANDATE FEE MAN LIVING UNIT $ 1.41 $ 1 6.92
COMMERCIAL RATES
MOTEL RES/STOCK COOP/STUDIO A LIVING UNIT $ 8.12 $ 9 7.44
OTHER BUSINESS B NO. PLUMBING FIXTURE UNITS $ 1.22 $ 1 4.64
CHURCHES C NO. OF SEATS $ 0.12 $ 1 .44
OTHER BUSINESS (NON-TAXED) E NO. PLUMBING FIXTURE UNITS
RESTAURANTS & BARS F NO. SEATS INSIDE $ 0.94 $ 1 1.28
D NO. SEATS OUTSIDE $ 0.31 $ 3 .76
MARKETS G NO. PLUMBING FIXTURE UNITS $ 2.15 $ 2 5.80
BARBER SHOPS H NO. SERVICE CHAIRS $ 3.23 $ 3 8.76
SNACK BARS J NO. PLUMBING FIXTURE UNITS $ 0.94 $ 1 1.28
CAMPSITE WITH SEWER CONNECTION K NO. OF SITES $ 6.13 $ 7 3.56
LAUNDRIES L NO. 10 LB MACHINES $ 5.02 $ 6 0.24
MOTEL W/O KITCHEN/GUEST FACILITIES M LIVING UNIT $ 3.07 $ 3 6.84
MOTEL WITH KITCHEN N LIVING UNIT $ 4.00 $ 4 8.00
ANIMAL SHELTER O $ 33.61 $ 4 03.32
SERVICE STATIONS P NO. SERVICE BAYS $ 16.40 $ 1 96.80
CAMPSITE W/O SEWER CONNECTION Q NO. OF SITES $ 5.36 $ 6 4.32
THEATERS T NO. OF SEATS $ 0.12 $ 1 .44
SCHOOLS U NO. OF SEATS $ 0.02 $ 0 .24
BEAUTY SHOPS V NO. OF SERVICE CHAIRS $ 5.36 $ 6 4.32
MARINA BOAT PUMPING FACILITY X EACH $ 10.62 $ 1 27.44
SWIMMING POOLS Y PER POOL $ 2.44 $ 2 9.28
K:\Accounting\Rates\SEWER RATE JAN 2015.xls - Sewer Exhibit A, Table 2 - 2015
EXHIBIT A, TABLE 1
Effective January 1, 2015
SEWER CONNECTION FEES
TYPE OF CONNECTION CODE CONNECTION CHARGE
RESIDENTIAL R $ 3,619 PER UNIT
RESIDENTIAL (Non-Taxed) R $ 3,619 PER UNIT
RESIDENTIAL STUDIO A $ 3,619 PER UNIT
MOTEL WITHOUT A KITCHEN OR HOTEL M $ 3,619 PER UNIT
MOTEL WITH A KITCHEN N $ 3,619 PER UNIT
CAMPGROUND OR TRAVEL TRAILER PARK
WITH INDIVIDUAL SEWER CONNECTION K $ 1,807 PER CAMPSITE
CAMPGROUND OR TRAVEL TRAILER GENERAL
SEWER FACILITY $ 1,375 PER CAMPSITE
MOBILE HOME PARK R $ 3,619 PER SPACE
RESTAURANTS AND BARS F $ 357 PER SEAT
SNACK BARS B $ 357 PER PLUMBING FIXTURE UNIT
LAUNDRIES L $ 1,807 PER 10# MACHINE
THEATER T $ 34 PER THEATER SEAT
SERVICE STATIONS P $ 7,204 PER SERVICE BAY
$ 357 + PER PLUMBING FIXTURE UNIT
BARBER SHOPS H $ 1,090 PER SERVICE CHAIR
MARKETS G $ 545 PER PLUMBING FIXTURE UNIT
CHURCHES C $ 34 PER SEAT
BEAUTY SHOPS V $ 1,807 PER SERVICE CHAIR
MARINA BOAT PUMPING FACILITIES X $ 4,674 EACH PUMPING FACILITY
OTHER BUSINESSES B $ 357 PER PLUMBING FIXTURE UNIT
OTHER BUSINESSES (Non-Taxed) B $ 357 PER PLUMBING FIXTURE UNIT
USES NOT STATED ABOVE AS DETERMINED
ADDITIONAL CHARGES
TAP FEE - If required $ 450 PER SINGLE FAMILY UNIT
K:\Accounting\Rates\SEWER RATE JAN 2015.xls - Sewer Exhibit A, Table 1 - 2015
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
COST AVOIDANCE
One of the primary methods the District uses to avoid unnecessary costs is to share facilities
and to collaborate with sister organizations and agencies. For example, NTPUD collaborated
with the Tahoe City Public Utility District in the development of a shared well. NTPUD also
outsources wastewater treatment to the TTSA. Please see the section entitled “shared
facilities” for water, wastewater, and recreation in the above pages of this MSR Chapter for
more information. In addition to sharing facilities, the District also reduces costs by holding
its Board of Directors meetings and other meetings at the North Tahoe Event Center, a
District-owned facility. The District owns its offices. District staff shares information and
other resources to maintain an efficient work environment and keep rates as low as possible.
The Board of Directors is compensated at a rate of $400 per month, not to exceed $4,800 in
any calendar year under the provisions of Section 16002 of the Public Utility District Code.
The District has also sought cost-saving opportunities where it can by applying for and
receiving grants to offset some costs. In summary, NTPUD utilizes a variety of techniques to
reduce the cost of providing services to customers.
The North Tahoe Public Utility District and the Tahoe City Public Utility District provide similar
services (wastewater collection, water, parks and recreation). Additionally, NTPUD is located
adjacent to and northeast of the Tahoe City Public Utility District. Given the similarity of service
provision and geographic proximity, it is recommended that prior to the next MSR or SOI
Update for these districts (approximately year 2023), the two districts should jointly consider
whether it is possible to gain efficiencies through shared services or infrastructure and send a
one-page memo to LAFCo describing the results of this joint consideration.
10.12: CHALLENGES
One challenge the District faces is the provision of funding for capital improvements to its
park and recreation facilities. Although the district is working diligently to address this issue,
an immediate solution is not clear. Maintaining water quality at Lake Tahoe is a challenge
shared with many water service providers in the region. The District is cooperating with
regional water service providers and with state and federal regulators to keep up-to-date on
water quality issues. Additionally, complying with Governor Brown’s mandatory water cuts
(Executive Order # B-29-15) to deal with the multi-year drought will continue to be a
challenge.
One challenge that most water districts in California face is a recent judicial decision by the
4th District Court of Appeal which ruled in April 2015 that the tiered rates, which charge
more for excessive water use violates Proposition 218, which requires government fees be
set in accordance with cost. The tiered rate structure has been utilized by water districts to
encourage water conservation. NTPUD will continue to work with state agencies and other
water providers to study options.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 10, North Tahoe PUD 10-45
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
The District has identified no other regulatory issues, infrastructure issues, or other
challenges within the next 12 months.
10.13: DETERMINATIONS
GROWTH AND POPULATION PROJECTIONS
1. The North Tahoe Public Utility District (NTPUD) had 5,524 sewer connections and 3,828
water connections as of 2014. The estimated permanent population served is 5,486
people as of 2014.
2. The population served by the District is seasonal and comprised of second homes and
vacation rentals in part. Overnight visitation at maximum capacity is estimated to be
11,138 persons; although this number fluctuates depending on the season, increasing
in summer and winter.
3. The District has a very low growth rate for the resident population, coupled with a
projected increase in
weekend/seasonal visitor
population. Based on the
U.S Census compounded
growth rate, the District
assumes a growth rate of
0.74 percent for the next
20 years.
4. The Urban Water
Management Plan (2013)
assumed that the
maximum additional
development within the
NTPUD boundaries is
1,002 dwelling units over
the next 20-year period, a figure which corresponds to the historical average growth
rate of 0.74 percent.
DISADVANTAGED UNINCORPORATED COMMUNITIES
5. Within the District, the community of Kings Beach is classified as DUCs (CDWR, 2014).
As described in this MSR, Kings Beach does receive water, wastewater, and fire
protection services. No public health and safety issues have been identified.
6. Grant funding is available for disadvantaged unincorporated communities. Please see
Chapter 3 for additional details.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 10, North Tahoe PUD 10-46
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
PRESENT AND PLANNED CAPACITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES
7. NTPUD was established in 1948 to provide sewer services to the residents of the Lake
Tahoe’s north shore. In November 1967, water services were added to the District’s
responsibilities, and in 1968 the District added the Recreation and Parks Department.
8. The District currently provides water treatment and distribution, wastewater
collection, and recreational opportunities to its customers.
9. Repairs and replacements will be necessary on an ongoing basis for water treatment
and delivery infrastructure, as well as wastewater collection infrastructure.
10. The District’s total water deliveries of 1,485 acre-feet per year in 2010 are projected
to increase to 3,079 acre-feet per year in 2030. The District’s Urban Water
Management Plan (2013) states that the supply will meet this demand in normal and
dry years because Lake Tahoe provides a readily available source of water, and
groundwater wells are not impacted by dry years. The number of water accounts is
projected to increase to a total of 4,478 in 2030, using an Annual Water Connections
Growth Rate of 0.74 percent.
11. The District’s water supply comes from Lake Tahoe and three groundwater wells.
Water rights to Lake Tahoe allow for the use of up to 23,000 acre-feet per year in the
State of California within the Lake Tahoe Basin. There is no gross diversion specifically
allocated to the District’s service area. The most recent recommendation from a 1999
Brown & Caldwell report recommended allocating 3,920 acre-feet per year to the
District's service area, but this figure is outdated and is therefore subject to review
and reconsideration.
12. Demand for all services rises dramatically in the winter and summer months when
there is an influx of tourists and second homeowners.
13. The District already works with other service providers, such as Truckee-Tahoe
Sanitation Agency and Tahoe Unified School District, for collaboration of service
provision. The District should continue to examine the provision of service in
conjunction with other service providers in the area to determine if infrastructure
needs can be addressed more efficiently.
14. It is noted that three districts in the North Tahoe Martis Valley area provide recreation
services (ASCWD, North Tahoe PUD, and Tahoe City PUD) as shown in Table E1-1 in the
Executive Summary. Other recreation service providers in the region include the
Truckee Donner Recreation and Park District, California State Parks, and the U.S.
Forest Service. Given this plethora of recreation service providers, LAFCO and its
subject districts should study whether additional efficiencies could be gained through
structural or organizational changes.
FINANCIAL ABILITY OF AGENCY TO PROVIDE SERVICES
15. NTPUD’s operations and maintenance activities are funded through service charges, a
Mello-Roos assessment, fees, and taxes.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 10, North Tahoe PUD 10-47
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
16. Capital improvement projects are typically funded through the enterprise funds (which
come from fees) and grants.
17. The NTPUD prepares a five-year CIP that identifies the projects most needed over the
next five years and their funding sources.
18. The FY 2013-2014 audited financial statement demonstrates adequate finances for the
continued ability of the District to provide services.
19. Rates should continue to be reviewed and adjusted as necessary to fund District costs
and provide for capital improvements and operation and maintenance of water, sewer
and recreational facilities as needed.
STATUS OF, AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR, SHARED FACILITIES
20. The North Tahoe Public Utility District and the Tahoe City Public Utility District provide
similar services (wastewater collection, water, parks and recreation). Additionally,
NTPUD is located adjacent to and northeast of the Tahoe City Public Utility District. Given
the similarity of service provision and geographic proximity, it is recommended that
prior to the next MSR or SOI Update for these districts (approximately year 2023), the
two districts should jointly consider whether it is possible to gain efficiencies through
shared services or infrastructure and send a one-page memo to LAFCo describing the
results of this joint consideration.
21. NTPUD has a solid track record of working cooperatively with neighboring local
agencies on a variety issues as described above in the text of this MSR chapter.
ACCOUNTABILITY FOR COMMUNITY SERVICE NEEDS, INCLUDING
GOVERNMENTAL STRUCTURE AND OPERATION EFFICIENCIES
22. NTPUD budgeted nearly $1.2 million for its utility expenses in the FY 2014 budget. This
amount accounts for over 10 percent of the District’s expenses. The District is actively
working with Liberty Energy to reduce costs by shifting to a different rate structure to
capture time of use billing and splitting sites apart to capture lower tiered structures.
However, the District should continue to investigate efficiencies in its electricity use.
In the long-term future, the District could explore the use of new technology to
develop and capture renewable energy to reduce its annual expenditures on utility
costs.
23. The Urban Water Management Plan (2013) provides action measures to reduce the high
percentage of unaccounted-for water. The District has been very assertive in taking
action to address this issue and actions taken to date include: replacing leaking mains,
implementing strict metering requirements for hydrant water use (fire district,
flushing, contractors, etc.), eliminating bleeders, etc. It is recommended that NTPUD
continue to implement these measures and other water conservation efforts.
24. NTPUD is a member of two JPAs for the operation of a common risk management and
insurance program.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 10, North Tahoe PUD 10-48
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
25. The NTPUD is locally accountable through adherence to applicable government code
sections, open and accessible meetings, and dissemination of information and
encouragement of participation in their process.
26. Board meetings are publicly noticed and comply with the Brown Act, California’s open
meeting law. They are held every month.
27. The District practices cost reduction through careful purchasing, bidding processes,
staff workload reductions, applications for grants and other mechanisms.
28. No boundary changes are pending or proposed at this time.
29. The District follows standard accounting procedures.
30. All Board members have access to District data, records and information.
31. The District has good public outreach, with a public website featuring Board agendas
and meeting minutes, fiscal information, staff contact information, general
information about services provided, rates, environmental compliance documents,
planning documents, and news stories about its current projects.
32. The District’s strategic plan was adopted in January 2016 and it outlines the mission
statement, vision statement, and goals and objectives. This strategic plan helps the
District improve its planning efforts, accountability, and transparency.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 10, North Tahoe PUD 10-49
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
10.14: REFERENCES
California, State of. Department of Water Resources. 2015. Website entitled “Resources -
Disadvantaged Communities (DAC) Mapping Tool”. Available on-line at:
<http://www.water.ca.gov/irwm/grants/resources_dac.cfm>. Accessed 11/2/15.
California, State of. Secretary of State. Certificate of Incorporation of North Tahoe Public
Utility District. 23 July 1948.
Damore, Hamric & Schneider, Inc. Certified Public Accountants. North Tahoe Public Utility
District Management’s Discussion and Analysis Financial Statements Supplementary
Information and Independent Auditor’s Report For the Fiscal Years Ended June 30,
2014 and 2013. February 9, 2015. 41 pages. Available on-line at:
<http://ntpud.org/financial-information>. Accessed 12April2015.
Donner Summit Public Utility District Board of Directors. Ordinance 01-2012 to Amend and
Modify Ordinance 2008-01, Setting Sewer Rates and Charges. February 14, 2012.
North Tahoe Public Utility District. 2010-2011 Organizational Chart.
<http://ntpud.org/human-resources>. Accessed 15 December 2013.
North Tahoe Public Utility District. 2013/2014 Annual Budget. Adopted June 11, 2013.
North Tahoe Public Utility District. About the North Tahoe Public Utility District.
<http://ntpud.org/about-north-tahoe-public-utility-district>. Accessed 15 December
2013.
North Tahoe Public Utility District. Adopted Capital Improvement Program Fiscal Year 2014-
2015, Five-Year Focus. November 2014. Available on-line at:
<http://ntpud.org/financial-information>. Accessed 15January2015.
North Tahoe Public Utility District. Compensation and Benefits: Board of Directors, General
Manager/CEO, Accountant. <http://ntpud.org/human-resources>. Accessed 15
December 2013.
North Tahoe Public Utility District. Current Water/Sewer Projects.
<http://ntpud.org/watersewer>. Accessed 15 December 2013.
North Tahoe Public Utility District. Main Sewer Pump Station Master Plan. 2009.
<http://ntpud.org/master-plans>. Accessed 20February2015.
North Tahoe Public Utility District. Management’s Discussion and Analysis, Financial
Statements, Supplementary Information and Independent Auditor’s Report. For the
Fiscal Years Ended June 30, 2012 and 2011.
North Tahoe Public Utility District. Risk-Based Sewer System Management Plan. Lake Tahoe
Basin, California. Adopted October 8, 2103. <http://ntpud.org/master-plans>.
Accessed 20February2015.
North Tahoe Public Utility District. Sewer Connection Fees. Effective January 1, 2013.
North Tahoe Public Utility District. Sewer Master Plan. Adopted November 13, 1991.
North Tahoe Public Utility District. Sewer Rates and Fees Effective January 1, 2013.
North Tahoe Public Utility District. Water Rate Table. January 1, 2013 – December 31, 2013.
North Tahoe Public Utility District. Master Water Plan. 1999. < http://ntpud.org/master-
plans>. Accessed January 15, 2015.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 10, North Tahoe PUD 10-50
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
North Tahoe Public Utility District. Utility Operations Webpage. <http://ntpud.org/utility-
operations>. Accessed 1May2015.
North Tahoe Recreation & Parks. <http://northtahoeparks.com>. Accessed 15 December
2013.
North Tahoe Public Utility District. 2010 Urban Water Management Plan. Prepared by PR
Design & Engineering. Adopted July 9, 2013. 115 pages. <http://ntpud.org/sites/ def
ault/files/docs/ engineering/ NTPUD%20UWMP%20Adopted%20July%209%202013.pdf >
North Tahoe Public Utility District Recreation and Parks Department. 2006-2007 Master Plan.
Prepared by Royston Hanamoto Alley & Abey. Available on-line at: <http://ntpud.
org/sites/default/files/docs/parks/Parks%20-%20FINAL_NTPUD%20Parks%20Master
%20Plan.pdf>. Accessed October 2013.
Placer Local Agency Formation Commission. Municipal Service Review North Tahoe & Martis
Valley. 2004.
Tahoe Water Suppliers Association. 2009. Sanitary Survey and Watershed Control Program
2009 Update. Madonna Dunbar, Editor. 155 pgs plus appendices. Available on-line at:
<http://ntpud.org/sites/default/files/docs/conservation/TWSA%20Sanitary%20Survey
%202009%20Update%20FINAL.pdf>.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 10, North Tahoe PUD 10-51
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
C 11
HAPTER
Sierra Lakes County Water District
Photo Courtesy of Placer County E-newsletter, October 2015.
This Municipal Service Review (MSR) chapter describes the Sierra Lakes County Water District.
This District was formed in 1961 and currently provides water treatment and distribution, and
sewage collection services within its service area.
Table of Contents
11.1: Agency Profile ................................................................................................. 11-2
11.2: Overview of District .......................................................................................... 11-3
11.3: Formation and Boundary .................................................................................... 11-5
11.4: Accountability and Governance ............................................................................ 11-7
11.5: Management Efficiencies and Staffing .................................................................... 11-8
11.6: Population and Growth ...................................................................................... 11-8
11.7: District Services .............................................................................................. 11-12
11.8: Financing ..................................................................................................... 11-18
11.9: Opportunities to Share Facilities ......................................................................... 11-22
11.10: Challenges .................................................................................................... 11-23
11.11: Service Adequacy ............................................................................................ 11-23
11.12: Determinations .............................................................................................. 11-24
11.13: References ................................................................................................... 11-28
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 11, Sierra Lakes CWD 11-1
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
11.1: AGENCY PROFILE
Sierra Lakes County Water District
Type of District: County Water District
Enabling Legislation: County Water District Law: Water Code §§ 30000-33901
Functions/Services: Water treatment and distribution, and sewage collection
Main Office: 7305 Short Road, Soda Springs, CA
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 1039, Soda Springs, CA 95728
Phone No.: 530-426-7800
Fax No.: 530-426-1120
Web Site: slcwd.org
Email: anna.nickerson@slcwd.org
General Manager: Bill Quesnel Email: bquesnel@ltol.com
Phone: 530-550-8068 Fax: 530-550-8069
Board President: Michael Lindquist
Phone: c/o 530-426-7800 Fax: 530-426-1120
Governing Body: Elected Board of Directors – 4-year terms
Name Role Terms Ends
Karen Heald Director 12/31/2020
Dan Stockton Vice President 12/31/2018
Bill Oudegeest Director 12/31/2018
Dick Simpson Director 12/31/2020
Michael Lindquist President 12/31/2020
Meeting Schedule: Second Friday of each month at 6:00 p.m.
Meeting Location: 7305 Short Road, Soda Springs, CA
Date of Formation: February 28, 1961
Other: Landowner/registered voter district by special legislation (Water Code § 30700.6)
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 11, Sierra Lakes CWD 11-2
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
11.2: OVERVIEW OF DISTRICT
The Sierra Lakes County Water District (SLCWD/District) provides water service and sewage
collection services. SLCWD contracts with Donner Summit Public Utility District (DSPUD) for
treatment and disposal of its wastewater. This Municipal Service Review is the first for the
District.
TYPE AND EXTENT OF SERVICES
The District provides domestic water service and sewage collection for its customers,
transporting sewage to DSPUD for treatment and disposal. Primary activities for the District’s
water system include repairs and maintenance of infrastructure (e.g., tanks, pipeline, and
meters), water treatment, water testing, preparation of an annual report for state monitoring
agencies and obtaining permits from state authorities.
The District’s primary sewage system activities include sewage collection, and repairs and
maintenance of infrastructure. SLCWD has an interagency agreement with DSPUD to provide
wastewater treatment and disposal services. SLCWD collects and transports wastewater to
the DSPUD wastewater treatment plant, and DSPUD treats and disposes of the effluent. The
District’s FY 2012-2013 operating budget was $1,623,058.
The District is a public corporation organized in 1961 under the County Water District Law of
the California Water Code (Division 12, commencing at §30000) for the primary purpose of
providing water to the residents of the Serene Lakes subdivision in Placer County.
Approximately 804 of the 1,039 residential lots in Serene Lakes receive service from the
Water District, and 200+ lots remain undeveloped. The District also provides water service
and sewage collection to one commercial establishment within the District: Royal Gorge Cross
Country Ski Resort.
Of the 1,060 total parcels in Serene Lakes, 1,039 are residential and 21 are for other uses.
These other uses include 15
parcels for District use including
the Lake bottom parcel (recently
purchased by the District from the
Truckee Donner Land Trust).
Additionally, the water district
owns one parcel that contains a
fire station and one parcel that
contains a beach and recreation
facilities (owned by District and
leased to the Serene Lakes
Property Owners’ Association).
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 11, Sierra Lakes CWD 11-3
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
Figure 11.1: District-owned Parcels
**Note: District-owned parcels are shown in green. The lake bottom parcel (shown in blue) is
also owned by the District.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 11, Sierra Lakes CWD 11-4
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
Another type of land-use is one privately owned parcel that contains the former Ice Lake
Lodge (currently used as a three-family residence). The Royal Gorge cross country ski area is
also located within the District boundaries.
In addition to the water and wastewater services provided by the Sierra Lakes County Water
District, the community receives fire protection services from the Truckee Fire Protection
District1; police protection services from the Placer County Sheriffs Department; educational
services from the Tahoe Truckee Unified School District; road services from the Placer County
Public Works Department; and garbage removal and recycling are handled by a private firm,
Tahoe Truckee Sierra Disposal, under contract, and located at the Eastern Regional Landfill.
LOCATION AND SIZE
The District is located in the unincorporated area of northeastern Placer County and
encompasses approximately four square miles (2,450 acres). Two very small unincorporated
communities, Soda Springs and Norden, are in closest proximity to the District, but the Town
of Truckee is the major socioeconomic center of the region. SLCWD is in the Serene Lakes
area of Placer County and in the watershed of the North Fork of the American River.
11.3: FORMATION AND BOUNDARY
On February 28, 1961, SLCWD was formed by the Placer County Board of Supervisors. The
District was incorporated on March 7, 1961. The District was initially formed to provide
domestic water, sewage transmission, and sewage treatment in a community leachfield.
DSPUD was also using the same form of treatment, and when the State Water Resources
Control Board (SWRCB) found this form of sewage treatment to be inadequate, DSPUD and
SLCWD entered into a Service Agreement in 1971 for DSPUD to treat SLWCD’s wastewater.
Since DSPUD’s construction of a wastewater treatment plant, the District has contracted with
DSPUD to treat its wastewater.
BOUNDARY HISTORY
The formation of SLCWD effectively transferred water rights and the responsibility to provide
water from a campground called the Sierra Lakes Club, to the District. Since that time, Sierra
Lakes Club has been succeeded by eight different residential subdivisions and is now called
Serene Lakes and totaling 1,060 parcels. The District boundary also includes 13 parcels
outside the Ice Lakes/Serene Lakes development, including nine large parcels, undeveloped
except for cross-country ski facilities owned by Truckee Donner Land Trust, one lot owned by
Placer County, one lot owned by the District and containing a water storage tank. The
District boundaries encompass approximately 2,450+ acres. Figure 11.2 shows the District
boundaries and other significant District features.
1 http://www.truckeefire.org/
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 11, Sierra Lakes CWD 11-5
Lake Van Norden
Kidd
Lakes Rd.
S
o
d
a
S
p
r
in
g
s
R
d
.
Palisade Ice Lakes
Lake
P
a
lis
a
d
e
C
r
e
e
k
k
e
e
r
C
a
n
e
r
e
S
P Sierra Lakes County Water District
a
lis
a
d Sphere of Influence
e
C
r
e County Boundary
e
k
0 0.25 0.5
Parcels Miles
Parcel, Roads and District Boundary from Placer County GIS.
Figure 11-2 SIERRA LAKES COUNTY WATER DISTRICT
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
SPHERE OF INFLUENCE
On April 12, 2000, Placer LAFCo updated the District’s Sphere of Influence (SOI). The SOI is
smaller than its actual boundary. It is not clear whether that was intentional or was a
mapping error. It is recommended that Placer LAFCo review the SOI and consider aligning it
to be co-terminus with the District boundaries.
EXTRA-TERRITORIAL SERVICES
The District does not provide any extra-territorial services outside its boundaries.
AREAS OF INTEREST
No specific areas outside the District boundaries have been identified that require services
from the District.
11.4: ACCOUNTABILITY AND GOVERNANCE
The District is governed by a five-member Board of Directors, which is elected by both
registered voters and property owners within the District; people who own vacation homes in
the subdivision but reside and vote elsewhere can still vote on District issues, even though
they are not full-time residents (see Water Code § 30700.6). Regularly scheduled meetings are
held on the second Friday of each month at 6:00 p.m. Meetings are located at the main
office, at 7305 Short Road, Soda Springs, CA.
The current Board members are as follows:
Name Role Term Ends
Karen Heald Board Member 12/31/2020
Dan Stockton Vice President 12/31/2018
Bill Oudegeest Board Member 12/31/2018
Dick Simpson Board Member 12/31/2016
Michael Lindquist President 12/31/2020
All meetings are publicly posted at least 72 hours prior to Board meetings. Postings are
located on public information boards in the District and on the District’s and local property
owners’ association websites.
The District posts its contact information on its CONTACT INFORMATION:
website at www.slcwd.org, and comments and
complaints can be sent by mail, email, or telephone. PHONE NO.: (530) 426-7800
In 2012 the District received four utility complaints. FAX: (530) 426-1120
The District Board received about 83 protests of its
MAILING ADDRESS:
P.O. BOX 1039,
rate increases in 2012.
SODA SPRINGS, CA 95728
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 11, Sierra Lakes CWD 11-7
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
The District has adopted policies addressing budget preparation, fixed asset accounting,
investment of funds, and expense authorization. All of these policies are consistent with the
California Special District Association’s sample policy handbook. Budgets are adopted in
public meetings and are available to the public upon request. The last independent auditor’s
report was dated September 4, 2015, and was attached to the District’s Financial Statements.
The audit found that there were no issues of noncompliance with financial regulations that
could have an effect on the financial well-being of the District.
The District’s mission statement is “to provide quality water treatment/distribution and
sewer collection services at the lowest possible cost.” Its stated strategic plan is to “to
provide the infrastructure and organizational framework to continuously provide quality
service to all present and anticipated customers.”
11.5: MANAGEMENT EFFICIENCIES AND STAFFING
The District employs three full-time employees, all utility system operators. Utility system
operators repair, maintain, and operate the water treatment plant, water distribution
system, and sanitary sewer collection and export system. They implement preventative
maintenance activities and respond to emergency situations such as sanitary sewer overflows,
check water and sewer connections by home builders, and oversee construction activities by
contractors engaged in the District.
The General Manager and Financial Consultant are provided by Truckee-based consulting
firms, allowing the District to avoid paying for long-term retirement and health benefit
obligations. The General Manager is responsible for management of field operations and
maintenance activities, oversees the work of utility system operators, trains field crews,
leads emergency response, coordinates regulatory compliance, manages capital projects,
prepares the capital budget, participates in the operational budget, manages district
properties, attends District meetings, and reports monthly to the District Board.
District Board members are compensated at the rate of $180 for each meeting, pursuant to
Ordinance 95 of the SLCWD Board of Directors passed September 12, 2013. The Board of
Directors establishes policy, plans strategy, leads staff, allocates resources, delegates
responsibility, authorizes the District Engineer and outside contractors to perform services,
and may serve as public information officers.
11.6: POPULATION AND GROWTH
POPULATION
The 2010 US Census does not provide discrete demographic statistics for the Serene Lakes
area. The SLCWD service area is encompassed by Census Tract 220.14, which covers a much
larger area than the District’s service boundaries. The District was unable to provide a
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 11, Sierra Lakes CWD 11-8
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
current and projected population within the service area boundaries or SOI. For purpose of
this study, several calculated projections are made based upon a few basic assumptions.
Land-use is correlated with population. Sierra Lakes County Water District primarily serves
single-family residential uses with some limited commercial uses, such as a ski resort lodge, a
fire station and a homeowners’ association beach. There used to be a 20-room
hotel/restaurant commercial business located next to the Lake; however this building has
since been converted to 3-unit multi-family residence. In December 2012, the Truckee Donner
Land Trust and the Trust for Public Land acquired the surrounding 3,000-acre Royal Gorge
property. In January 2013, the District purchased the Lake bottom parcel from the Land
Trust.
Of the 1,039 residential parcels in the service area, there are currently 804 dwellings with
service connections (assumed built) within the District. Based on a 2009 customer survey with
73 percent responding, 10 percent of the homes are occupied on a year-round basis. Based on
a 10 percent full time occupancy rate, this would mean that 80 dwellings are occupied on a
full-time basis. Given an average of 2.56 persons per household, this indicates that the
permanent population living within the District’s boundaries is 205 persons. At buildout, this
would mean that of the 1,039 residential lots, approximately 104 dwellings could be occupied
on a fulltime basis.
Homes at Serene Lakes are occupied by a permanent population and by vacation homeowners
and renters. If the 804 existing homes are occupied (i.e. maximum occupancy), the
population is estimated at approximately 2,058 (804 homes x 2.56 people per household
[Placer County 2009 Housing Element2]). This maximum occupancy calculation is a worst case
scenario. During peak winter season (New Year’s) and peak summer season (Labor Day and
July) an 80% occupation rate would be more likely.
From 2000 to 2010, Placer County as a whole had a 3.4 percent AAGR for population, a rate
nearly three times California’s population AAGR of 1.0 percent during this period. Most of this
growth occurred in the incorporated areas of the county where the AAGR was 5.0 percent
between 2000 and 2010. Growth in unincorporated areas of the county slowed to an AAGR of
0.7 percent. For purposes of projections realizing that market forces are highly unpredictable
population growth assumptions along with actual projections are provided below are as
follows:
2 The population density fluctuates between 26 and 528 people per square mile (104 people/3.9375
square miles to 2,079 people/3.9375 square miles).
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 11, Sierra Lakes CWD 11-9
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
Table 11.1: Population – 2000-2010 and Projected to 2030 within
SLCWD Service Area
Based on 10 percent occupancy and 2.59 persons per household
Year 2010 act. 20151 20202 20253 20304
Population 203 205 215 231 257
1. Based on 0.7 percent AAGR from 2010 through 2015
2. Assumed 1.0 percent AAPR from 2015 through 2020
3. Assumed 1.5 percent AAPR from 2020 through 2025
4. Assumed 1.75 percent AAPR from 2025 through 2030
In examining the actual permit issuance history over the last 10 years provided by the
District, there were 115 water/sewer connection permits issued or an average of 11.5/year
(assume 11 per year). During this time, it is noted there was a sewer connection moratorium,
but any proposed building would have been issued in subsequent years.
PROJECTED GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT
Based upon the average issuance rate described above, the following buildout assumptions
through the year 2020 are provided:
Table 11.2: Projected Buildout of Serene Lakes Neighborhood
Year 2013 act. 20151 20202 20253 20304
Dwellings 803 825 880 935 990
Based on this projection, 100 percent buildout (totaling 1039 residential parcels plus 21 non-
residential parcels) should occur in about 2034.
This projection includes consideration of the Placer County General Plan which serves as the
County’s vision for long-term land use development and conservation. Placer County’s
General Plan adopted on August 16, 1994, and updated May 21, 2013, provides goals, policies,
standards, and implementation programs to guide the land use, development, and
environmental quality of the County. No new development projects have been built within
the District boundaries in at least 10 years, and the District is unaware of any planned
amendments to the planning documents affecting the service area. As of this writing,
approximately 217 parcels remain undeveloped in the service area, and the District has
indicated that it expects construction on the remaining connections over the next 27 years.
This will result in full buildout of the District.
SLCWD sends wastewater to the WWTP at the Donner Summit PUD. The two agencies have an
agreement that allows SLCWD to reserve a specific amount of capacity at the treatment
plant. There are currently 237 vacant lots within the District’s boundaries; however several
of these parcels are owned by the local land trust and will not be developed. A few of the
lots are “remainder” parcels that resulted from excess road right-of-way and/or were shown
on older subdivision maps but not accepted by the Board of Supervisors and are considered
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 11, Sierra Lakes CWD 11-10
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
unbuildable. The District has reserved future capacity to serve approximately 237 parcels
(personal communication, A. Nickerson, June 2016).
The Placer County General Plan designates lake(s) and the immediate surrounding area as
Medium Density Residential (3,500-10,000 sq. ft., per lot). A substantial undeveloped area to
the west within the District boundary is also designated Medium Density Residential, with
some High Density Residential and commercial. This area was recently acquired by Truckee
Donner Land Trust (TDLT). As a result, there will be no future potential development on
these unimproved lands as TDLT has acquired the land for open space and timberland
management. Currently, the Land Trust owns the Royal Gorge property and leases the
overland, cross country skiing rights to Soda Springs Ski Resort. There were 7 sewer EDU’s
previously assigned to this area (approximately 500 acres). The TDLT has offered to sell those
future sewer connections back to the District; however the District must wait until a demand
for the connections has been identified before purchasing.
Additional lands to the east and south within the District are also now owned by the TDLT.
These lands are designated Agriculture-Timber and a portion is designated Resort Recreation
on the Placer County General Plan. Similarly with the lands to the west, TDLT will manage
these lands for open space, timber management and cross country skiing.
In conclusion, the only expected remaining development within the Sierra Lakes County Water
District’s boundaries will occur as infill residential development on the remaining 217
undeveloped lots. It is unlikely that District services will be needed to serve lands beyond the
“developed” area.
DISADVANTAGED UNINCORPORATED COMMUNITIES
As described in Chapter 3, LAFCo is required to consider the provision of public services to
disadvantaged unincorporated communities (DUCs). Relevant data were reviewed for the
Sierra Lakes CWD area. The Serene Lakes community is classified as a DUC by the California
Department of Water Resources for “Block Groups”, as shown in Figure 11.3, below. However,
when looking at the “Community Tract” level or the “Community Places”, the community is
not mapped as a DUC. The U.S. Census 2010 found the median household income (MHI) in the
95728 zip code is estimated at $42,578.3 This is lower than the DUC threshold MHI of less than
$48,706 (80 percent of the statewide MHI). However, the zip code 95728 covers a broad
geographic range, as shown in Figure 11.4, below. While the broad data does
indicate a DUC community, the more detailed data (i.e. DWR data for at the
“Community Tract” level or the “Community Places”) does not indicate a DUC. In this case,
the authors have chosen to rely upon the more detailed data and it is recommended that
LAFCO assume that no DUCs are located with the SLCWD. This area does receive adequate
water, wastewater, and fire protection services as detailed in this MSR. No health
3 U.S. Census Bureau, 2009-2013 5-Year American Community Survey. American Fact Finder website:
http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 11, Sierra Lakes CWD 11-11
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
and safety issues have been identified. Please see Chapter 3, Section 3.6 of this MSR
for more information on disadvantaged unincorporated communities.
Figure 11.3: DWR Community Block Group DUC Figure 11.4: Map of Zip Code 95828
11.7: DISTRICT SERVICES
SERVICE OVERVIEW
The District provides water treatment and distribution and wastewater collection and
transport in the service area. SLCWD contracts with DSPUD to provide wastewater treatment
and disposal. SLCWD collects and transports wastewater to the DSPUD wastewater treatment
plant, and DSPUD treats and disposes of the effluent. The table below shows the approximate
number of water and wastewater customers since 2003.
Table 11.3: Water And Wastewater Customers
Service # Customers in # Customers in # Customers in
2003 2008 2012
Water1 680 760 800
Wastewater collection1 680 760 800
1 Measured by number of connections
As can be seen in the above table, approximately 120 connections have been added over
about 10 years.
WATER
Ice Lakes Dam was built on Serena Creek in the 1940s to raise the water level of the two
natural lakes behind it. It has since been retrofitted in various ways to improve its structural
integrity and raise the height for additional water storage. Lake Serena is the northern lake
and Lake Dulzura the southern lake. Both lakes overflow into Serena Creek, which ultimately
flows into the North Fork of the American River. The two lakes are separated by a narrow
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 11, Sierra Lakes CWD 11-12
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
isthmus, and when water levels rise above 6,869-feet elevation, water inundates the isthmus
and the two lakes become one, referred to as either Ice Lakes or Serene Lakes. Historically,
the water has been high enough to keep the isthmus inundated and the two lakes combined.
The water is then treated in the lower level of the District offices and from there is piped to
the service connections.
The District owns and operates Ice Lakes Dam, which is inspected every year by the California
Division of Dams. The SWRCB provides water rights, the Placer County Health Department
permits the hazardous materials used in the treatment process, and the Placer County Air
Quality District permits the emergency generators that serve the plants. In the past, the
California Department of Public Health issued permits for the drinking water system; however
this state authority was moved to the Drinking Water Division of the California Water
Resources Control Board in July 2014.
WASTEWATER
SLCWD is responsible for the collection of sewage within the District boundaries and delivery
of the wastewater to DSPUD’s wastewater treatment plant. DSPUD has recently completed
upgrading and expanding their wastewater treatment plant. Beginning in 2015 both connected
and non-connected property owners will be assessed for repayment of the DSPUD plant
improvements. For more detailed information on the DSPUD wastewater treatment plant
upgrade and expansion, please see the MSR chapter on DSPUD.
SUPPLY/DEMAND
Supply and demand for water and sewer districts are typically impacted by development
occurring within the District that could result in an increased demand for these services and
need for additional infrastructure. Factors that impact water supply in the District are lake
level in summer (a factor of winter precipitation and drought conditions) and formation of ice
around the intake pipe in winter. Factors that impact ability to provide wastewater service
include control of the operational inflow and infiltration. Minimal development is expected to
occur within the District because the area is an isolated community with little growth
projected.
WATER
Water supply for the District is primarily provided via a diversion from Serene Lake using a
pipe and pumping plant for water extraction and water is then directed to the water
treatment plant. On February 28, 2013, an Amended Permit for Diversion and Use of Water
was authorized by the SWCRB. The permit allows for the collection and storage of 1,177 acre-
feet (af) in Serene Lakes for municipal, industrial, fish culture, and recreational purposes.
The diversion includes 9,000 gallons per day (gpd) for snowmaking purposes at Royal Gorge
Cross Country Ski Area. Serene Lakes has a storage capacity of 783 AF, so the remaining water
allowed for storage, 394 AF, will be directly diverted (1,177 AF – 783 AF = 394 AF). On
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 11, Sierra Lakes CWD 11-13
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
average, between 2000 and 2009, the District used 117.7 afa. Future water use is estimated
to be 365 afa (SLCWD, 2011), and the amended permit authorized this amount.
Although not part of the current water supply, two groundwater wells, approximately 650
feet in depth, are installed and could potentially be used in the event of an unforeseen
emergency with the District’s surface water supply. One of the wells is permitted as a
standby source by DDW. Use of both wells would require a significant investment to upgrade
well associated infrastructure prior to use in order to address water quality issues associated
with arsenic and to address electronic and physical connection issues (SLCWD, 2011).
SLCWD developed a water availability analysis to study the total flows through the watershed
and determined that an average of 4,765 acre-feet of water originates at the headwaters,
flows through Ice Lakes and down the American River. Approximately 8% of this flow is
permitted to be diverted by the SLCWD, although a lesser amount has historically been
utilized by the District to supply its customers. The District treats water and distributes it to
approximately 809 connections within its service area boundaries. The only expected
remaining development within the Sierra Lakes County Water District will occur as infill
residential development on the remaining 200 undeveloped lots. If these undeveloped lots
were developed, it is estimated they would utilize 250 gallons per day of water (Placer
County, 1994) and this calculates4 to 56 afa. Since the current average water use is 117.7 afa
for the District as a whole, the projected future new development would raise this to 173 afa.
This is much less than District’s permitted water use of a total of 365 afa. Given these
projections and calculations, the District indicates there is sufficient raw water supply to
meet the anticipated buildout (SLCWD, 2010). The District is working on a variety of methods
to promote water conservation.
WASTEWATER
Sierra Lakes County Water District collects wastewater from approximately 800 service
connections within the District and transports the sewage to the DSPUD wastewater
treatment plant. Customers are primarily single-family residences, but a few commercial
customers include a ski resort lodge, a fire station, and the property owners’ beach. SLCWD
has an interagency agreement with DSPUD for DSPUD to treat SLCWD wastewater. DSPUD has
recently upgraded its treatment plant and this new plant came on-line in summer 2015.
Treatment plant capacity and Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) regulations can
influence the District’s ability to supply and/or deliver wastewater service to customers.
Please see Chapter 7 for more information on the WWTP.
INFRASTRUCTURE AND FACILITIES
In addition to owning and operating Ice Lakes Dam and Ice Lakes, the District owns 18 parcels
in the Serene Lakes area. The Placer County Department of Public Works leases one garage
bay from the District. Eleven properties are open space and seven are used for utility
4 Conversion of gpd to afa = 200 new homes * 250 gpd * 0.00112088568 (acre feet) per year
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 11, Sierra Lakes CWD 11-14
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
infrastructure (lake intake, district office, pump stations, and lake and water storage
reservoirs). The District also owns and maintains several vehicles and other pieces of
equipment.
To accommodate full build-out of its service area, the District’s infrastructure for water
service may need to be expanded including improvements to the WWTP and provision of
water storage sufficient to provide fire protection. During the past several years, the District
has replaced numerous water main sections, service laterals, and fire hydrants. To address
infrastructure and facility needs for the sewer system, the District has collaborated with the
DSPUD in the recent major upgrade to the WWTP. Because the District has spent more than
five million dollars on water and sewer infrastructure and equipment in the past six years, it
does not have any current major infrastructure needs.
Future infrastructure needs are addressed on an annual basis through its project list as part of
the District’s annual budget. The FY 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 project list includes spot
repairs of sewer mainline and laterals, repair of several sewer manholes, sewer pump station
upgrades, television inspection of the gravity sewer system, water distribution system
improvements, water pump station and storage improvements, tool purchases, and building
repairs. These projects, which include capital and operating expenses, total $309,150.
In 2008 the District started a three-year program to upgrade both the water distribution
system and the wastewater collection system. The work was centered in the Ice Lakes I and II
Subdivisions, in the eastern part of Serene Lakes, which were developed first and have the
oldest infrastructure. The work included replacement of those system parts that were most
susceptible to failure due to both the materials used and the original construction. The
upgrades to the wastewater collection system include replacement or relining sections of pipe
that were found to be leaking. Leaks in the wastewater collection system lead to inflow and
infiltration (I/I) into the system in spring and early summer when the groundwater table is
high during snow melt. Any I/I added to the domestic wastewater must be pumped to DSPUD
and treated and disposed there, which greatly increases costs to the District. Leaks in the
water distribution system, lead to wasting water and loss of pressure in the system. The
District utilized a commercial loan to pay for these improvements. All work has been
completed on time and most of it has been completed under budget. The District does not
currently meter water for the stated reasons that the capital costs of installing the meters,
along with the operational costs of reading the meters and billing accordingly, would
outweigh any savings from water conservation. However, given the current multi-year
drought that has affected the entire state of California, the District Board is currently
exploring mechanisms (such as grant applications) to pay for the capital costs associated with
the installation of water meters.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 11, Sierra Lakes CWD 11-15
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
DISTRIBUTION AND TRANSMISSION
WATER
SLCWD treats water and distributes it to domestic users, including residential, commercial,
lodging, and resort users, throughout its service boundaries. The District diverts water from
the north end of Lake Serena using a 10-inch pipe. The water is pumped out of the lake using
an electrically powered pumping plant in a facility located at 5000 Bales Road. The design
treatment rate of the filtration plant is 220 gallons per minute. Backup power to the pump is
provided with a diesel-powered generator. The water is pumped to the raw water treatment
plant located at 7305 Short Road (also the District office). From the Short Road facility, an
electric booster pump (with diesel backup) moves the water up to the District’s Hill Tank,
located just north of the Serene Lakes subdivision boundary, from which water is provided by
gravity through the District’s distribution system to its customers. The system also includes a
460,000-gallon tank located at the Short Road location.
Because the distribution system for the entire Serene Lakes subdivision is already in place,
any new homes can be served simply by connecting to the system at the property line. No
infrastructure exists to serve currently unserved parcels outside of the subdivision.
WASTEWATER
The District maintains a sewer collection system with gravity flow and uphill pumping system
to delivery wastewater to the DSWWTP. SLCWD adopted a sewer system management plan
(SSMP) in 2011 in response to SWRCB regulations that mandate an SSMP for all public
wastewater collection entities that own or operate more than one mile of sewer pipeline. The
SSMP includes goals for the wastewater provider; a review of the system’s organizational
structure; an overflow emergency response plan; a fat, oil, and grease control program; an
operations and maintenance program; design and construction standards; a monitoring and
measurement program; and a public communications program.
The operations and maintenance program indicates that the sewer system has 55,400 feet of
six, eight and 10-inch gravity main, 182 manholes, 12,100 feet of 8-inch forcemain, and four
pump stations. As part of the SSMP process, the District updated its system mapping in the
winter of 2009-2010, the first time the maps had been updated since they were first prepared
in the late 1960s. The effort included the field location of sanitary sewer features visible on
the surface (manholes and cleanouts) with reference to known improvements such as power
poles and fire hydrants, and review of television inspection reports to determine the
stationing of laterals on mainlines. The maps show the entire system and include pipe
diameter, pipe material and facility identification number; residential lateral connection
points at mainline; manholes, including depth and facility identification number; force mains,
including pipe diameter, pipe material and facility identification number; pump stations,
including pump data and wetwell capacity; street names; and parcel addresses.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 11, Sierra Lakes CWD 11-16
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
.
The District recently identified portions of the gravity pipeline system that experience the
greatest oil and grease buildup, and in fall of 2009 and winter of 2010-11 installed an
automated system at those locations to inject enzymes on a regular schedule into the pump
station wetwell. The result has been a reduction of FOG buildup in the wetwells of the
downstream pump stations.
SLCWD ensures integrity of the wastewater system by conducting lateral testing when a house
is sold or significantly remodeled; closed circuit television (CCTV) inspection of mainlines;
mainline, manhole, and lateral rehabilitation or replacement; and installation of manhole
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 11, Sierra Lakes CWD 11-17
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
chimney seals. District-wide CCTV of pipeline infrastructure began in 2007 to collect
condition assessment data needed for asset management funding projections. The program’s
goal is to inspect approximately 15,000 feet, or approximately one-quarter of the system,
each year. Condition assessments are made using a national standard for coding of pipeline
defects that identify whether a perceived defect should be addressed by maintenance,
localized repair or capital improvement project (CIP) activities. The observed pipe failure
rate data collected during the inspections will be used to identify CIP funding needs over the
next five years. Staff also performs weekly inspections of the four pump stations to assess the
operation of the pumps, buildings, and wet wells. Pump stations are monitored remotely
through the District’s System Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) network that provides
real-time station status. Work related to the wastewater treatment plant is conducted by
DSPUD and further details on the WWTP located at the DSPUD site can be found in Chapter 7
of this MSR.
11.8: FINANCING
The SLCWD adopts an annual budget. An auditor reviews the District’s financial data on an
annual basis. Copies of the audited financial statements were made available to the MSR
consultants for FY10/11 and 11/12. Additionally, the audited financial statement for FY 13/14
is available on the District’s website and was utilized for this analysis.
Disclaimer: The financial information provided in this MSR section was accurate as of its
writing in 2014. However, the District updates its financial information on an annual basis.
Therefore, the financial information in this MSR has been superseded and readers are
encouraged to read the newer financial statements and budgets published by the District on
their website at: https://slcwd.org/
For each of the three fiscal years reviewed, the audits found there was reasonable assurance
that the District’s financial statements are free of material misstatements and generally
comply with Government Auditing Standards (Robert W. Johnson 2011, 2012, 2014). Both the
budget and the audited financial statement are made available to the Board of Directors for
review during public meetings and made available to the general public upon request. The
most recent budget and audited financial statement are also available on this District’s
website. The District funds its regular operations and maintenance with service fees. Both
water and sewer operations are accounted for as an enterprise fund. SLCWD’s portion of the
DSPUD wastewater treatment plant upgrade and expansion is funded through a property tax
assessment on property owners within SLCWD’s boundaries. In 2010, the District received a
grant from the Placer County Water Agency for a study on ice formation and its effect on
water supply availability.
Figure 11.5, below compares the total district assets and shows total assets increased by over
five million dollars from FY 10/11 to FY 13/14. This increase in assets can be attributed to
capital assets in the form of the District’s share of the new WWTP with DSPUD. To fund this
capital improvement SLCWD formed Assessment District No. 2011-1, pursuant to the Municipal
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 11, Sierra Lakes CWD 11-18
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
Improvement Act of 1913 and issued improvement bonds to finance the District’s share of the
cost.
Figure 11.5: Total Assets
FY 10/11 and 13/14
$14,000,000
$12,000,000
$10,000,000
$8,000,000
$6,000,000
$4,000,000
$2,000,000
$0
FY 10/11 FY 13/14
REVENUES AND EXPENSES
The District’s annual audited financial statement provides a summary of expenses from an
operational perspective. Expenses include pumping, treatment, transmission and
distribution, administrative and general, depreciation, collection, and disposal. The
administrative and general expenses for FY11/12 were $346,180 (Robert W. Johnson, 2012)
and this likely includes numerous subcategories such as salaries, office expenses, legal
expenses, and utilities. However, since these subcategories are not described nor
enumerated in the audited financial statement, it is difficult to discern whether the expense
categories are comparable to other Districts in the region. It is recommended that the
District review its expenditures on electricity and if electric bills exceed 10% of its annual
budget, utilization of renewable resources or energy efficiency should be considered over the
long term. A summary of the Districts FY 13/14 financial statement is shown below in Table
11.4.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 11, Sierra Lakes CWD 11-19
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
Table 11.4: Summary of Revenue
FY 10/11 FY 13/14
Water Sewer Water Sewer
Operating Revenue
Water sales $594,551 $846,949
Sewer sales $891,827 $1,175,160
Connection fees $0 $0 $13,138 $61,613
Penalties and costs $5,784 $5,783 $11,172 $11,172
other $14,627 $24,485 $8,751 $8,751
Non-operating Revenue
Property taxes $167,248 $167,248 $174,623 $174,623
Interest income, net $1,217 $1,217
Grant Income $7,040
Sewer export service $96,949
adjustment
Total Revenue $790,467 $1,187,509 $1,054,633 $1,431,319
In FY 10/11 operating revenues for water and sewer summed to $1,537,057 and non-operating
revenues for water and sewer summed to $440,919. Total Revenues in FY 10/11 was almost
two million dollars as detailed in Table 11.4, above. In FY 13/14 11 operating revenues for
water and sewer summed to $2,136,706 and non-operating revenues for water and sewer
summed to $349,246. Total Revenues in FY 13/14 were almost two and one-half million
dollars as shown in Figure 11.5, below.
Table 11.5: Summary of Expenses
FY 10/11 FY 13/14
Water Sewer Water Sewer
Operating Expense
Pumping $9,412 $37,603
Treatment $222,590 $202,419
Transmission and $202,376 $199,096
distribution
Administrative and $243,742 $110,608 $268,878 $143,459
general
Depreciation $122,686 $88,295 $126,632 $92,916
Collection $683,352 $544,993
Disposal $2,140 $3,112
Non-operating Expense
Interest expense $30,881 $204,645 $20,466 $273,811
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 11, Sierra Lakes CWD 11-20
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
Other interest $102 $103
Bond issuance costs $20,225
Capital processing costs $362,832 $27,114
Grant Expense $9,031
Total Expenses $840,718 $1,451,872 $855,196 $1,105,733
In FY 10/11 operating expenses for water and sewer summed to $1,685,201 and non-operating
expenses for water and sewer summed to $607,389. Total expenses in FY 10/11 were almost
2.3 million as detailed in Table 11.5, above. In FY 13/14 11 operating expenses for water and
sewer summed to $1,619,108 and non-operating expenses for water and sewer summed to
$341,821. Total expenses in FY 13/14 were almost two million dollars as shown in Figure
11.6, below.
$2,500,000
$2,000,000
$1,500,000
$1,000,000
$500,000
$0
FY10/11 FY13/14
In FY 10/11, expenses exceeded revenues by $314,614. In FY 13/14, revenues exceeded
expenses by over $525,023 as shown in Figure 11.6, above.
It should be noted that the California Institute for Local Government recommends that
agencies prepare five-year financial forecasts for both general and other funds, examining
issues such as overall economic trends, environmental and regulatory risks, unfunded
liabilities, adequacy of fee levels, fund balances, cost deferrals and infrastructure condition
and discuss these financial forecasts during public meetings5. The District should consider
developing this type of financial forecast in the near future.
5 Details on ILG’s website: <http://www.ca-ilg.org/>.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 11, Sierra Lakes CWD 11-21
$
SU
Figure 11.6: SLCWD Revenue and
Expense
Grand Total Revenues
Grand Total Expense
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
RATE RESTRUCTURING
Annual water and sewer fees consist of a flat fee of $2,492. Rates are reviewed each year.
The District bills on a flat rate fee schedule based on EDUs. SLCWD recently finished three
proposition 218 rate increases for three years and formed an assessment district to pay for
their share, 44 percent, of the new wastewater treatment plant currently being constructed
by DSPUD.
COST AVOIDANCE
District meetings are held at the District office on property the District owns. The District
employs three full-time personnel for water and wastewater facilities operations and
maintenance. The Financial Consultant and General Manager, as well as other key personnel
needed periodically, are contract employees. The Board of Directors is compensated at a rate
of $180 per meeting. Directors may receive no more than $8,640 in any year per District
policy.
The District seeks cost savings where it can, such as applying for and receiving grants to
offset some costs. The District also notes that routine maintenance and repairs, such as the
District’s reduction of water leaks and sewer I&I, reduce expenditures by lowering costs of
production and treatment.
Although the District wastewater treatment is provided by DSPUD, the District does not share
facilities or equipment with other districts or agencies.
11.9: OPPORTUNITIES TO SHARE FACILITIES
The District holds its meetings in its main office building that also serves as the District
headquarters. The General Manager works from this office as well. SLCWD shares equipment
and labor with DSPUD when necessary and shares in the decision-making process regarding
capital improvements to the DSPUD wastewater treatment plant.
As with other small water and wastewater districts in the area such as DSPUD, the small size
of the SLCWD can result in a relatively small pool of potential board members and difficulties
in reaching economies of scale. Although there are no known problems with the operation or
management of SLCWD, the sharing of resources, personnel, and other systems should be
explored. Beyond a cost/benefit study, an investigation of a regional wastewater system
would also have to carefully examine a wide range of technical issues. For example, DSPUD
and SLCWD have had past disagreements regarding the calculation of flow rates and other
issues which seem to have been generally resolved with the adoption of an interim agreement
in 2003. The interim service agreement clearly defined some of these issues such as
ownership, measurement of system capacity, maintenance and operation costs, plant
expansion, and capital improvements in order to reduce current and future disagreements.
This 2003 Agreement is in the process of being updated.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 11, Sierra Lakes CWD 11-22
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
Participation in an Integrated Regional Water Management Plan could be one way for the
District to gain access to shared information and to support for future grant applications. The
Tahoe Sierra Integrated Regional Water Management Plan at http://tahoesierrairwm.com/ is
one example the District may wish to consider.
11.10: CHALLENGES
The District has identified no regulatory issues, infrastructure issues, or other challenges
within the next 12 months, but has noted that new environmental restrictions and permitting
related to operation of the water and sewer systems in the next five years will likely be a
challenge for the District.
Serene and Dulzura Lakes were formerly privately owned and have historically been used for
recreational purposes such as swimming and canoeing. With the recent land trust acquisitions
of Royal Gorge property, the land underlying the lakes was transferred to District ownership.
Legislation regulating the District does not allow for a water district to provide recreation
services, and swimming in a domestic water supply is considered an activity incompatible
with the intended use of the water. The District has prepared a lake management plan and
the Board has adopted an ordinance to implement this plan6.
The District inherited other problems with the transfer of the lake property to District
ownership. A lawsuit was attached to the lakes from people who had been suing the previous
owner. When the title transferred, the lawsuit also transferred over. The District is currently
working with its legal counsel to help resolve the litigation.
Other risks that the District manages include the risk of sewage discharge from broken mains
or failure of sewage pumps that could result in accidental contamination of the
drinking/municipal water supply. The District manages this risk through on-going water
quality monitoring and reporting and through preparation of a watershed sanitary survey
report. Drought is also a risk to every water service provider in the state of California. Given
its location in the upper watershed and relatively plentiful water flows in the area along with
a small population, the District has less risk than most other water service providers. The
SLCWD is complying with Governor Brown’s 2015 order and conserve water during the on-
going multi-year drought.
11.11: SERVICE ADEQUACY
The District’s facilities are currently sized to adequately serve the existing connections within
the service area. Water supply has historically exceeded demand with an average
consumption rate of 117.7 afa between 2000 and 2009 and an authorized amount of storage
of 1,177 afa. The District anticipates requiring 365 afa for beneficial uses upon full buildout
6 Ordinance 99 is available on the District website at: http://www.slcwd.org/
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 11, Sierra Lakes CWD 11-23
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
of all the properties in its service area and has a recently amended permit from the SWRCB
allowing for that amount. The DSWWTP has been upgraded and expanded and is projected to
have adequate service capacity to meet the anticipated future wastewater connections.
In the past, SLCWD informally considered the provision of service in conjunction with DSPUD
and/or other service providers in the area. This concept has not been pursued by SLCWD
because the voting structure is different for each agency. For example, voters within SLCWD
are not required to be full-time residents (see Water Code § 30700.6) and this allows out-of-
town property owners to vote on District issues. However, DSPUD voting rules do require
voters to be full-time residents of the district. These structural differences facilitate the
retention of these service providers as independent agencies.
11.12: DETERMINATIONS
GROWTH AND POPULATION PROJECTIONS
1. The Sierra Lakes County Water District (SLCWD) served approximately 809 residential
and commercial water and sewer service connections as of 2015. Residences within
the District are primarily comprised of second homes and vacation rentals.
2. The population fluctuates between 104 and 2,079 people depending on the season.
3. The District currently uses an average of 117.7 afa of municipal (fresh) water due to
the seasonal population of the service area. With 365 afa allowed for beneficial use,
the District has the capacity to add the remaining residential connections from
undeveloped parcels in the Serene Lakes subdivision area.
4. The DSPUD wastewater treatment plant upgrade provides 239 additional EDUs for the
Serene Lakes area and was completed in 2015. With approximately 217 undeveloped
lots in Serene Lakes, the future EDUs available are sufficient for buildout of the
District.
5. The District has a very low growth rate for the resident population, coupled with a
projected increase in transitory population. Between 2000 and 2011, 152 EDUs were
added, and no new subdivisions or other developments were approved. The District
assumes a minimal growth rate with growth slowing significantly or halting once the
existing undeveloped lots are built.
6. The District’s Sphere of Influence is smaller than its formal boundary. It is
recommended that LAFCO and the District work together to review the SOI and to
consider aligning (co-terminus) it with the District’s formal boundary.
DISADVANTAGED UNINCORPORATED COMMUNITIES
7. No areas within the District qualify as a disadvantaged unincorporated community
because the median family income exceeds 80% of the state median family income.
PRESENT AND PLANNED CAPACITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 11, Sierra Lakes CWD 11-24
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
8. SLCWD was established in 1961 to provide domestic water, sewage transmission, and
sewage treatment in a community leachfield.
9. Since DSPUD’s construction of a wastewater treatment plant in 1971, SLCWD has
contracted with DSPUD to treat its wastewater. DSPUD has expanded its wastewater
treatment facility and has included the Sierra Lakes Water District customers in that
expansion.
10. The District currently provides water for municipal, recreational, commercial, and fish
culture purposes.
11. Repairs and replacements will be necessary on an ongoing basis for both water
treatment and delivery infrastructure, as well as wastewater collection.
12. The dam and reservoir at Serene Lakes were recently inspected by the Department of
Water Resources Division of Safety of Dams and found to be safe for continued use.
13. The California Water Resources Control Board, Drinking Water Division inspects the
District’s water treatment plant on a routine basis. A September 20, 2013 inspection
found that it was operated in a “conscientious and professional manner, and is well
maintained.” The inspector found that the water supply system was in good condition,
required records were submitted in a timely manner, and chemical testing was up to
date.
14. The District’s water supply comes from Serene Lakes. Water rights to the lakes allow
for the use of up to 365 acre-feet per year for beneficial uses. Historic water demand
from 2000 to 2011 has been 117.7 acre-feet per year. Demand rises in the winter
months due to the seasonal ski resort population.
15. The District has no backlog of will-serve letters.
FINANCIAL ABILITY OF AGENCY TO PROVIDE SERVICES
16. The District follows standard accounting procedures.
17. The District’s operations and maintenance activities are funded through service
charges, fees, and taxes via an enterprise fund.
18. The District reported that the current financing level is adequate to deliver services
presently.
19. Rates should continue to be reviewed and adjusted as necessary to fund District costs
and provide for capital improvements as needed.
20. The District’s annual budget and annual audited financial statement should continue
to be made readily available to the general public via the District’s website.
21. The District’s annual audited financial statement provides a summary of expenses from
an operational perspective. The District’s annual budget provides more detail on the
expenditures on salaries, utilities, and equipment.
22. The Districts audited financial statements for FY 10/11 and FY 13/14 demonstrates
adequate finances for the continued ability of the District to provide services.
23.
It is recommended that the District consider preparation of five year financial
forecasts and discuss these forecasts during public meetings and make them available
on the District’s website.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 11, Sierra Lakes CWD 11-25
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
STATUS OF, AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR, SHARED FACILITIES
24. The District should continue to examine joint arrangements for services that can be
provided on a regional or localized basis.
25. The District fees are set through a public process, and it is assumed that a nexus study
for linking new fees to the cost of providing services has been prepared. No nexus
study was requested or provided as part of this municipal service review.
26. The District should continue to work with DSPUD.
27. Service provision might be improved if the governance structure for SLCWD were
examined. The DSPUD and SLCWD should examine their current government structure
to determine of efficiencies could be gained by reorganizing the agencies.
28. The District may wish to consider participating in an Integrated Regional Water
Management Plan as a method to retain independence yet participate in a shared
information structure.
ACCOUNTABILITY FOR COMMUNITY SERVICE NEEDS, INCLUDING
GOVERNMENTAL STRUCTURE AND OPERATION EFFICIENCIES
29. Local accountability and governance might be improved through a reorganization of
service providers in the area or through more explicit joint agreements. For example,
the “Interim Service Agreement” signed by DSPUD and SLCWD in 2003 is an example of
such a joint agreement and this Agreement will soon be updated by Districts.
30. In the long-term future, the District could explore the use of new technology to
develop and capture renewable energy to reduce its annual expenditures on utility
costs. The District budgeted $39,000 for its electricity expenses in the proposed FY
2013-2014 budget. This amount accounts for 7.6 percent of the District’s expenses.
The District should investigate efficiencies in its electricity use.
31. Within the next ten years, alternatives to the current government structure in the
Soda Springs/Sierra Lakes area should be explored by Nevada and Placer LAFCo’s,
DSPUD and SLCWD.
32. The District is locally accountable through adherence to applicable government code
sections, open and accessible meetings, and dissemination of information and
encouragement of participation in their process.
33. The District demonstrated accountability through its prompt disclosure of information
requested by LAFCo for preparation of this MSR.
34. Board meetings are publicly noticed and comply with the Brown Act, California’s open
meeting law. They are held every month.
35. The District practices cost reduction through careful purchasing, bidding processes,
staff workload reductions, applications for grants and other mechanisms.
36. No boundary changes are pending or proposed at this time. However, the District’s
SOI is smaller than its actual boundary, an issue that should be rectified by reforming
the SOI to be co-terminus with the District boundaries.
37. All Board members have access to District data, records and information.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 11, Sierra Lakes CWD 11-26
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
38. The District has adequate public outreach, with a public website featuring Board
agendas and meeting minutes, fiscal information, staff contact information, general
information about services provided, rates, environmental compliance documents,
planning documents, and news stories about its current projects.
39. The District has a one-page strategic plan that outlines its mission statement. A more
detailed strategic plan that describes objectives and anticipated actions for the next
five years could help the District could improve upon 1) planning efforts, 2)
accountability and transparency.
40. The District does not currently meter water for the stated reasons that the capital
costs of installing the meters, along with the operational costs of reading the meters
and billing accordingly, could outweigh any savings from water conservation.
However, given the recent multi-year drought that affected the entire state of
California, the District may wish to consider exploring mechanisms (such as grant
applications) to pay for the capital costs associated with the installation of water
meters.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 11, Sierra Lakes CWD 11-27
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
11.13: REFERENCES
California Department of Public Health. Public Water System No. 3110017 – Annual Inspection
Report. 17 July 2012. 22 pages.
Placer County Housing Element, 2013.
Placer County. General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report Chapter 5 Non-County
Infrastructure and Services. 1994. 59 pages.
<http://www.placer.ca.gov/~/media/cdr/Planning/CommPlans/PCGP/EIR/Ch5NonCo
untyInfrastructure.pdf>. Accessed 30 April 2015.
Placer LAFCo. Agency Profile: Sierra Lakes County Water District. 30 January 2012.
Quesnel, Bill. Interview with Kateri Harrison, Principal, SWALE. 11 September 2013.
Robert W. Johnson, CPA, An Accountancy Corporation. Financial Statements and Independent
Auditor’s Report for the year ended June 30, 2011. 31 pages.
Robert W. Johnson, CPA, An Accountancy Corporation. Financial Statements and Independent
Auditor’s Report for the year ended June 30, 2012. 27 pages.
Sierra Lakes County Water District. <http://www.slcwd.org>. Accessed 29 October 2013.
Sierra Lakes County Water District. 2013/2014 Rate Covenant Calculation. 24 September
2013.
Sierra Lakes County Water District. FY 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 Project List. 30 June 2013.
Sierra Lakes County Water District. Ordinance No. 95: An Ordinance of the Board of Directors
of the Sierra Lakes County Water District Concerning Board Member Compensation.
Sierra Lakes County Water District. Placer Local Agency Formation Commission: 2013
Municipal Service Review Update: Districts/Agencies in North Tahoe & Martis Valley:
Information Request, 2013.
Sierra Lakes County Water District. Calculation of Serene Lakes Occupancy Ratio, 2009 survey.
Sierra Lakes County Water District. Connected Property List by Calendar Year, January 29,
2014.
Sierra Lakes County Water District. Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration Petition For
Time Extension And Petition To Allow Direct Diversion For Water Right Permit 14248.
Prepared by Stevens Consulting. October 14, 2011 . 89 pages.
Sierra Lakes County Water District. Water Supply Assessment. October 2010. 17 pages.
Available on-line at: <http://www.slcwd.org/PDF's/tempPDF's/Water%
20Supply%20Assessment%2010.07.10.pdf>.
State Water Resources Control Board, Division of Water Rights. Amended Permit for Diversion
and Use of Water, Application 20601, Permit 14248. 28 February 2013.
State Water Resources Control Board. Order WR 2013-0014-EXEC: In the Matter of Permit
14248, Application 20601, Sierra Lakes County Water District, Order Approving
Petitions for Change and Extension of Time. 28 February 2013.
Stevens Consulting. Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration: Petition for Time Extension
and Petition to Allow Direct Diversion for Water Right Permit 14248. Prepared for
Sierra Lakes County Water District. 14 October 2011.
US Department of Commerce. <www.census.gov>. Accessed 28 October 2013.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 11, Sierra Lakes CWD 11-28
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
Chapter 12
Squaw Valley Public Service District
Photo courtesy of http://www.svpsd.org
This Municipal Service Review (MSR) describes the Squaw Valley Public Service District. This
District was formed in 1964 and currently provides a wide range of services including water
distribution, wastewater collection, solid waste collection, and fire/emergency services.
Table of Contents
12.1 District Profile .................................................................................................. 12-2
12.2: Overview of District ........................................................................................... 12-2
12.3: Formation and Boundary ..................................................................................... 12-3
12.4: Accountability and Governance ............................................................................. 12-5
12.5: Management Efficiencies and Staffing ..................................................................... 12-6
12.6: Population and Growth ....................................................................................... 12-8
12.7: Financing ....................................................................................................... 12-15
12.8: Water Services ................................................................................................ 12-21
12.9 Wastewater Services .......................................................................................... 12-28
12.10: Fire and Emergency Services ............................................................................. 12-29
12.11: Solid Waste and Recycling ................................................................................. 12-32
12.12: Determinations .............................................................................................. 12-33
12.13: References ................................................................................................... 12-37
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 12, Squaw Valley PSD 12-1
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
12.1 District Profile
Squaw Valley Public Service District
Type of District: County Water District
Enabling Legislation: The County Water District Law: Water Code Sections 30000-33901
Functions/Services: Water distribution, wastewater collection, solid waste collection, bike trail
snow removal, and fire prevention and emergency services.
Main Office: 305 Squaw Valley Road, Olympic Valley, CA 96146
Mailing Address: PO Box 2026, Olympic Valley, CA 96146
Phone No.: (530) 583-4692
Fax No.: (530) 583-6228
Web Site: www.svpsd.org
General Manager: Mike Geary
Email: mgeary@svpsd.org
Governing Body: Board of Directors
Eric Poulsen 11/2020
Carl Gustafson 11/2020
Bill Hudson 11/2018
Dale Cox, Chairman 11/2018
Fred Llfeld 11/2020
Meeting Schedule: Last Tuesday of the month at 8:30 a.m.
Meeting Location: Squaw Valley Public Service District Community Room
305 Squaw Valley Road, Olympic Valley, CA 96146
Date of Formation: March 30, 1964
Principal County: Placer County
12.2: Overview of District
Olympic Valley, site of the 1960 Winter Olympics and also known as Squaw Valley, is an
unincorporated resort community located to the north of Lake Tahoe and to the south of the
Town of Truckee. The population of the District experiences high fluctuations in populations
with the seasons: winter skiing and summer activities such as hiking and golf. A sizeable
development application to expand the Village at Squaw Valley has been submitted to Placer
County. In June 2013, an application for incorporation of this area was submitted to Placer
LAFCO and subsequently withdrawn in December 2015.
Type and Extent of Services
The Squaw Valley PSD provides water, wastewater collection, solid waste collection, and
fire/emergency services. In 2011, the District began providing snow removal on multi-use
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 12, Squaw Valley PSD 12-2
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
trails in Olympic Valley, a service which is funded by Placer County, through the North Lake
Tahoe Tourism and Promotions Budget (Placer County, 2018).
District Resolution No. 99-08 stated the District’s intent to assume responsibility for the park
and recreation facilities and services within Squaw Valley upon assuming ownership of the
USFS property that was previously managed by Placer County. However, the District currently
does not own or operate any recreation and/or park facilities. A local non-profit organization
called “Friends of Squaw Valley” have been advocating for the Squaw Valley Public Service
District to expand its charter to include a focus on recreation for Olympic Valley.
Location and Size
The SVPSD is located south of Truckee and west of Highway 89 and encompasses
approximately 15 square miles, including the Olympic Valley and up to the ridgeline above
the Valley to the west. To the east, the District includes a portion of the Truckee River
corridor along Highway 89. The District boundaries encompass 5,350 acres. See Figure 12-1
for District boundary and SOI.
12.3: Formation and Boundary
The Squaw Valley County Water District was formed by the Placer County Board of Supervisors
on March 24, 1964 (Resolution No. 64-99); State certification occurred on March 30, 1964.
The District assumed operation of Squaw Valley Fire Department from the County of Placer in
1986. The District’s name was changed in 1997 to the Squaw Valley Public Service District in
order to better reflect the breadth of its service provision (District Resolution No. 97-32).
The District’s boundaries follow the watershed boundaries for Squaw Creek, which drains
Olympic Valley. Steep mountains ring the valley, rising to an elevation of over 9,000 feet at
the top of Granite Chief Peak.
Along the Hwy 89 corridor, the boundaries of the Squaw Valley Public Service District do
overlap with the Tahoe City PUD’s boundaries. This results in a situation where within the
SVPSD boundaries, the Tahoe City PUD provides water service to 20 homes, sewer collection
services to 29 homes, and maintenance on 7,283 feet section of a multi-use trail.
Boundary History
Since its formation in 1964, several annexations to the District have been approved by Placer
LAFCO. The first of which was in December of 1964 (LAFCO Resolution 64-19) and included
Winding Creek Subdivision, Forest Glen Subdivision, and Forest Glen Subdivision No. 2.
Subsequent annexations occurred in 1973 (LAFCO Resolution No. 73-1A) and in 1985 with
annexation along the Truckee River Corridor (LAFCO Resolution 15-84). The District’s Fire
Department boundary varies from the rest of the SVPSD boundary, extending north along
Highway 89. The extended Fire Department boundary is within the District’s SOI.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 12, Squaw Valley PSD 12-3
T
r
u
c
k
e
e
R
iv
e
r
89
Squaw
Creek
Valley
Rd
w
Squa
89
Alpine Meadows Rd
Squaw Valley PSD (Fire Only)
Squaw Valley PSD (Water & Fire)
0 0.5 1
Miles
Parcels
Parcels, Roads and District Boundary from Placer County GIS
Figure 12-1 SQUAW VALLEY PUBLIC SERVICE DISTRICT
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
In December of 2013, Incorporate Olympic Valley (IOV) submitted a formal application and
deposit to Placer LAFCO to pursue incorporation of Olympic Valley. The area proposed for
incorporation was coterminous with the existing District’s fire service boundary. This
application has since been withdrawn.
Sphere of Influence
The District’s SOI is also coterminous with the District’s fire service boundary. The District
indicates that its SOI is adequate for projected future needs.
Extra-territorial Services
Under an interagency agreement, the District provides potable water to 16 residential
customers in the Tahoe City Public Utility District’s service area, along the Truckee River east
of Highway 89.
Areas of Interest
No areas of special interest have been identified by the District.
12.4: Accountability and Governance
The District operates under the leadership of an elected, five-member Board of Directors,
with a General Manager providing daily oversight and management of staff and resources.
The District holds regularly scheduled meetings on the last Tuesday of the month, at 8:30
a.m. District staff indicates that all meetings are held in compliance with the Brown Act and
all laws governing public meetings. Agendas for regular meetings, standing committees and
special meetings are publicly noticed and posted at the District’s bulletin board and Olympic
Valley Post Office, which are public sites and open to the public 24 hours per day, 7 days per
week. The distribution list includes local media and posting on the Moonshine Ink online
calendar of events (http://moonshineink.com/). Public comment is allotted at every
meeting for items on the agenda and items not on the agenda. Agendas, meeting minutes,
and board packets are posted on the District website; notification is sent via email when
these documents are ready.
The District and its activities undergo public review procedures, including financial review by
independent auditors. There are sufficient mechanisms in place to ensure that actions and
operating procedures of the District are open and accessible to the public. The District
maintains a website as noted in the Agency Profile, above, where residents can obtain District
news, water and sewer rates, District meeting information, etc.
Customers may send comments or complaints to the District office in-person, by letter, or use
the District’s website contact page. A total of four formal written complaints were reviewed
over the 2011 and 2012 calendar years in response to the District’s Proposition 218
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 12, Squaw Valley PSD 12-5
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
notifications of rate increases. A total of two water quality complaints were logged in 2011
(SVPSD, 2014, p. 3).
Directors are elected to four-year terms, the last election having occurred in 2014 (See
District Profile above for list of current Directors). As of February 2016, there were no
vacancies on the Board. The most recent election was in November 2014 for two seats; there
were no challengers. Each Director is compensated $600 per month in accordance with
Government Code Section 61047(a), which allows a CSD board of directors to provide by
resolution that its members may receive compensation in an amount not to exceed $100 per
each day of service, not to exceed 6 days of service in a month. Additionally, all Board
members are eligible to enroll in the CalPERS Supplement Income Plan (457). Although only
one member has elected to contribute to a CalPERS 457 Plan, no Directors receive any
contribution from the District for their 457 Plans. Two of the Directors receive a CalPERS
Retirement benefit, for which the District contributes $136.95 per month (effective July 1,
2014) (the benefitting Directors each contribute $9.33 per month to their plans) (SVPSD,
2014, p. 2).
12.5: Management Efficiencies and Staffing
The General Manager is appointed by, serves at the will of, and reports to the elected five-
member Board of Directors. The District’s Board of Directors oversee the functions of the
General Manager, who administers and directs the overall activities and operations of the
District in accordance with policy direction by the Board of Directors. The General Manager is
the Chief Executive Officer and has full charge and control of all District activities with power
to employ and discharge all employees, department heads and assistants, and consultants
other than the District Board Secretary, who is appointed by the Board of Directors, and
prescribe their duties and fix their compensation subject to adopted resolutions, ordinances,
policies and contracts. The District provides leadership in all District activities and plans
including long-range planning, budgeting and financial oversight (SVPSD, 2014, p. 3). District
operations are organized into Administration, Fire and Operations, which includes water and
wastewater operations (see Figure 12-2 below). The District employs a total of 27.38 full time
equivalent employees, a 5.37 FTE increase from 2003 levels (SVPSD, 2014, p. 42).
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 12, Squaw Valley PSD 12-6
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
Figure 12.2. SVPSD Organizational Chart
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 12, Squaw Valley PSD 12-7
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
Contract Services
The SVPSD contracts with Tahoe Truckee Sierra Disposal Company to provide municipal solid
waste collections services for residential customers. The Squaw Valley Mutual Water
Company currently contracts with the SVPSD to provide operations and maintenance staffing
for efficiency of cost and personnel. The North Lake Tahoe Resort Association (NLTRA) and
Placer County contract with the SVPSD to provide snow removal services on the County’s
multi-purpose (bike) trail in Squaw Valley between Nov. 15 and April 30, providing
approximately 68 percent of the required funding. The remaining 32 percent is provided by
District fund raising efforts. In 2014/2015, the winter funding breakdown included:
• NLTRA/Placer County – 68 percent
• Resort at Squaw Creek – 17.5 percent
• Squaw Valley Resort (ski area) – 2.9 percent
• Squaw Valley Property Owners Association – 1.5 percent
However, as of the February 6, 2018 contract between Placer County and the SVPSD, 100% of
the funding for snow removal was derived from the North Lake Tahoe Tourism and Promotions
Budget (Placer County, 2018).
Technology/Management
The District maintains a wide variety of technology that enhances their long range planning
and keeps them abreast of state mandated data requirements. The District employs SCADA
systems for monitoring and management of its water and wastewater systems.
12.6: Population and Growth
Population
Estimates of population in resort areas are difficult to predict, as populations are transient
and can have significant variations throughout the year. The 1983 Squaw Valley General Plan
and Land Use Ordinance (SVGPLUO) allows for growth that reaches a seasonal peak of an
overnight population of 11,000 to 12,000 people, and a maximum skier capacity of 17,500
persons per day within the Valley. The permanent resident population pales in comparison to
these peak user days.
The non-resident population is comprised of a variety of users from absentee owners,
vacation rentals, hotel, camping and day visitors. The Placer County Office of Economic
Development, Placer Valley Tourism, Placer County Visitors Bureau and North Lake Tahoe
Resort Association commissioned a study (Placer County Travel Industry Assessment and
Detailed Economic Impact Estimates, 2002-2008 prepared by Runyan Associates in 2009) to
document the tourism impact in the county as a whole. Information was also collected for the
high country and particularly the Tahoe Basin. While this study does not specifically project
the seasonal population peaks associated with tourism and recreational uses it does
demonstrate the emphasis on seasonal uses that accommodate the visitors to the area.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 12, Squaw Valley PSD 12-8
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
The following excerpts are taken from the Travel Industry Assessment:
Second Homeowner Trends
The Travel Industry Assessment reports that within the High Country Region, a large
percentage of the housing units serve as private vacation homes and/or vacation
rental properties, most notably for the communities of North Lake Tahoe. Table 12-1
below, reflects that 89 percent of all single family homes, condominiums, and time-
shares in Olympic Valley are not owner-occupied.
Table 12-1 Single-Family Residential, Condominium, and Time-Share Housing Units, 2008
Zip Code Owner- Absentee Percent
Location Total Units
Area Occupied Owner Absentee
Olympic Valley 96146 243 1,879 2,122 89%
Estimated in 170 1,315 1,485 89%
SVPSD
boundary
area1
The District does not provide service to the entire 96146 zip code because: 1) some areas are
outside its service boundaries, 2) some property owners may obtain services from other
providers such as the Squaw Valley Mutual Water Company2, or 3) rural properties may not
require public services. Therefore to complete Table 12-1 above, we estimated that 70% of
the homes located within the 96146 zip code are also located within the District boundary. In
2010, the U.S. Census estimated the permanent population of the 96146 zip code at 1,366
persons. To calculate the estimated population for the District, the following information
was considered:
• Approximately 2,400 parcels located within District boundaries
• 170 owner permanently occupied homes with 2.66 persons per household3, yields 452
permanent residents.
• 1,315 absentee owner homes with 2.66 persons per household, yields 3,498
visitor/temporary overnight individuals.
• Several thousand visitor/temporary overnight individuals4 can be accommodated in
hotel rooms within the District boundaries.
• The District serves day visitors to the resort who may spend the night outside of
District boundaries and it is estimated the maximum peak day-time only visitors is
approximately 6,5005.
1 It is estimated that 70% of the homes within the zip code are also located within the district
boundaries.
2 Details on the mutual water company are on its website at: http://www.svmwc.com/
3 U.S Census at: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06/06061.html estimates an average of 2.66
persons per household in Placer County.
4 Data source: Placer County Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. April 2010.
http://www.placer.ca.gov/~/media/ceo/emergency/documents/Final-Hazard-Mitigation-
Plan/Placer%20CountyLHMPMaster.pdf
5 Data source: IBID.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 12, Squaw Valley PSD 12-9
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
• 1,608 water “connections” (1,569 residential connections and 39 commercial
connections and a connection is correlated to number of households and businesses
served).
• 1073 connections number of wastewater “connections” (i.e. correlated to number of
households and businesses served) (39 commercial customers plus 1,034 residential
customers).
• SVPSD has approximately 920 “customers”6 which comprise a variety of residential,
commercial, and institutional properties and which may receive a select number of
public services. Several “customers” have multiple water and sewer “connections”.
• 560 registered voters reside within the District.
Although the individuals staying in local hotel rooms or renting out vacation homes are not
permanent residents, there are a number of units that are occupied on a year round basis by
a rotating roster of visitors. For analysis purposes, it was assumed that approximately 187 of
the temporary/visitor units are continuously occupied on average. Based on the above data
and for purposes of this MSR analysis, it is estimated that population served in 2012 within the
District boundaries is 950 permanent individuals and 3,500 average peak season overnight
visitors.
Table 12-2: Summary of Existing Population
Existing Permanent Estimated Current Peak
Population Visitor Population7
Squaw Valley Public 950 3,5008 up to 12,000
Service District
Projected Growth and Development
The Placer County General Plan serves as the County’s vision for long-term land use
development and conservation. Placer County’s General Plan adopted on August 16, 1994,
and updated May 21, 2013, provides a series of goals, policies, standards and implementation
programs to guide the land use, development, and environmental quality of the County.
While the County’s General Plan was updated, the Squaw Valley and the Tahoe Basin area
plans were not.
The applicable General Plan is the 1983 SVGPLUO. While dated, this plan is not scheduled for
update in the near future (personal communication with Crystal Jacobsen, Project Manager
Tahoe Basin Community Plan Update). The primary land uses are residential, business,
schools, ski resort and mixed-use village. The zoning for these parcels currently includes
Village Commercial, Heavy Commercial, High Density Residential, Forest Recreation,
Conservation Preservation, Low Density Residential, and Entrance Commercial. The 1983
SVGPLUO estimates that a seasonal overnight population of 11,000 to 12,000 people will need
6 Data source: SVPSD Customer List provided to LAFCo in response to the Request for Information.
7 This column shows the # overnight visitors. (Day-use only visitors are not included.)
8 1315 housing units from absentee owners (i.e. vacation homes) x 2.66 persons per household
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 12, Squaw Valley PSD 12-10
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
to be accommodated with a maximum skier capacity of 17,500 persons per day at buildout
within the Valley.
It has been Placer County’s General Plan policy to steer urban growth to the cities. The 2013
Placer County Housing Element confirms that policy. While the county has grown at a rapid
pace, much of this growth has occurred within the cities. Incorporated areas of the county
grew at an Average Annual Growth Rate (AAGR) of 5.2 percent. Unincorporated Placer
County’s population grew at an AAGR of 1.8 percent between 1990 and 2000. From 2000 to
2010, Placer County as a whole had a 3.4 percent AAGR for population, a rate nearly three
and a half times California’s population AAGR of 1.0 percent during this period. Most of this
growth occurred in the incorporated areas of the county where the AAGR was 5.0 percent
between 2000 and 2010. Growth in unincorporated areas of the county slowed to an AAGR of
0.7 percent.
The historical rate of year-round population growth, per 2010 U.S. Census data for zip code
96146, indicates that the permanent population grew by 3.96 percent annually from 2000 to
2010. The permanent population in 2000 was 926 and in 2010 it was 1,366. It is noted that
this zip code includes Alpine Meadows and land to the north, south and east. Much of the
lands outside the two resort communities are very rural with limited population. While
Squaw Valley may have experienced growth the ten year period from 2000 to 2010, Alpine
Meadows has not. Based solely on available 2010 U.S. Census data, the 3.96 percent growth
rate between the 2000 and 2010 was projected to remain constant through 2032 for analysis
purposes. An alternative, more conservative (i.e. lower) growth rate of 2 percent was
projected in the 2004 MSR. Table 12-3 presents both rates of growth. Either way, the
permanent population will be relatively modest compared to the service capacity of the
district.
Table 12-3: Population Projections for the SVPSD, 2012-2032
Projection 2012 2017 2022 2027 2032
3.96% projected 950 1,154 1,402 1,702 2,067
growth rate*a
2% projected 915 1,010 1,115 1,231 1,359
growth rate*b
*a Basis for 3.96% growth rate: Data from the U.S. Census (2010) & Placer County
*b Basis for 2% growth rate: 2004 MSR
Based on past growth rates and likely future development, it is anticipated that the ultimate
service demands within the Squaw Valley PSD will continue to increase. The 3.96 percent,
2000-2010 population growth rate is much higher than the increase in service connections for
wastewater which was 9679 in 2003, 983 in 2012, and 1,073 in 201510 which represents an
average annual growth rate of 0.86%. This difference could be associated with a trend
toward a more permanent population residing in units that were previously second or vacation
homes. These units would have had previous water and wastewater service connections. In
9 Data source for 967 connections: LAFCo 2004 MSR
10 Data source for 1073 connections: personal communication with T-TSA
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 12, Squaw Valley PSD 12-11
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
addition to providing both wastewater and water services within its boundaries, SVPSD also
provides water service to portions of Tahoe City Public Utility District east of Highway 89. As
a result, comparing wastewater connections may be a more valid indicator of growth within
the District.
A new Specific Plan (2014), Village at Squaw Valley, is proposed on a 94-acre portion of the
Squaw Valley Village by Squaw Valley Real Estate, LLC, that will adjust existing land use and
zoning within the project area. The proposed Specific Plan is the first specific plan proposed
under the SVGPLUO since it was adopted by Placer County in 1983. The Specific Plan proposes
to amend the SVGPLUO to comprehensively plan development of a recreation-based, all-
season, mountain resort community. The ultimate build-out of the proposed Specific Plan is
consistent with this future growth level anticipated in the SVGPLUO. The proposed Specific
Plan includes limited changes (i.e., amendments) to the land uses previously approved for the
site in the General Plan. These changes and the Specific Plan proposal require evaluation
under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The County has determined that these
changes and entitlements could result in potentially significant impacts on the environment,
and has therefore prepared an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to evaluate these potential
impacts11.
The proposed Village at Squaw Valley Specific Plan and the Resort at Squaw Creek, Phase II
projects are significant developments on the near horizon. As with past developments,
growth in this area is likely to come not in incremental development of new residential and
commercial properties, but rather in large developments. Recent projects in the area
provide an example of growth in the Squaw Valley boundaries. The vast majority of overall
development within the District has been at two resorts: 1) the Resort at Squaw Creek Phase
1 (circa 1990) and 2) the Village at Squaw Valley (circa 2000). The Resort at Squaw Creek sits
on 195 acres and contains 405 residential units12 along with the winter chair lift, a golf course
and other resort amenities. The Village at Squaw Valley sits on 93.7 acres and contains 297
residential units13 which are contained in five lodge type buildings along with several
restaurants and other visitor serving amenities. Given the development applications currently
being processed by the Placer County Community Development Department, it is likely that
new growth will occur in large developments at some point in the planning period (prior to
2032).
A Draft Village at Squaw Valley Specific Plan (October 2014) and a Draft Program
Environmental Impact Report (May 2015) were reviewed by the Placer County Planning
Department. The Village at Squaw Valley Specific Plan was revised in April 2016. A Final
Environmental Impact Report was issued on April 7, 2016. This revised Specific Plan would
allow for development of resort residential, commercial, retail, and recreational uses similar
to uses currently allowed under the SVGPLUO, including lodging, skier services, retail
shopping, restaurants and bars, entertainment, and public and private recreational facilities.
11 DEIR and FEIR available on-line at: https://www.placer.ca.gov/departments/
communitydevelopment/envcoordsvcs/eir/villageatsquawvalley/final%20eir
12 Data source: http://www.squawcreek.com/california-resorts.php
13 Data source: personal communication with SVPSD staff February 2015.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 12, Squaw Valley PSD 12-12
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
The plan area would consist of two main zones within the Village: the Village Core, consisting
of high-density, active, tourist-related mixed uses; and the Village Neighborhoods, consisting
of medium-density resort residential neighborhoods and small-scale neighborhood-serving
commercial uses. In addition, the plan area would include the approximately 8.8-acre East
Parcel, which is planned for employee housing, off-site parking, and activities that are
ancillary to the Village, such as receiving and distribution. The Specific Plan proposes a
maximum of 1,493 bedrooms (or 750 units) in the main Village area and up to 264 bedrooms
(or 21 units) to accommodate employee housing on the East Parcel. Under the proposed
Specific Plan, the total population of the Valley would be 9,483. The Specific Plan would be
developed over approximately 20–25 years. Although the level of development in the Specific
Plan is less than that that projected in the SVGPLUO, the proposed specific plan amendment
remains controversial. Given the level of controversy, it could be subject to litigation.
The District has a Water and Sewer Service Agreement (Development Agreement) for the
proposed Resort at Squaw Creek Phase II Project and in November 2016 the SBPSD Board of
Directors approved Resolution Number 2016-20 to extend this agreement to 2019. The project
includes construction of 526 new bedrooms. The District also has a Water and Sewer Service
Agreement (Development Agreement) for the proposed Olympic Estates Subdivision, which
proposes the construction of 16 single-family residences; it expires on August 7, 2016. The
water and sewer facilities were constructed in the Olympic Estates Subdivision in the summer
of 2014. The District is currently in the process, along with the County, of accepting
dedication of the water and sewer facilities. As of December 2014, none of the sixteen
townhomes were built; there were a total of 16 empty lots. The District and the Developer
are still satisfying the terms of the Agreement but are nearing fulfillment of many of its
provisions (M. Geary, 2015).
The proposals described above represent significant development pressure in the SVPSD that
this MSR considers when projecting future service demands. Additionally, other new projects
in various stages of planning could impact the SVPSD (SVPSD, 2014, pp. 11-12) as listed in
Table 12-4 below:
Table 12-4: List of Proposed Projects in Eastern Placer County
Project Name Proposed Development Status
Resort at Squaw Creek – 526 bedrooms Approved by Placer County,
Phase II Development Agreement
with SVPSD
Sena at Squaw Valley 165 bedrooms and 83,000 square-feet Very early stages of
(e.g., Development at of commercial planning
Creeks End Court)
Homestead @ Squaw Eight residential townhomes; six Very early stages of
Valley rowhouses; lodge building with a mix planning
of 2, 3 & 4 bedroom units, and
outdoor spa; commercial building
with 2 condominium residences,
restaurant, and resident’s club;
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 12, Squaw Valley PSD 12-13
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
condominium building with two
condominium residences
PlumpJack Squaw One hotel, containing 60 hotel key Under process by Placer
Valley Inn rooms and 6 residential units, along County. June 2015 NOP.
with hotel amenities such as a
restaurant, bar, spa, and approx.
2,000 sq. ft. of retail space. A 12-
unit condominium. A 16 unit
residential condominium. An
underground parking structure,
containing 135 parking spaces.
Olympic Estates Sixteen lots and common area; Approved by Placer County,
sixteen single-family residences Development Agreement
with SVPSD
Squaw Valley Ranch Four single-family residential lots. Under process by Placer
Estates County
Warmouth Property Four lots; four single-family Approved by Placer County
residences
Mancuso Property four single-family residences Very early stages of
(totaling 20 bedrooms); one common planning
recreation facility
Olympic Museum 14,500 commercial square-feet in 2- On January 12, 2016, the
floors. Commonly referred to as the County held a Pre-
Development meeting with
“Squaw Valley Olympic Museum &
the project applicant.
Winter Sports’ Heritage Center”
Alpine Meadow I Squaw Eight-passenger gondolas connecting The US Forest Service
Valley Base-to-Base the Alpine Meadows released a draft EIS in April
Gondola and Squaw Valley ski areas. 2018.
A Comprehensive Fiscal Analysis was prepared in 2015 for a former proposal to incorporate a
new town called Olympic Valley. While this effort was ultimately not pursued, the
Comprehensive Fiscal Analysis by RSG Inc. Consultants did provide a very detailed Growth
Forecast and the results of this forecast are listed in Table 12.5, below.
Table 12.5: Growth Forecast in SVPSD area
Type of Development Proposed Forecast for Year 2040
Specific Plan Residential and Lodging Units 850 units
Employee Housing (Dormitories) 264 units
Specific Plan: Nonresidential (Retail, 220,083 sq. ft.
Restaurant, ski services etc.)
Other Residential/Lodging (Outside the Specific 673 units
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 12, Squaw Valley PSD 12-14
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
Plan)
Other Nonresidential SF (Outside the Specific 80,500 sq. ft.
Plan) (Museum, PlumpJack)
Source: LAFCo, 2015.
Even with all the proposed development described above, the population of permanent
residents is projected to remain consistent with that shown in Table 12.3 above. RSG’s
Comprehensive Fiscal Analysis projected a permanent population of 1,112 persons by the year
2025, slightly lower than the 1,702 persons in the year 2027 projected by Table 12.3. Visitor
population, including both overnight visitors and day-use visitors is expected to increase
significantly, above today’s baseline. The cumulative impact analysis in the EIR’s prepared
on a project-specific basis will analyze the effect of this projected increase in visitor
population.
Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities
As described in Chapter 3, LAFCo is required to consider the provision of public services to
disadvantaged unincorporated communities (DUCs). Relevant data were reviewed for the
Alpine Springs area. No DUCs have been identified within Squaw Valley PSD boundaries, its
SOI, or adjacent areas. The U.S. Census 2010 found the median household income (MHI) in the
96146 zip code was $52,333.14 This is higher than the DUC threshold MHI of less than $48,706
(80 percent of the statewide MHI). Additionally, this area does receive adequate water,
wastewater, and fire protection services as detailed in this MSR. Please see Chapter
3, Section 3.6 of this MSR for more information on disadvantaged unincorporated
communities.
12.7: Financing
This section evaluates the factors affecting the financing of operations and improvements for
SVPSD. Information on District financing is derived from independently audited financial
statements for the Fiscal Year 2011/2012, as well as information provided by District staff.
These statements represent the financial statements of the District’s consolidated services,
and follow Government Accounting Standards Board (GASB) method of Accrual accounting.
Disclaimer: The financial information provided in this MSR section was accurate as of its
writing in 2013. However, the District updates its financial information on an annual basis.
Therefore, the financial information in this MSR has been superseded and readers are
encouraged to read the newer financial statements and budgets published by the District on
their website at: http://www.svpsd.org/.
14 2010 census via American Fact Finder website at:
<http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=CF>.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 12, Squaw Valley PSD 12-15
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
District Revenues and Expenditures
The economy continues to pose a hardship to the District due to greatly reduced development
resulting in low connection fees, reduced property taxes, and very limited new construction
and remodel permit fees. The District had an overall decrease in net assets in 2012
(McClintock Accountancy Corporation, June 30, 2012, p. 7). The statement of net assets
shows a current financial position with Total Current Assets as $4,982,000 and total liabilities
as $3,281,000 (McClintock Accountancy Corporation, June 30, 2012, p. 10). The following
table includes a comparison of the 2010/2011 and 2011/2012 fiscal years of the District’s
government-wide financial data.
Table 12-6: Changes in Net Assets (in Thousands) – Fiscal Years 2010/2011 and 2011/2012
Governmenta Business-Type Total Total
l Activities Activities
(Fire) (Utility)
2011 2012 2011 2012 2011 2012 Dollar %
Change Change
Current and other 922 807 5,582 4,175 6,504 4,982 (1,522 -23.40%
assets )
Noncurrent assets 5,845 5,644 11,202 11,418 17,047 17,062 15 0.09%
Total Assets 6,76 6,45 16,78 15,59 23,55 22,04 (1,507 -6.40%
7 1 4 3 1 4 )
Long-term debt 545 468 2,131 2,003 2,676 2,471 (205) -7.66%
Other liabilities 362 407 623 403 985 810 (175) -17.77%
Total Liabilities 907 875 2,754 2,406 3,661 3,281 (380) -
10.38%
Net Assets: invested 5,121 4,993 9,282 9,639 14,403 14,632 229 1.59%
in property,
equipment, net of
related debt
Restricted 123 134 601 666 724 800 76 10.50%
Unrestricted 616 449 4,147 2,882 4,763 3,331 (1,432 -30.07%
)
Total Net Assets 5,86 5,57 14,03 13,18 19,89 18,76 (1,127 -5.67%
0 6 0 7 0 3 )
Program Revenue 5 20 1,960 2,058 1,965 2,078 113 5.75%
General Revenues
Property Tax 2,448 2,428 426 372 2,874 2,800 (74) -2.57%
Dedications 0 0 34 0 34 0 (34) -
100.00%
Other 45 18 263 182 308 200 (108) -35.06%
Total Revenue 2,49 2,46 2,683 2,612 5,181 5,078 (103) -1.99%
8 6
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 12, Squaw Valley PSD 12-16
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
Expenses 2,528 2,751 2,818 3,455 5,346 6,206 860 16.09%
Increase (Decrease) (30) (285) (135) (843) (165) (1,128 (963) 583.64%
in Net Assets )
Source: Independent Auditor’s Report, Fiscal Year 2011/2012 (McClintock Accountancy
Corporation, June 30, 2012)
The Statements of Activities and Changes in Net Assets (Tables 12-7 & 12-8, below) provide an
indication of the District’s financial condition. Total Current Assets changed significantly due
to the payout of higher expenses, more service fees sent to taxes and more prepaid expenses
than in prior years. Revenue increased slightly in 2012 due to construction on two new homes
and significant remodels on two others. Expenses increased in 2012 mostly due to the payoff
of remaining CalPERS side funds, which were funded through the capital reserve fixed asset
replacement funds through a 10 year loan at 3 percent interest (versus the 7.75 percent
charged by CalPERS). Maintenance on property and vehicles along with increases for
chemicals and licenses continue to increase field expenses (McClintock Accountancy
Corporation, June 30, 2012, p. 6). The District has Governmental Funds, which include a
Utilities Fund and a Fire Fund.
Table 12-7: SVPSD Statement of Activities and Changes in Net Assets, Fiscal Year 2011-2012
Source Governmental Business-Type Total
Activities (Fire) Activities (Utility)
Program Revenues
Mutual Aid $12,000 0 12,000
Service Fees 0 1,989,376 1,989,376
Fire Protection Fee 8,390 0 8,390
Connection Fee 0 68,408 68,408
Total Program Revenue $20,390 $2,057,784 $2,078,174
Expenditures
Salaries & Wages 1,243,216 895,741 2,138,957
Employee Benefits 1,041,586 1,185,405 2,226,991
Field Operations 144,455 351,502 495,957
General & Administrative 73,874 187,789 261,663
Other Expenses (interest,
depreciation)
Depreciation 224,918 753,504 978,422
Interest 22,626 80,758 103,384
Total Expenditures $2,750,675 $3,454,699 $6,205,374
General Fund Revenues
Property Taxes 2,427,616 371,895 2,799,511
Administrative Fees 0 15,372 15,372
Grants 0 10,000 10,000
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 12, Squaw Valley PSD 12-17
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
Interest 9,324 88,863 98,187
Rental Revenue 0 63,355 63,355
Other 8,535 4,542 13,077
Total General Fund Revenues $2,445,475 $554,027 $2,999,502
Increase (Decrease) in Net (284,810) (842,888) (1,127,698)
Assets
Net Assets – Beginning of 5,860,137 14,030,039 19,890,176
Year
Net Assets – End of Year $5,575,327 $13,187,151 $18,762,478
Source: Independent Auditor’s Report 2011/2012 (McClintock Accountancy Corporation,
June 30, 2012, pp. 21-23)
Table 12-8: SVPSD Statement of Activities and Changes in Net Assets Business-Type Activities,
Fiscal Year 2011/2012
Water Sewer Garbage
Source Department Department Contract Total Utility
Program Revenues
Service Fees $1,007,216 759,081 223,079 1,989,376
Connection Fees 56,370 12,038 0 68,408
Total $771,119 $223,079 $2,057,784
$1,063,586
Revenues
Expenditures
Salaries & Wages 543,629 350,848 1,264 895,741
Employee Benefits 712,968 471,832 605 1,185,405
Field Operations 103,596 30,734 217,172 351,502
General & 0 187,789
129,154 58,635
Administrative
Other Expenses
Depreciation 475,188 278,316 0 753,504
Interest 55,723 25,035 0 80,758
Total
$2,020,258 $1,215,400 $219,041 $3,454,699
Expenditures
General Revenues
Property Tax 312,970 58,925 0 371,895
Administrative 9,223 6,149 0 15,372
Fees
Grants 10,000 0 0 10,000
Interest 23,875 61,426 3,562 88,863
Rental Revenue 31,678 31,677 0 63,355
Other 2,644 1,898 0 4,542
Total General $390,390 $160,075 $3,562 $554,027
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 12, Squaw Valley PSD 12-18
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
Revenues
(Decrease) ($566,282) ($284,206) $7,600 ($842,888)
Increase in Net
Assets
Source: Independent Auditor’s Report 2011/2012 (McClintock Accountancy Corporation, June 30,
2012, pp. 24-26)
Recurring Revenues
Recurring revenues for the District include property taxes, service charges, connection fees,
interest accrual and grant funds as obtained. The District sets its rates based on a
comprehensive rate study, which was revised and completed in 2004 and is reviewed annually
as part of the budget process. The methodology includes determination of the total cost of
service and customer classifications, which provides the basis for rate setting each budget
cycle. During development of the rate study, the District held several service rate committee
meetings with various customer groups including commercial property owners, single family
residential owners and condominium owners. A key item addressed ensured no customer
service class would subsidize another. This is achieved through the rate design which develops
rates based on water consumption history and a cost of service analysis. The commercial
customers’ have a rate setting calculation as do the two other classes of customers: (1) single
family residences (some with apartments) and single-meter condominiums, and (2) multiple
unit condominiums with a single meter (SVPSD, 2014, p. 32).
Tax revenues are also used to calculate rates as the District applies projected tax revenues to
keep rates from increasing beyond what is necessary. The District’s tax income decreased by
almost $351,000 in fiscal year 2010-2011 due to property re-assessments of major commercial
properties and condominiums. The reduced tax income has resulted in the District’s need to
increase its service rates (SVPSD, 2014, p. 32).
Recurring Expenditures
Tax revenues allocated to the District are reduced by the State Education Revenue
Augmentation Fund (ERAF). The District’s tax revenue was reduced in fiscal year 2004/2005
by $262,324 and by $131,162 in 2005/2006 in order to fund the State ERAF. In fiscal year
2012/2013 reductions were $513,178 and $513, 706 in 2013/2014 (SVPSD, 2014, p. 34).
District Assets and Liabilities
The District’s Board of Directors is responsible for establishing necessary reserves for the
provision of contingencies and emergencies. Fixed asset replacement funds were established
in May 1995 to establish reserves for infrastructure replacement and assure that necessary
funds are available for catastrophic emergency situations (SVPSD, 2014, p. 31).
The District’s depreciation policy includes depreciation of all exhaustive fixed assets, which is
charged as an expense against the appropriate asset. Depreciation is calculated over the
estimated useful life using the straight line method. Estimated useful life estimates are 3 to
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 12, Squaw Valley PSD 12-19
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
50 years for facilities and systems and 5-20 years for vehicles, furniture and equipment
(SVPSD, 2014, p. 31).
Long Term Liabilities and Debt
Long-Term Liabilities
The largest impact to the District’s budget is the significant reduction in property tax revenue
resulting from the Great Recession starting in 2008. Significant increases in expenses include
health care and workers compensation insurance. Information technology and related
maintenance expenses continue to increase but are necessary to comply with most state and
county mandates. Utility and fuel costs continue to rise, are unpredictable, and impact the
District’s bottom line (SVPSD, 2014, p. 31).
Debt Without Government Commitment
The District has a loan agreement with Municipal Finance Corporation for the purchase of a
2.7-acre parcel of land for the District’s Fire Station and Administration Center. The loan in
the amount of $2,012,000, at 5.1 percent, calls for semi-annual payments in varying amounts
for 15 years with maturity of the loan on December 24, 2016. The District entered into a 25-
year capital lease agreement with the California Infrastructure and Economic Development
Bank to finance $2 million of the cost to construct the District’s Fire Station and
Administration Center, at an interest rate of 3.63 percent. This loan calls for semi-annual
payments of varying amounts with the final maturity of the loan scheduled for August 2028.
Asset Maintenance and Replacement
The District manages a Capital Improvement Plan/Replacement Plan for all of its services
areas to identify infrastructure needing improvement or replacement due to substandard
capacity and/or condition. The Plan includes identification of assets such as pipes,
transmission lines, water supply sources, hydrants, water storage tanks, major equipment,
vehicles, etc. The major element is infrastructure necessary to develop a secondary water
supply source, including a transmission main(s), one or more wells, a water storage tank,
pump station(s), pressure-reducing valves, and hydrants (SVPSD, 2014, p. 30).
The 10-year CIP
is a part of the
annual budget.
Photo courtesy of http://www.svpsd.org/ 1
Fixed Asset
Replacement
Funds were
adopted in May
1995. The
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 12, Squaw Valley PSD 12-20
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
purpose is to establish fund reserves as identified in the Water System Master Plan and Sewer
System Master Plan (2010) for replacement of assets at the end of their useful life. By
ensuring the money will be available, the program reduces the District’s future need to
borrow money, pay long term interest on debt, or sharply increase water or sewer rates. In
March 2006, the Asset Replacement Fund spreadsheets were reviewed, updated, and revised
to estimate recovery cost allocations. These spreadsheets are revised annually to include new
acquisitions and eliminate surplus or discarded items (SVPSD, 2014, p. 33).
Cost Avoidance
The District implemented joint agency insurance practices, contract services and various
technology/management practices to optimize management efficiencies and to control
service costs. For example, they now utilize a networked printer/copier/fax/scanner for all
administrative operations. The District also cut staff in the Administration Department and
substantially reduced overtime in the Fire Department by reducing its levels of service for fire
protection and EMS services; by implementing a three person per shift minimum standard, a
reduction from the prior four person per shift minimum standard (SVPSD, 2014, p. 37).
The District has implemented energy reduction plans such as using VFD controllers and LED
lighting.
The Squaw Valley Mutual Water Company contracts with the SVPSD to provide Operations and
Maintenance (O&M) services, which results in a cost savings to the Squaw Valley Mutual Water
Company. The District also began to provide snow removal services on Placer County’s bike
trails in Squaw Valley with District forces (in lieu of contracting for services) to reduce labor
costs and leverage grant funding to support the costs of the operation. Other than that, over
the last five years the District has reduced its expenses (trainings, travel, discretionary
spending, etc.) while maintaining a high level of service (SVPSD, 2014, p. 37).
The District noted that a consolidation with small neighboring utility districts, including with
the Squaw Valley Mutual Water Company, could improve the economies of scale and make
service deliveries more efficient and cost effective.
12.8: Water Services
Water Service Overview
The SVPSD is one of two municipal water service providers within the Olympic Valley. Located
within the SVPSD boundaries is a mutual water company, the Squaw Valley Mutual Water
Company (SVMWC), which provides water service to 281 residential customers within a 115-
acre portion of the Olympic Valley lying north of Squaw Creek (Figure 12-3). The SVPSD
provides service to all other residents and customers within the Valley and within its
boundaries. Additionally, two other metered entities pump water from the groundwater basin
including Resort at Squaw Creek (golf course irrigation and snowmaking) and Squaw Valley
Resort (snowmaking).
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 12, Squaw Valley PSD 12-21
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
Figure 11-3: SVPSD and SVMWD Service Areas
Source: Olympic Valley Groundwater Management Plan, 2007; pg 14.
Water Supply/Demand
Water Supply
The District is located in the Olympic Valley watershed, which is part of the larger Tahoe-
Truckee River Basin. The District relies on two groundwater sources: groundwater from the
alluvial Olympic Valley Groundwater Basin (Basin) and groundwater from horizontal fractured
bedrock wells in the mountainous areas above the Olympic Valley Floor. Neither source is
adjudicated, making the District’s water rights subject to California Groundwater Law.
Recharge to the Basin occurs from infiltration of precipitation and snowmelt on the Olympic
Valley floor, overland flow from the surrounding mountainsides, mountain front recharge in
the higher elevation sediments on the edges of the Basin, and infiltration from Squaw Creek.
The District relies primarily on the western portion of the Basin. The entire aquifer in the
Valley is approximately one square mile, ranges in depth from 75 to 150 feet. The eastern
portion does not produce water that meets drinking water standards for iron and manganese
without treatment. Test wells drilled in other locations of the watershed have been in
fractured bedrock and typically have low production, many with poor water quality (SVPSD,
2014).
Several previous studies have attempted to quantify the volume of groundwater that can be
produced from the Olympic Valley Groundwater Basin over some period of time without
causing impairment of one kind or another. More recent studies completed on behalf of the
SVPSD have attempted to quantify a sustainable yield for the Basin using the existing Model.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 12, Squaw Valley PSD 12-22
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
However, these studies evaluated the maximum amount of water that could be pumped from
the Basin using existing wells during a critically dry year without significantly affecting the
pumping water levels of the shallowest existing municipal supply well (West Yost 2001 and
2003). This sustainable yield actually is an operational yield that pertains more to the
maintenance of specific well operations than to the potential yield of the Basin (Todd 2012,
Slade 2006) (SVPSD, 2014).
These attempts to quantify a sustainable yield reported a wide range of maximum
groundwater production volumes including West Yost 2001 and Williams 2004. The large range
of reported maximum supply values was the result of variations in the timing and distribution
of demand and pumping. While each scenario represented a possible future scenario, the
wide range indicates that the assumptions regarding these distribution factors play a
significant part in the results of the analyses. Since a sustainable yield analysis may
oversimplify the dynamic complex Olympic Valley Groundwater Basin system (SVPSD, 2014), a
different approach was pursued.
Evaluation of the occurrence and flow of groundwater in the Olympic Valley Groundwater
Basin and the related water balance has shown that the groundwater system in Olympic
Valley is highly dynamic and responsive to the timing and spatial distribution of recharge,
demands, and pumping. This small groundwater system has a very high volume of water
flowing through the watershed on an annual basis, which far exceeds the volume of
groundwater storage or use (Todd 2012). This is clearly illustrated by the large volume of
rejected recharge that has been identified by HydroMetrics and others (HydroMetrics 2013,
Todd 2012) (SVPSD, 2014).
Figure 12-4: SVPSD 15-year Groundwater Production Trend (in million gallons) (1985-2012)
150.54
160
146.68
141.29
136.29 145.08 141.06
135.19 141.44 137.00 136.35
140
118.67 119.88 121.89
120 116.30 112.48
100
80
60
40
20
0
Source: SVPSD Response to LAFCO’s request for information, 2014.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 12, Squaw Valley PSD 12-23
snollaG
fo
snoilliM
8991 9991 0002 1002 2002 3002 4002 5002 6002 7002 8002 9002 0102 1102 2102
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
There is additional water supply available within the District’s service area, although it
consists of groundwater which underlies privately-owned property. The majority of the
remaining groundwater resources that lies under the private property holdings has been
maintained to meet demands of future development and has historically been unavailable to
the District (SVPSD, 2014, p. 14). However, those property owners have submitted a
development application for the proposed Village at Squaw Valley Specific Plan, which
proposes a water supply be provided from the western portion of the aquifer. Placer County
has recently assessed the potential impacts of the project through preparation of a Draft- and
Final EIR. As required by state regulations, a Water Supply Assessment was prepared by the
District to provide an analysis of water supply and demand of both for existing and future
demand (see Water Demand subsection, below).
The SVPSD is the lead groundwater management agency for the alluvial Olympic Valley
Groundwater Basin (Basin) and there are three other water purveyors which pump
groundwater. The District has prepared a collaborative Groundwater Management Plan (GMP),
the Olympic Valley Groundwater Management Plan, and maintains a numerical MODFLOW
groundwater model representing the Basin, which is a good representation of groundwater
flow in the Basin. (SVPSD, 2014, pp. ES-2). The GMP was first adopted in 2007, with
subsequent groundwater condition reports completed in 2008, 2009, and 2011. The GMP
deduced that although the basin is recharged to some maximum level every winter and
spring, water levels in the aquifer in late summer and fall are dependent on the amount of
snowmelt during the spring and summer (SVPSD, 2007, p. 34). Neither the GMP nor any of the
subsequent groundwater condition reports showed any indications of overdraft conditions in
the Basin (SVPSD, 2014, pp. 5-4).
The District holds a Water Supply Permit issued by the California Department of Public Health
(CDPH), last issued on January 25, 1977. The permit is automatically renewed unless it is
modified. The District pays an annual fee for permitting and CDPH conducts inspections every
two years. The 2011 CDPH Inspection Report recommends that a full permit be reissued by
CDPH to include new facilities. The CDPH identifies the District as a T-1 and D-2 facility
(SVPSD, 2014, p. 13).
The District’s average annual production from 1998-2007 was approximately 140 MG or 429
AFA. Additionally, producing an average of 31.8 AFA from the horizontal well, the District has
pumped an average of 397.6 AFA from Wells 1R, 2, 3 and 5 R in the Basin (SVPSD, 2014, p.
15).
Water Demand
The SVPSD currently serves 1,569 residential connections and 39 commercial entities (SVPSD,
2014, pp. 2-2). The current average demand for the SVPSD is 406 acre-feet per year (AFY)
(SVPSD, 2014, pp. ES-1). Future demand for the District is expected to increase to 777 AFA
(SVPSD, 2014, pp. A-2). Additionally, the District wholesales water to the Tahoe City Public
Utilities District (Tahoe-Truckee Forest Tract water system), which typically consists of 1.0 to
1.5 MG during the maximum month in the summer and 4.5 to 5 MG annually (CDPH, 2011, p.
2).
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 12, Squaw Valley PSD 12-24
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
Table 12-9: SVPSD Water Demand
2007 Winter Summer
Peak 0.523 MGD 0.827 MGD
Average 0.323 MGD 0.609 MGD
The 2014 Water Supply Assessment prepared for the Village at Squaw Valley Specific Plan
determined that water supply in the Basin is sufficient to meet the expected demand from
the Village project as well as existing and planned future uses (based on the 1983 Squaw
Valley General Plan and Land Use Ordinance) in the Olympic Valley over the next 25 years in
normal, single, and multiple dry years. The Basin is not currently in overdraft and is not
projected to be overdrafted with the future demand (SVPSD, 2014, pp. 8-2). The Water
Supply Assessment was updated in 2015 and is available in Appendix A of the County’s FEIR.
This update concludes that “The total water demand in Olympic Valley at 2040 was estimated
to be 1,254 AFY, which is an increase in demand of 383 AFY compared to historical water use.
Peak daily demand estimates associated with these annual demands indicate that the Project
will require four new wells and that the non-project SVPSD demands will require an additional
two new wells, for a total of six new wells in the SVPSD water supply system” (SVPSD and
Placer County, 2015).
Water Infrastructure and Facilities
Treatment Systems
The District is not required to provide continuous disinfection of its municipal water.
However, every year over a two week period, while flushing the water mains, the District
disinfects the distribution system as preventative maintenance. Due to previous high lead
and copper results in the distribution system, the District adds sodium hydroxide to the water
to raise the pH of the water from the naturally occurring pH levels (CDPH, 2011, p. 3).
Water Storage
The District maintains three water tanks with a combined capacity of 1.785 million gallons
(MG). The tanks are steel construction, the oldest having been constructed in 1980 and the
other two in 1990 and 1991. The Waterworks Standards require a water system serving less
than 1,000 service connections to provide storage at least equal to the maximum day
demands (MDD) in each pressure zone as well as the system as a whole. The highest
estimated MDD over the past five years was 918,000 gallons (including water sold to Tahoe
City PUD). The District’s current storage capacity of 1.765 MG is nearly double the MDD
(Table 12-10). Based on the number of District service connections, the estimated MDD in
Zone 3 is 24,000 gallons, which is much less than the storage capacity in Zone 3 of 135,000
gallons. In Zone 2, the MDD is 28,000 gallons and storage capacity is 500,000 gallons. The
estimated MDD in Zone 1 is 866,000 gallons, which is less than the storage capacity of 1.13
MG. Additionally, water can flow by gravity from Zones 2 and 3 into Zone 1. Therefore, the
District meets Waterworks Standards for storage capacity in each pressure zone as well as in
the system as a whole (CDPH, 2011, p. 5).
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 12, Squaw Valley PSD 12-25
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
Table 12-10: Water production and storage facilities
Estimated Reliable Capacity
Production Facility Pumping Capacity (gpm) Storage Facility (million gallons)
Well #1R 420 West Tank 1.15
Well #2R 350 max, 230 summer East Tank 0.50
Well #3 120 Zone 3 Tank 0.135
Well #4 Not in service
Well #5R 405
Horizontal Well 10
Total Capacity 1,185 1.785
(max)
Source: SVPSD Response to LAFCO Request for Information, 2014.
Distribution and Transmission
The SVPSD water system consists of three pressure zones: Zones 1 through 3. Zone 1 is the
main pressure zone. All vertical wells pump into this zone based on the level in the West
Tank. Water is pumped into Zone 2 via the Zone 2 Booster Station. The operation of this
booster station is based on the level in the East Tank. The horizontal wells also provide water
to this zone. Water from Wells 1R and 5R can also be directly pumped to the Zone 2
distribution system via a pipeline that follows along the south side of the valley. This line is
normally shut off so that water form Well 1 can be blended prior to entering Zone 2. The
transmission main is flushed twice per year. Water is supplied from Zone 2 to Zone 3 by the
Zone 3 Booster Station. The operation of this booster station is based on the level in the Zone
3 Tank (CDPH, 2011, p. 5).
The District distribution system was last evaluated in 2005 by the District’s consulting
engineer, which concluded that approximately 1,200 feet of steel lines would need
replacement within the next 5 to 10 years. The District has been working on replacing all 1-
inch and 2-inch diameter mains with 4-inch or larger mains in accordance with Waterworks
Standards. The District plans to replace a total of 400 feet of small diameter steel pipe to
complete the recommended main replacements (CDPH, 2011, p. 6). The District’s hydraulic
model of its Water System is currently being updated to assess capacity in support of the
Village at Squaw Valley Specific Plan.
Challenges in Provision of Water Services
The biggest challenge the District currently faces is its water supply infrastructure. The need
to improve the reliability of the District’s water supply may be controversial and expensive;
however, the District requires redundancy in it water supply resources to fulfill its mission
(SVPSD, 2014, p. 36).
During these record years of drought, California faces water supply challenges. Drought is a
specific risk which has been identified for the SVPSD (County, April 2010). Water conservation
is of increasing importance as we face multiple years of significantly below normal levels of
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 12, Squaw Valley PSD 12-26
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
precipitation and snow pack. The SVPSD has worked diligently to promote water conservation
and minimize water loss to control costs for producing water and to preserve the valley’s
water source. As a result of these efforts, the District has achieved greater success in
conserving water than the state’s goal to reduce per capita consumption by 20 percent by
2020. The District has achieved a 26 percent reduction since 2006, while keeping the annual
water loss below 10 percent (the national average is 14 percent). Water production in Squaw
Valley peaked in 2000 at 151 MG for the year. In 2011, the District produced 112 MG, a 26
percent reduction in groundwater pumping. In its response to LAFCO’s request for
information, the District provided the following summary of its efforts over the last several
decades to promote water conservation and better understand the limits of its drinking water
sources (SVPSD, 2014, p. 19).
• In 2003, an inverted block rate structure (wherein unit rates increase as
consumption increases) was instituted as well as the creation of a second tier for
annual consumption greater than 120,000 gallons. The first Water System Capacity
and Reliability Study was also completed.
• In 2004, a third tier was added to our rate structure for customers using over
220,000 gallons.
• In 2004, and again in 2007, the Water Code was modified to include state
requirements for low flow plumbing fixtures, irrigation conservation, and drought
contingency planning. Free copies of the Home Landscaping Guide for Lake Tahoe
and Vicinity developed by University of Nevada Reno are distributed by the
District.
• In 2005, the District performed a water system pipeline analysis that assessed the
age and condition of all water lines in the District; it was used to update the Asset
Replacement Program.
• In 2006, the Water System Fixed Asset Replacement Program was updated.
• In 2007, all water meter registers were upgraded and automated leak alerts
became standard, triggering more leak notifications and fewer repeat-reads.
Monitoring devices for home-use was made available to our customers to allow
real-time monitoring of water consumption.
• In 2007, the District completed the Olympic Valley Groundwater Management Plan
and pursued implementation of the Plan with completion of three periodic Reviews
and Reports.
• In 2008, a fourth tier was added to our rate structure for customers using over
280,000 gallons.
• In 2009, the Water Code was altered to require landscape meters on all new homes
and for new landscaping projects. The District also began posting water
consumption records on its web site for customers to review their usage.
Information on checking for leaks and saving water is also on the web site.
• In 2010, the District formed the Groundwater Monitoring Plan and Database as a
repository for groundwater level monitoring, pumping data, and stream gauging
performed by the District as well as other stakeholders.
• In 2012, the District purchased updated leak detection equipment and also
acquired a test meter to perform water meter testing.
• In 2014, the Olympic Valley Creek / Aquifer Interaction Study was completed.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 12, Squaw Valley PSD 12-27
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
Water Service Adequacy
The 2011 CDPH report determined the overall system to be well operated and maintained
(CDPH, 2011, p. 10). Further, both the CDPH and the more recent Village at Squaw Valley
Specific Plan (VSVSP) Water Supply Assessment (WSA) determined the District has sufficient
source capacity from the aquifer for both existing and future development projected by
Placer County in the next 25 years (SVPSD and Placer County, 2015). Additional infrastructure
(new wells and upgraded water pipes) and perhaps new water storage will be required to
meet future water demands.
The District also participates in the Tahoe-Sierra IRWM Group and is included in the group’s
current Plan.
12.9: Wastewater Services
Wastewater Service Overview
The SVPSD owns, operates and maintains the wastewater collection system that services the
Olympic Valley, which discharges to the TTSA interceptor line on the east side of Highway 89.
Wastewater collected in the District’s collection system is treated by the Tahoe-Truckee
Sanitation Agency (TTSA) in Truckee (SVPSD, 2014, p. 21). The District does not provide
wastewater collection services outside of its service boundary.
The District participates in the Tahoe Truckee Area Emergency Contingency Plan with 13
other districts made up of water districts, improvement districts, public utility districts,
community services district, sewer districts and sanitation agencies. The objective of the
plan is to prevent, minimize, and mitigate any disruption in sewage collection, conveyance,
or treatment systems, and water systems in the plan area in order to insure continuing
compliance with all applicable laws and regulations for the protection of public health and
safety, and the preservation of water quality of Lake Tahoe and the Truckee River Watershed.
This plan is intended to assist all public utility, improvement, and county water districts in
the Tahoe-Truckee area deal with emergencies and natural disasters affecting the services
provided by these districts. Additionally, this plan is intended to assist all districts in
updating their specific emergency action plans in a similar and accepted format. Further,
this plan will insure that districts in the Tahoe-Truckee areas will be in a position to render
effective and efficient mutual aid when necessary. The Agreement for Emergency Aid will
provide for emergency cooperation throughout the Tahoe-Truckee area. With the mechanics
of rendering mutual aid in place, assistance can be requested and can be available without
any delay from the assisting district (SVPSD, 2014, pp. 7-8).
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 12, Squaw Valley PSD 12-28
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
Wastewater Capacity
The District currently has 1,073 connections (T-TSA personal communication) including 39
commercial customers and no industrial customers (SVPSD, 2014, p. 21). The District has no
EPA categorical users. The District has an average day demand (ADD) of 0.632 MGD and a
peak flow of 2.007 MGD. The District prepared a Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP)
(SVPSD, 2009) pursuant to State Water Resources Control Board Order No. 2006-0003 and it
complies with other provisions of the Statewide General Waste Discharge Requirements.
Wastewater Infrastructure and Facilities
The District installed sewer flow meters to monitor for inflow and infiltration (I/I) to reduce
the potential for sewer system overflows (SSOs) and reduce the cost of treatment at the TTSA
facility.
Collection and Transmission
The District’s wastewater collection system consists of approximately 18.5 miles of gravity
pipe ranging from 4 to 15 inches in diameter. There are two inverted siphons in the system;
one transports wastewater under Squaw Creek to the main interceptor in Squaw Valley Road
and the other lies under the Truckee River and discharges to the TTSA’s interceptor. There
are no pumping or treatment facilities within the collection system (SVPSD, 2009, pp. 4-2.1).
The District takes the following measures and testing procedures to ensure the integrity of
the system:
• Cleans 50 percent of the collection system annually
• Television inspection (TVI) of 25 percent of the collection system annually
• Analyze data from TVI’s to identify and complete projects to correct infiltration
and inflow and problems that could cause sewer system overflows
Challenges
Factors which influence the District’s ability to supply wastewater service include age,
condition and size of wastewater pipelines (SVPSD, 2014, p. 21). The District indicates that
small portions of its sewer system will need replacement in the next five years (SVPSD, 2014,
p. 36).
Wastewater Service Adequacy
The District did not identify any inadequacies in the provision of wastewater collection
services, nor were any identified in the preparing of this MSR. No violations were reported in
the State’s reporting system.
12.10: Fire and Emergency Services
Service Overview
The District provides fire and emergency response services through its Squaw Valley Fire
Department (SVFD). Several natural hazards have been identified for the Squaw Valley area
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 12, Squaw Valley PSD 12-29
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
including wildfire, flooding, soil erosion, landslides, earthquakes, and severe weather
(County, April 2010). Safety is particularly necessary in Squaw Valley because the area has
only one means of ingress and egress making it a challenge to implement an emergency
community evacuation (County, April 2010). These potential hazards increase the importance
of the fire and emergency services the District provides.
In 2006, the SVFD transitioned from Basic Life Support (EMT) level emergency medical
services to Advanced Life Support (Paramedics). Additionally, the SVFD provides free child
passenger safety car-seat fittings and child passenger safety education in both the District
and the region using nationally certified technicians. The SVFD provides monthly community
CPR classes and provides first aid and CPR training to local employers. The District adopted
and enforced residential fire sprinkler regulations and carbon monoxide (CO) detection in all
residences before these systems were required under the California Building Code and
received a grant to distribute free CO detectors to all of the residences within its service area
to assure that all homes were in compliance at no cost to the property owner (SVPSD, 2014,
p. 40).
Fire and Emergency Response
The Placer County Sheriff’s Office and California Highway Patrol (CHP) provide public safety
answering points (PSAP) for landline and cellular calls respectively. All calls for fire, rescue or
emergency medical services are transferred to the CalFire Grass Valley Emergency Command
Center for dispatch. All local government fire agencies in the area are dispatched by CalFire
(SVPSD, 2014, pp. 24-25).
The SVFD has a current Insurance Services Office (ISO) Public Protection Class of 2 within
hydranted areas and PPC 2Y in areas without. ISO ratings take into account response times,
available equipment and personnel that can be used to help determine the adequacy of a
District’s response capabilities. The average response time for an incident varies by location,
but the SVFD’s goal is to respond to incidents within five minutes, 80 percent of the time; the
District states that goal is consistently met (SVPSD, 2014, p. 25).
In general, industry standards applicable to the SVFD are established by the National Fire
Protection Association. These standards, among others, directly or indirectly affect the type
of services, method(s) of delivery of those services,
expansion, reliability, facility design and construction
Table 12-11: Squaw Valley Fire
and environmental issues that the District encounters. Department Emergency Response, 2012
SVFD has historically met or exceeded applicable
Number of
industry standards. Emergency Calls
Fire Suppression 28
EMS/ALS 298
Fire and Emergency Services
Rescue 23
Hazardous Materials 33
Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies
Other 125
Total 507
Water supplies for fire suppression include municipal
Source: (SVPSD, 2014, p. 26)
gravity-fed hydrant systems and the Truckee River for
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 12, Squaw Valley PSD 12-30
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
those residences located outside of the hydrant area. The hydrant capacity and rating varies
by location, but hydrant flows and storage capacities are generally sufficient throughout the
District (SVPSD, 2014, p. 25). The District operates from one fire station, Station 21. An
assessment of fire and emergency response facilities will be made as part of the Village at
Squaw Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR.
Fire and Emergency Management Efficiencies/Cost Avoidance/Facilities
Sharing
The SVFD consists of one Fire Chief, three fire captains, 3 engineers, 6 firefighter-paramedics
and 6 part-time firefighters. The Fire Chief is overseen by the District’s General Manager. The
SVFD spends considerable time on fire prevention planning and inspections. Every commercial
occupancy is inspected at least annually with written findings and follow-up with the property
owner until all deficiencies have been corrected. Places of assembly are generally inspected
twice annually. The SVFD conducts defensible space inspections in accordance with California
Public Resources Code 4291 on every residence annually and provides the property owner
with a written inspection form and follow-up inspections and notification until all deficiencies
are corrected. The SVFD achieves virtually 100 percent compliance each year and has for the
past 20 years. Additionally, the District conducts fire prevention education and fire drills
annually with schools within its jurisdiction (SVPSD, 2014, p. 26).
Photo courtesy of http://www.svpsd.org/
The SVFD participates in a Boundary Drop Area Agreement with North Tahoe Fire Protection
District and Truckee Fire Protection District as described below:
• North Tahoe Fire (NTF) – Squaw Valley Fire (SVF) Boundary Drop Area:
The NTF-SVF Boundary Drop Area is the area along and adjacent to the Highway 89
from 1700 River Ranch Road to the intersection of Highway 89 and Pole Creek
Road.
• Squaw Valley Fire (SVF)-Truckee Fire District (TFD) Boundary Drop Area:
The SVF-TFD Boundary Drop Area is the area along and adjacent to Highway 89
from Alpine Meadows Road to West River Street.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 12, Squaw Valley PSD 12-31
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
• North Tahoe Fire (NTF)-North Lake Tahoe Fire (NLT) Boundary Drop Area:
The NTF-NLT Boundary Drop Area is the area along and adjacent to Highway 28
from between the intersection of Chipmunk Drive in Kings Beach, CA (western
boundary) and Highway 28 to 120 State Route 28 in Crystal Bay, Nevada (eastern
boundary).
• North Tahoe Fire (NTF)-Northstar Fire (NSF) Boundary Drop Area:
The NTF-NSF Boundary Drop Area is the area along and adjacent to Highway 267
from Highlands Drive to the Martis Dam Road.
• North Tahoe Fire (NTF)-Meeks Bay Fire (MBF) Boundary Drop Area:
The NTF-MBF Boundary Drop Area is the area along and adjacent to Highway 89
from Ellis Road to the Emerald Bay Snow Closure Gate.
The SVFD also participates in mutual aid and area contingency plans. The SVFD has a mutual
aid agreement and annual operating plan with the USFS to provide wildland fire suppression
on public lands (USFS, 2011). The District also has a mutual aid agreement with the Lake
Tahoe Regional Fire Chiefs Association, which includes fire, medical, and rescue services to
the geographic boundaries of the membership of the Lake Tahoe Regional Fire Chief’s
Association, primarily the Lake Tahoe Basin and Sierra Front, but also portions of Alpine
County, California and Lyon County, Nevada (Lake Tahoe Regional Fire Chiefs Association,
2012).
The SVPSD is a member of the Eastern Placer County Fire Chiefs Joint Powers Authority, the
purpose of which is to provide cooperative ownership, management and operation of the
mountaintop radio repeater network; partnership in training and the maintenance and testing
of assets; and cooperative ownership of equipment (SVPSD, 2014, p. 8).
Adequacy of Fire and Emergency Services
Information provided by the District indicates an adequate number of firefighters and fire
officers for efficient operations of the SVFD. Additionally, since the target response time of 5
minutes is met 80 percent of the time, fire and emergency services are considered adequate.
12.11: Solid Waste and Recycling
Service Overview
The SVPSD contracts with Tahoe Truckee Sierra Disposal
Company (TTSD), a private company, for solid waste
collection and disposal (SVPSD, 2014, p. 27). The District
has no direct responsibilities in the delivery of this service
to customers. Services provided by the TTSD include
waste collection and disposal, public outreach, education
programs, Christmas tree recycling, green waste pickup,
meeting State mandated diversion rate requirements (AB
939), and participating in the curbside recycling “blue
bag” program (Nevada LAFCo, 2006, pp. 2.5-1).
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 12, Squaw Valley PSD 12-32
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies
The TTSD provides collection services to residential and commercial customers within the
District. Disposal is either at the Eastern Placer County Eastern Regional Sanitary Landfill or
to the District’s Material Recovery Facility (MRF). The TTSD provides a voluntary household
recycling program, as well as hazardous materials, oil, and green waste recycling.
Management Efficiencies/Cost Avoidance/Facilities Sharing
The contract for garbage services is administered by the SVPSD General Manager. Residential
rates are currently $241.50 per single-family unit. The District paid approximately $224,298 in
FY 2013/2014 for its contract with the Disposal Company and revenue for solid waste disposal
services totaled $228,110. No opportunities for cost avoidance or facilities sharing were
identified by the District or the consultants in preparing this MSR.
The District maintains its constructed improvements at its Community Dumpster Facility to
better serve residents within the District and reduce the frequency of bears and other wildlife
eating human refuse and building a dependency on garbage as a source of food (SVPSD, 2014,
p. 40).
Challenges with Solid Waste Services
No challenges were identified by the District, nor were any identified by the consultants in
preparing this MSR.
Solid Waste Service Adequacy
The District did not identify any inadequacies in solid waste services, nor were any identified
in the preparing of this MSR.
12.12: Determinations
Population and Growth
1. Based on proposed developments, including the Village at Squaw Valley Specific Plan,
the permanent population growth rate within the District is expected to be
approximately 2 to 4 percent.
2. The Squaw Valley General Plan Land Use Ordinance projects that a seasonal overnight
population of 11,000 to 12,000 people will need to be accommodated with a maximum
skier capacity of 17,500 persons per day at buildout within the Valley.
3. There are a number of developments proposed within the District, the largest of which
include The Village at Squaw Valley Specific Plan and The Resort at Squaw Creek Phase
II, which propose a combined total of 2,283 bedrooms.
4. An application to incorporate the Olympic Valley was made to LAFCO in June 2013.
This application was subsequently withdrawn in December 2015.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 12, Squaw Valley PSD 12-33
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities
5. No areas within the District qualify as a disadvantaged unincorporated community
because the median family income exceeds 80 percent of the state median family
income.
Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities
6. SVPSD was established in 1964 to provide water services within its 15 square mile
boundary in eastern Placer County.
7. SVPSD provides water, wastewater, fire and emergency services, and solid waste
services within the Olympic Valley. Additionally, the Squaw Valley Mutual Water
Company, a private water company, provides water within the Olympic Valley.
8. The SVPSD has sufficient capacity to serve existing and approved water and
wastewater connections and maintains a comprehensive inspection and maintenance
protocol.
9. A review of present and planned capacity of public facilities within the District was
undertaken through the application for the Village at Squaw Valley Specific Plan and
the associated Draft and Final Environmental Impact Report by Placer County. This
project was approved by the Board of Supervisors in 2016 and is currently subject to
litigation.
Financial Ability of District to Provide Services
10. Similar to most public agencies in California, the District struggled with the loss of
property tax revenue during the 2008-2009 recession. Since then the financial position
of the District has improved and the District indicates it will be able to meet its
financial obligations as they become due and will continue to be able to provide
service obligations to its constituents.
Status or, and Opportunities for, Shared Facilities
11. SVPSD collaborates with other agencies for mutual aid emergency services, including
regional emergency planning efforts.
12. SVPSD maintains an interagency agreement with the Tahoe City Public Utilities District
to supply water to 16 residences along Highway 89.
13. The PSD provides operations and maintenance services to the Squaw Valley Mutual
Water Company on a contractual basis.
14. SVPSD provides snow removal services on Placer County’s Bike Trail in Squaw Valley.
15. The District provides storage facilities for records, files and maps for the Squaw Valley
Mutual Water Company.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 12, Squaw Valley PSD 12-34
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
Accountability for Community Service Needs, Including Governmental
Structure and Operation Efficiencies.
16. The SVPSD provides water, wastewater collection, solid waste collection, and
fire/emergency services within its boundaries. Additionally, the District provides
water service to 16 single family residences within the Tahoe City Public Utilities
District that are located along Highway 89; provides operations and maintenance
services to the Squaw Valley Mutual Water Company on a contractual basis; and
provides snow removal services on the Bike Trail in Squaw Valley on behalf of Placer
County. Note: Placer County is the agency responsible for providing park and
recreation services in Squaw Valley.
17. An elected five-member Board of Directors oversees the management of the District’s
public resources. SVPSD meets its statutory financial reporting requirements that
ensure its operations are conducted in an open and transparent manner. SVPSD meets
its fiscal accountability requirement to its customers through budgetary and financial
reporting using its website as a communication channel and other communication
tools. The District provides public notice of meetings, and posts agendas and minutes
online.
18. A General Manager oversees the District under the direction of the elected Board of
Directors. The Board and management work together in the identification of goals and
issues and assignment of staff as appropriate for each type of service provided. The
District has adopted policies to guide District operations. SVPSD uses master plans,
annual budgets and capital improvement planning to plan for and carry out operations
and capital programs. The District continues its work to improve efficiency in
numerous areas of service, including operations, water conservation, finance, and
customer service.
Water
19. SVPSD has sufficient water supply from its current sources to meet its present annual
and peak day demand for domestic purposes, based on the data provided by the
District. District groundwater diversion is not adjudicated and the Olympic Valley
Groundwater Management Plan indicates there is adequate water supply available to
serve an additional 100 single-family residences.
20. District water meets all state and federal water quality standards, and there are no
current violations on file with the CDHP.
21. According to the District’s 2015 Water Supply Assessment for the Village at Squaw
Valley Specific Plan, with the installation of six new wells there will be sufficient
water supply to meet demand for the Specific Plan as well as County-projected growth
for the next 25 years.
22. SVPSD water supply infrastructure appears well maintained and an annually updated
CIP schedules needed maintenance and upgrades to keep the system in good working
order. Water rates are based on the 2004 comprehensive rate study and adjusted
annually during the budgeting process. New development, including the Village at
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 12, Squaw Valley PSD 12-35
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
Squaw Valley, will finance infrastructure upgrades required to accommodate increased
demand on the system.
23. The District serves 16 residences outside of its boundaries through an interagency
agreement with the Tahoe City Public Utilities District.
24. The Squaw Valley Public Services District provides operations and maintenance
services to the Squaw Valley Mutual Water Company on a contractual basis.
Wastewater
25. SVPSD wastewater services consist of collection services only. Collected sewage is
routed to the Truckee River Interceptor (TRI) Sewer Line for transmission to the
Tahoe-Truckee Sanitation Agency treatment facility for treatment and disposal.
26. SVPSD staff indicates wastewater collection infrastructure appears to be adequate to
accommodate existing wastewater flows. The District has a Sewer System Management
Plan (SSMP) in place to assist in planning for future wastewater collection and
maintenance needs. SVPSD periodically and regularly revisits and updates its SSMP as
required by State Water Resources Control Board Order No. 2006-0003 (e.g., Statewide
General Waste Discharge Requirements for Sanitary Sewer Systems).
27. SVPSD wastewater collection infrastructure appears well-maintained. In concert with
the annual budget, rates are adjusted annually to fund normal maintenance and
update needs. The District identifies needed maintenance and repairs to its system
through the budgeting process.
28. New development, including the Village at Squaw Valley, will finance infrastructure
upgrades and expansion required to accommodate increased demand on the system.
Fire and Emergency Services
29. Squaw Valley Fire Department facilities and infrastructure are currently sufficient to
allow for the efficient provision of services.
30. Anticipated future growth in the region will require fire protection and emergency
services from the District. The DEIR and the FEIR for the Village at Squaw Valley
Specific Plan has assessed the need for additional facilities and infrastructure that may
be required with the proposed development within Olympic Valley. In order to
adequately serve the proposed development, the EIR recommends that a new fire
substation be constructed to serve the west end of Squaw Valley. Additional fire
protection facilities and staffing will also be necessary. A development agreement
with the developer is suggested as a method to finance the necessary improvements.
31. SVFD has historically met or exceeded applicable industry standards related to the
provision of fire and emergency services and meets its goal of a five minute response
time, 80 percent of the time.
32. The District has an ISO rating of 2 in areas equipped with fire hydrants, and 2Y outside
the hydranted areas.
33. The SVFD has a comprehensive and effective mutual aid network with the federal,
state, and local emergency service providers in the region.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 12, Squaw Valley PSD 12-36
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
Solid Waste and Recycling
34. The District’s oversight of its solid waste removal contract with TTSD appears both
sufficient and efficient. No management efficiencies, cost avoidance, or facilities
sharing opportunities were identified in the preparation of this MSR.
12.13: References
CDPH. (2011). Public Water System No. 3110020 Annual Inspection Report. Sacramento:
CDPH.
ECO:LOGIC Engineering, LLC. (2008, February). SVPSD 2007 Capacity and Reliability Study
Update. Reno: ECO:LOGIC Engineering, LLC.
Lake Tahoe Regional Fire Chiefs Association. (2012). Fire and Emergency Mutual Aid
Agreement.
McClintock Accountancy Corporation. (30, 2012). SVPSD Basic Financial Statements and
Independent Auditor's Report. Olympic Valley.
Melissa Siig. (2013, December 13). Squaw Valley Eyes Martis Valley's Water . Retrieved
October 15, 2014, from Moonshine Ink: http://www.moonshineink.com/sections/spot-
news/squaw-valley-eyes-martis-valley%E2%80%99s-water
Placer County Memorandum from Todd Leopold, County Executive Officer By Erin Casey,
Senior Management Analyst to the Board of Supervisors Regarding Snow Removal
Services - Squaw Valley Trail. February 6, 2018. 16-pages. Available on-line at:
<https://www.placer.ca.gov/upload/bos/cob/documents/sumarchv/2018/180206A/15
A.pdf>.
PCWA. (2011). Placer County Water Agency 2010 Urban Water Management Plan. Auburn:
PCWA.
Placer LAFCO. (2004). Municipal Services Review Area 3 Services. Auburn: Placer LAFCO.
Placer LAFCO. (July 24, 2015). Draft Comprehensive Fiscal Analysis of the Proposed
Incorporation Of The Town of Olympic Valley. Authored by RSG Inc. Consultants. 75-
pages. Available on-line at: <http://www.placer.ca.gov/departments/lafco>.
PMC. (2013, February). Sphere of Influence Update Truckee Sanitary District Draft EIR.
Retrieved January 18, 2014, from Nevada LAFCo:
http://www.mynevadacounty.com/nc/lafco/docs/LAFCo%20Sphere%20Plans%20and%2
0Related%20Materials/DRAFT%20SPHERE%20PLAN%20UPDATES/TSD-Material%20for
%20Website/CEQA%20Documents/Draft%20EIR%20for%20TSD%20SOI%20Update.pdf
SVPSD. (2007). Olympic Valley Groundwater Management Plan. Hydro Metrics.
SVPSD. (2009). Sewer System Managment Plan. SVPSD.
SVPSD. (2014). LAFCO Request for Information; District Response.
SVPSD. (2014). Village at Squaw Valley Specific Plan Water Supply Assessment. Prepared by
Farr West, Hydro Metrics, and Todd Groundwater.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 12, Squaw Valley PSD 12-37
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
SVPSD and Placer County. (July 22, 2015). Village at Squaw Valley Specific Plan Water Supply
Assessment. Published as Appendix A to the FEIR on the Specific Plan. Prepared by
Farr West, Hydro Metrics, and Todd Groundwater. Available on-line at:
https://www.placer.ca.gov/departments/communitydevelopment/envcoordsvcs/eir/v
illageatsquawvalley/final%20eir
USFS. (2011, October 27). Cooperative Fire Protection Agreement, SVFD and USFS TNF. USFS
Agreement 11-F1-11051757-035. Nevada City, CA.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 12, Squaw Valley PSD 12-38
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
Chapter 13
Tahoe City Cemetery District
Entrance to Trails End Cemetery
This Municipal Service Review (MSR) describes the Tahoe City Cemetery District. This District
was formed in 1965 and currently provides burial plots (grave sites) within the historic Trails
End Cemetery.
Table of Contents
13.1: Agency Profile ...................................................................................13-2
13.2: Overview of Agency ............................................................................13-2
13.3: Formation and Boundary .......................................................................13-3
13.4: Accountability and Governance ...............................................................13-5
13.5: Management Efficiencies and Staffing .......................................................13-7
13.6: Population and Growth ........................................................................13-7
13.7: Financing .........................................................................................13-8
13.8: Cemetery Services ............................................................................ 13-10
13.9: Service Adequacy ............................................................................. 13-12
13.10: Determinations ................................................................................ 13-14
13.11: References .................................................................................... 13-15
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 13, Tahoe City Cemetery District 13-1
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
13.1: Agency Profile
Tahoe City Cemetery District
Type of District: Public Cemetery District
Principal Act: The Public Cemetery District Law, California Health and Safety Code, Section
9000 et seq.
Functions/Services: Provides burial plots (grave sites) within the historic Trails End Cemetery
Main Office: 925 N. Lake Boulevard, Tahoe city, CA 96145
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 1528, Tahoe City, CA 96145
Phone No.: (530) 581-2879
Fax No.: (530) 581-5695
Web Site None
District Secretary: Judy Friedman
Phone N0.: (530) 581-5692
Email: judy@tahoepapertrail.com
Governing Body:
Board of Trustees Term Expires
Meredith Rosenberg December 2021
Bonnie Dyer December 2019
James Scribner December 2021
Steve M. Glazer December 2019
Randal Pomin December 2021
Meeting Schedule: Third Thursday of each month at 5:00 PM, or as needed
Meeting Location: Summer – at the Trails End Cemetery, 597 Fairway Drive, Tahoe City
Remainder of Year – at the Blue Agave Restaurant at the Tahoe Inn,
425 N. Tahoe Boulevard, Tahoe City
Date of Formation: 1965
Principal County: Placer County
13.2: Overview of Agency
Summary Description of Existing Services
The Tahoe City Cemetery District (TCCD or District) owns and operates one cemetery in Tahoe
City, California. The District provides burial plots (grave sites) for direct burial and for
cremains at the historic ‘Trails End Cemetery’ located at 597 Fairway Drive in Tahoe City. The
District provides cemetery services to ‘Residents’ living within the District Boundary, and to
‘Nonresidents’ who meet District requirements. This normally means families who may not
live in the District, but who have long-established ties to the Tahoe area. The cemetery
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 13, Tahoe City Cemetery District 13-2
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
dates from the 1900’s, and has served generations of Tahoe pioneer families. The District is
responsible for operation of the cemetery and an on-site chapel; including upkeep, care,
maintenance and improvements to the cemetery property. This is the second Municipal
Service Review (MSR) for the District.
Location and Size
TCCD is headquartered in Tahoe City, and serves an unincorporated portion of eastern Placer
County comprising approximately 94 square miles. (Refer to Figure 13.1) The District
boundary (which is different than the service area) extends from the Placer-Nevada County
Line on the north to the Placer-El Dorado County Line on the south; and from the California-
Nevada State Line on the east extending approximately 16 miles to the west, and consists of
approximately246 square miles.
While there are no incorporated cities within the District, there are a number of distinct
communities, as well as portions of the Tahoe National Forest and Lake Tahoe within the
District’s boundary. Major communities located within the District boundary are classified as
Census Designated Places (CDPs) and include Tahoe City (the Sunnyside-Tahoe City CDP),
Carnelian Bay, Tahoe Vista, Kings Beach, and Dollar Point. Other communities and recreation
areas within the District include Homewood (and Homewood Mountain Resort), Ridgewood,
Crystal Bay (California portion), Eder, Norden (and Sugar Bowl Resort), The Cedars, Olympic
Valley (including Squaw Valley and Squaw Creek Resorts), Alpine Meadows (and0 Alpine
Meadows Ski Resort), Tahoe Pines, Northstar California Resort, Ponderosa Palisades/Sierra
Meadows, Martis Camp, Brockway, and Donner. It should be noted that while these
communities are located inside the District’s larger boundary area, a number of these
communities are located outside the District’s current “Service Area”. Please see Figure 13.1
for details.
13.3: Formation and Boundary
The Tahoe City Cemetery District was established by the Placer County Board of Supervisors in
1965, although the cemetery itself pre-dates the District by more than 60-years. The original
District boundary comprised approximately 246 square miles, including approximately 70
square miles within Lake Tahoe (Refer to Figure 13.1).
Boundary History
There have been no annexations or detachments to the District boundary since formation.
Sphere of Influence
The 2004 MSR for the Cemetery District indicates that the District boundary and Sphere of
Influence (SOI) are coterminous (one and the same). However, Placer LAFCo files do not
indicate whether or not a formal SOI was adopted for TCCD. The map that was provided (and
which is in the 2004 MSR) appears to be more of a ‘Service Area’ than an SOI, as discussed
below.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 13, Tahoe City Cemetery District 13-3
80
Donner Lake Truckee Glenshire-Devonshire
North Shore Blvd
267
Kings Beach
Tahoe Vista
89
28
Dollar Point
PLACER COUNTY
Lake Tahoe
Sunnyside-Tahoe City
89
Meeks Bay
89
Loon Lake
District Boundary
District Service Area
County Boundary
ELDORADO COUNTY
0 1 2
Miles
District Boundary and Service Area from Placer County LAFCo.
Figure 13-1 TAHOE CITY CEMETERY DISTRICT
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
Excluded and Extra-territorial Services
The area identified on Figure 13.1 as the District’s Service Area excludes Lake Tahoe itself
(which is appropriate given that no services are provided to that area). The Service Area also
excludes that portion of the District north of Carnelian Bay (approximately 94 square miles),
including Tahoe Vista, Kings Beach, Brockway, Crystal Bay, Eder, Norden, The Cedars,
Northstar California Resort, Ponderosa Palisades/Sierra Meadows, Martis Camp, and Donner.
Along the western boundary of the District, the Service Area has been extended westerly west
of Alpine Meadows south to the Placer-El Dorado County Line, as well as an area northwest of
Olympic Village.
Areas of Interest
TCCD and Placer LAFCo will need to consider which areas of the District to include or exclude
in order to establish an accurate SOI. Once the SOI is determined, consideration will need to
be given to which areas need to be annexed or detached from the District, if any.
13.4: Accountability and Governance
TCCD is overseen by a five-member Board of Trustees, appointed to staggered terms by the
Placer County Board of Supervisors upon recommendation of the District 5 Supervisor. Three
Trustees are appointed to 3-year terms and two Trustees are appointed to 2-year terms.
Current Board Members, terms, and expiration dates are as follows:
Table 13.1: Board of Trustees
Seat No. Member Name Term Expiration Selection Length of Term
1 Meredith Rosenberg December 2021 Appointed 4 years
2 Bonnie Dyer December 2019 Appointed 4 years
3 James Schribner December 2021 Appointed 4 years
4 Steve M. Glazer December 2019 Appointed 4 years
5 Randal Pomin December 2021 Appointed 4 years
Data Source: https://www.placer.ca.gov/bos/committees-and-commissions/tahoe-cemetery-
district
The District is classified as an ‘independent special district’ even though the Board Members
are appointed and not elected. The provisions of The Public Cemetery District Law (California
Health and Safety Code, Section 9000 et seq.) apply. As such, the District is required to
provide burial services for all residents within the District, subject to payment of reasonable
fees to cover costs.
The TCCD Board of Trustees hold regular meetings (as necessary) on the third Thursday of
each month beginning at 5:00 PM. During the summer, the Board meets at the cemetery,
while meeting for the remainder of the year are held at the Blue Agave Restaurant at the
Tahoe Inn. Meeting agendas are posted at the Tahoe City Post Office, 950 N. Lake Tahoe
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 13, Tahoe City Cemetery District 13-5
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
Boulevard, and are available by request to the District Secretary. Meeting minutes are also
available upon request. The District does not have a website.
Board meeting are open to the public and follow all requirements of the Ralph M. Brown Open
Meeting Act. Trustees are compensated $50 per meeting for their service. No other
remuneration or benefits are available. The Board adopted Rules and Regulations in October
2007 in order to insure that everyone is able to experience the peace, beauty and history of
the sanctuary. The Rules and Regulations spell out how the District operates, as well as
provides burial guidelines and requirements for memorial markers, coping and flowers.
Figure 13.2 TCCD Organizational Chart
Board of
Trustees
District
Secretary
Contract Contract
Burial Maintenance
Services Services
The Board of Trustees is supported by a part-time Secretary who is compensated $550 per
month. The Secretary is responsible for preparing District agendas and minutes, tracking and
monitoring grave sites, deposits and fees, and the endowment fund. The District contracts
with Green Thumb Ground Care for cemetery maintenance and upkeep. There are no District
employees. Local Boy Scouts volunteer to assist clean-up efforts on an as-needed basis. The
District reports that no complaints have been filed over the past five years. Complaints may
be submitted to the District Secretary for consideration by the Board of Trustees.
The Board of Trustees adopts an annual budget. In the past District audits were performed
every other year. In the future the audits will be prepared every five years. Stroub and
Company, CPAs
conducted the most
recent audits.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 13, Tahoe City Cemetery District 13-6
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
13.5: Management Efficiencies and Staffing
TCCD operates in an efficient manner consistent with its mission of providing reliable,
affordable burial services. All District services are provided through contract with qualified
companies. Overhead is kept to a minimum, and the Board Members are directly involved in
District operations.
Contract Services
Green Thumb Ground Care located in Tahoe City provides landscape maintenance services at
the cemetery. Contact Peter Gifford at 530-581-3183.
13.6: Population and Growth
Population
Population characteristics throughout the Tahoe City Cemetery District service area are
substantially affected by seasonal variations, distinct user groups and the abundance of
second homes. Under the Board of Trustee policies, all residents, and those non-residents
with long-term ties to the community, are eligible for burial and cremation services from the
District. This would include the large contingent of second-home owners throughout the
District.
Based on 2010 Census data, as well as population estimates for the Water and Wastewater
Districts included in this MSR, it is estimated that the current permanent population within
TCCD is 19,500. The estimated peak visitor population is approximately double, or 39,000.
Projected Growth and Development
Population projections for the TCCD service area are expected to range between 1.0 percent
in 2017 and up to 1.5 percent by 2032. (Refer to the Tahoe-Truckee Sanitation Agency
chapter of this MSR.)
Service demands on TCCD are not expected to increase significantly, based on the historic
rate of four to five burials per year. (Refer to the Cemetery Services Section, below, for
details.)
Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities
By state definition, a disadvantaged unincorporated community (DUC) has a median household
income (MHI) less than 80 percent of the statewide average. According to 2010 Census data,
California’s MHI is $60,883, which qualifies any community with a MHI less than $48,706 as a
DUC. Within the District’s boundary the communities of Kings Beach, Carnelian Bay, and
some neighborhoods within Tahoe City meet the state’s standard for DUCs at 80 percent of
the state median family income. As described in this MSR, these communities do receive
water, wastewater, and fire protection services. No public health and safety issues have
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 13, Tahoe City Cemetery District 13-7
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
been identified. For additional information, please refer to Chapter 3, Section 3.6,
Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities, in this MSR.
13.7: Financing
This section evaluates the factors affecting the financing of services, operations and capital
improvements for TCCD. Information on District financing is derived from audited financial
statements for Fiscal Years 2011-2012 and 2012-2013, as well as District budget information
for Fiscal Year 2013-2014. These statements represent the financial statements of the
District and follow Government Accounting Standards Board (GASB) method of Accrual
accounting. On January 9, 2018 the Placer County Board of Supervisors allowed the Cemetery
District to conduct audits every five years in accordance with California Government Code
Section 26909 which specifies that a special district may by unanimous request of the
governing board of the special district, with unanimous approval of the board of supervisors,
replace the annual audit with an audit conducted at specific intervals, as recommended by
the County Auditor.
Disclaimer: The financial information provided in this MSR section was accurate as of its
writing in 2014. However, the District updates its financial information on an annual basis.
Therefore, the financial information in this MSR has been superseded and readers are
encouraged to read the newer financial statements and budgets which are available upon
request to the District.
The District operates two funds: the General Fund; and the Endowment Fund. The General
Fund is unrestricted and can be used for any purpose. The Endowment Fund consists of funds
collected on grave sales, and is permanently restricted for use in maintaining the cemetery in
perpetuity following closure. District Revenues and Expenditures for Fiscal Year (FY) 2011-
2012, FY 2012-2013, and FY 2013-2014 are summarized in Table 13.2, below. These District
audits were prepared by Stroub & Company.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 13, Tahoe City Cemetery District 13-8
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
Table 13.2 Summary of Revenues and Expenditures for Fiscal Years 2011-2012,
2012-2013 and 2013-2014
Fiscal Year
2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014
Revenues
Property Taxes $42,621 82.0% $44,519 85.2% $48,018 90.8%
Interest Income 3,955 7.6% 3,438 6.6% 3,254 6.2%
Other Government 1.6% 1.7% 896 1.7%
795 897
Funds
Charges for Current 8.8% 6.5% 675 1.3%
4,575 3,375
Services
Total Revenues $51,946 100% $52,229 100% $52,843 100%
Expenditures
Salaries, Wages and
Benefits Wages
Services and Supplies $49,499 100.0% $50,321 100.0% $49,407 100.0%
Other Expenditures
Total Expenditures $49,499 100% $50,321 100% $49,407 100%
Net Income (or Loss) $2,447 $1,908 $3,436
Source: TCCD Independent Auditor’s Reports - FY 2012-2013; and District Budget Data
Revenues
District revenues are derived from property taxes, charges for services (burials), and interest
earned on savings. The District generates enough revenue to pay expenses, and also relies on
volunteer services to help maintain the cemetery.
Expenditures
The District does not pay for employee wages and fringe benefits, but contracts out for need
services including office manager, burial and cremation services, landscape maintenance
services, and audit services. Services and supplies consist of repairs, maintenance, utilities,
professional fees, and insurance expenses.
Currently, the District is accruing funds to remodel the existing chapel. Approximately
$150,000 is budgeted for these improvements over the next four years.
Rate Restructuring
The Board of Trustees approved a rate schedule for services in March 1992. The fees
established at that time have not been changed. Grave sites cost $200 each ($500 for Non-
Resident) and cremain sites are $100 each ($400 for Non-Resident). Endowment fees are $100
per adult, $60 for child/baby, and $60 each for cremains. In addition, the District charges a
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 13, Tahoe City Cemetery District 13-9
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
coping (the stone or masonry border around the grave site) deposit of $2,000 for a single
grave site and $3,000 for a double grave site. Staking fees ($275) and an administrative fee
($50 to $150) is also charged.
Assets and Liabilities
As of June 30, 2013, District’s cash and investment balance was $277,262, of which $10,390 is
reserved in the Endowment Fund. Accumulated depreciation totals $141,172. TCCD has no
outstanding debt or other liabilities. The only long-term obligation consists of refunding
coping deposits in the amount of $23,545.
Cost Avoidance
MSRs describe measures that districts take to avoid unnecessary costs because it is important
for the public sector to avoid waste and to be financially efficient. TCCD actively works to
avoid costs through the following measures:
• Contracts out for all services; thereby avoiding payment of wages and fringe benefits,
and retirement contributions.
• The Board of Trustees is actively engaged in the community and oversees operation of
the Trails End Cemetery directly.
• Keeps costs low and affordable for Residents and qualified Non-Residents who wish to
utilize the District’s services.
13.8: Cemetery Services
Service Overview
Tahoe City Cemetery District provides burial plots and cremation niches for residents and
qualified non-residents within the District boundary. These services are provided at the
District’s Trails End Cemetery, located at 597 Fairway Drive in Tahoe City. Access is via North
Lake Boulevard and Grove Street.
Cemetery Chapel and Storage Building
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 13, Tahoe City Cemetery District 13-10
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
Trails End Cemetery encompasses 2.9 acres adjacent to the south side of Fairway Drive. The
cemetery consists of 13 sections with burial plots, a 600 square foot outdoor chapel, an
adjacent 128 square foot storage shed, and expansion areas. (Refer to Figure 13.3: Trails End
Cemetery Site Plan) The existing developed area (13 Sections) consists of 477 single and
double grave sites, and an additional 500 cremation niches. Approximately 100 grave sites
are available along with approximately 200 cremation niches.
Single grave sites (burial plots) are 5-feet by 9-feet; double plots are 10-feet by 9-feet. The
cremation niches are 30-inches by 30-inches.
The district has planned for cemetery expansion as detailed in Figure 13.3. The northerly
expansion area would be utilized for a circular access drive and 10 off-street parking spaces,
including one handicapped space. The westerly and southerly expansion areas would provide
an additional 308 5-foot by 11-foot burial plots and 366 niches. The actual implementation of
the expansion plans are a number of years away, except the access drive and parking area
may be proposed for construction first. Currently, the District conducts four to five burials
per year.
Capacity
After expansion, the Trails End Cemetery will provide a final resting place for 785 individuals
in caskets, and 866 cremation remains. The District expects cremations to exceed casket
burials in the near future.
Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies
Future improvements have been identified to address future service needs. However, it will
be a number of years before additional burial sections need to be developed. Consideration
is being given to make improvements to the chapel in the next three to four years.
Challenges
No challenges were identified by TCCD during the preparation of this MSR. Cemetery
maintenance and vandalism are on-going issues that the Board of Trustees continues to
address. The cemetery is located in a residential area, and it is helpful to have neighbors
watching out for the cemetery.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 13, Tahoe City Cemetery District 13-11
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
Overview of Section 8 Showing Terraced Coping
13.9: Service Adequacy
The District provides cost effective services, does not receive any complaints, and operates in
an efficient manner.
The District reports that no complaints have been filed over the past five years. Complaints
may be submitted to the District Secretary for consideration by the Board of Trustees.
The Board of Trustees adopts an annual budget and has District audits are performed every
other year by Stroub and Company, CPAs.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 13, Tahoe City Cemetery District 13-12
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
Figure 13.3: Trails End Cemetery Site Plan
Site plan courtesy of Auerbach Engineering Corp of Tahoe City
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 13, Tahoe City Cemetery District 13-13
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
13.10: Determinations
Population and Growth
1. The Tahoe City Cemetery District serves a large population base, estimated to be
19,500 permanent residents and up to 39,000 part-time residents and visitors.
2. The current rate of burials is low (4-5 per year), and will not impact the ability of the
District to accommodate burial requests.
Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities
3. Within the District’s boundary, the communities of Kings Beach, Carnelian Bay, and
some neighborhoods within Tahoe City meet the states standard for DUCs at 80
percent of the state median family income. All DUC areas receive adequate water,
wastewater, and fire protection services. TCCD does not provide any of the basic
services (water, sewer and structural fire protection). No public health and safety
issues have been identified.
Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities
4. Trails End Cemetery has adequate burial plots and cremation niches available for the
foreseeable future. However, the District has planned for cemetery expansion when it
becomes warranted.
Financial Ability of Agency/District to Provide Services
5. The District’s audits indicate it has sufficient revenue in place to ensure short- and
long-term provision of services within its current service area.
6. The Board of Trustees has taken a prudent approach to providing services, and insures
that the District operates within its means.
Status and Opportunities for Shared Facilities
7. No opportunities for shared facilities were identified by the District or during the
preparation of this MSR.
Accountability for Community Service Needs, Including Governmental
Structure and Operation Efficiencies.
8. An appointed five-member Board of Trustees oversees the management of the District.
TCCD meets its statutory financial reporting requirements that ensure its operations
are conducted in an open and transparent manner. The Agency provides public notice
of meetings, and posts agendas at the Post Office as well as by email upon request.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 13, Tahoe City Cemetery District 13-14
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
9. Establishment of a District website would significantly increase the transparency of
the District and its operations; and would allow the public to access District
documents, financial records, and even agendas and minutes in a timely manner.
10. The District contracts out for District services, which is a cost effective way for a small
district to operate.
11. No formal sphere of influence (SOI) for TCCD has been adopted by Placer LAFCo.
Placer LAFCO should consider formally adopting an SOI for the District, as well as
clarifying the District’s service area; and whether any communities within the District
boundary are not served. Such an action could signal possible future detachments of
territory from the District.
13.11: References
Tahoe City Cemetery District (TCCD). Audit Report for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2013.
Stroub & Company, CPAs. December 16, 2013.
TCCD. Burial Plot Directory brochure. 2011.
TCCD. District Budget Sheets for FY 2012-13, FY 2013-14 and FY 2014-15. Judy Friedman,
District Secretary.
TCCD. Fee Schedule. April 1, 1992.
TCCD. Trails End Cemetery District Site Plan. Auerbach Engineering Corp. October 2013.
U.S. Department of Commerce (USDC), United States Census Bureau. 2010 Demographic
Profile. American Fact Finder Website.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 13, Tahoe City Cemetery District 13-15
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
Chapter 14
Tahoe City Public Utility District
The Tahoe City Public Utility District was originally formed in 1938. The District currently
provides wastewater collection, water, parks and recreation services within its boundaries.
Table of Contents
14.1: Agency Profile.................................................................................................. 14-2
14.2: Overview of Agency ........................................................................................... 14-2
14.3: Formation and Boundary ..................................................................................... 14-3
14.4: Accountability and Governance ............................................................................. 14-6
14.5: Management Efficiencies and Staffing ..................................................................... 14-7
14.6: Population and Growth ....................................................................................... 14-9
14.7: Financing ....................................................................................................... 14-17
14.8: Water Services ................................................................................................ 14-22
14.9: Wastewater Services ......................................................................................... 14-32
14.10: Park and Recreation Services .............................................................................. 14-34
14.11: Determinations ............................................................................................... 14-36
14.12: References .................................................................................................... 14-40
Draft Final, August 2018
Chapter 14, Tahoe City PUD 14-1
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
14.1: Agency Profile
Tahoe City Public Utility District
Type of District: Public Utility District
Enabling Legislation: The Public Utility District Act: Public Utilities Code sections 15501-
18055
Services: Wastewater collection, water, parks and recreation (including trails)
Main Office: 221 Fairway Drive, Tahoe City, CA
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 5249, Tahoe City, CA 96145
Phone No.: 530-583-3796
Fax No.: 530-583-1475
Web Site: www.tcpud.org
General Manager: Cindy Gustafson Email: cindyg@tcpud.org Phone: (530) 580-6326
District Clerk: Terri Viehmann Email:tviehmann@tcpud.org Phone: (530) 580-6052
Governing Body: Elected Board of Directors
Director Term Expiration
Judy Friedman 2020
John Pang, President 2018
Ron Treabess 2020
Dan Wilkins, Vice President 2018
Scott Zumwalt 2020
Meeting Schedule: 3rd Friday of each month at 8:30 a.m.
Meeting Location: Board Room, 221 Fairway Drive, Tahoe City, CA
Date of Formation: 1938
Principle County: Placer
Other: Multi-county district serving both Placer and El Dorado Counties
14.2 Overview of Agency
Summary Description of Existing Services
The Tahoe City Public Utility District (TCPUD/District) provides water, wastewater collection,
and parks and recreation services (including trails) to the greater Tahoe City area.
Location and Size
The boundaries of TCPUD lie within both Placer and El Dorado Counties; extending from
Emerald Bay to Dollar Hill, and along the Truckee River to the Nevada County line. The
District’s service area encompasses over 31 square miles. 64% of the area within the
Draft Final, August 2018
Chapter 14, Tahoe City PUD 14-2
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
District’s boundary is within Placer County and 36% is within El Dorado County. See Figure
14.1 for District boundary and SOI. The Tahoe City Public Utility District encompasses 19,840
acres within its boundaries. Its SOI contains 17,403 acres, excluding the boundary area.
Together, the District’s boundary and SOI includes 37,243 acres.
14.3: Formation and Boundary
The TCPUD was formed in 1938 under the Public Utilities Code Section 15501-18055 for the
purpose of providing water service to the residents of Tahoe City. Services have since been
expanded to also provide wastewater collection, parks and recreation to customers within its
boundaries. The District serves customers in both Placer and El Dorado Counties. The
District’s boundaries currently encompass approximately 31 sq. miles and the District provides
service to 4,188 water and 7,636 sewer customers. Along the Hwy 89 corridor, the PUD’s
boundaries do overlap with the Squaw Valley Public Service District, Talmont Resort
Improvement District, and further south along Hwy 89 they also overlap with the McKinney
Water District.
Boundary History
Since its formation in 1938, the District has undergone 12 boundary modifications. In 1973
the Alpine Springs area was detached to form the Alpine Springs County Water District
(ASCWD) as a separate entity. All other boundary modifications have been annexations. The
District’s current boundary as reflected in the Placer County GIS data is shown in Figure 14.1
(next page).
Figure 14-2 shows two “SOI Review Areas” where the PUD’s boundaries extend past its sphere
of influence area. One area is the corner of Dollar Point. The second area is located in the
northeast corner, along Highway 89. It is recommended that the PUD and LAFCo work
together to update the SOI so that it is congruent with the boundary in these two areas. A
third “Review Area” is located to the south and El Dorado LAFCO has noted some
discrepancies in the Placer County GIS mapping data. It is recommended that Placer LAFCO
staff meet with El Dorado LAFCO staff to resolve these discrepancies.
Sphere of Influence
The Sphere of Influence (SOI) was last updated in 1994. It is recommended that the SOI be
updated to correct the three “Review Areas” described above and shown in Figure 14-2 to
address the concerns of TCPUD and El Dorado LAFCO.
Extra-territorial Services
The District does not provide direct service to paying customers located outside its
boundaries. However, it is recognized that the District’s park and recreation facilities are
open to regional residents and visitors who are living or staying outside its boundaries, and
therefore not contributing to TCPUD’s revenues.
Draft Final, August 2018
Chapter 14, Tahoe City PUD 14-3
Truckee Glenshire-Devonshire
Donner Lake
Lake Van Norden
North Shore Blvd
Ice Lakes
UV
267
N orthForkAmerican
DirtRd
Kings Beach
R iver UV Tahoe Vista
89
UV
28
MiddleForkAmericanRiver
Dollar Point
PLACER COUNTY
Lake Tahoe
Sunnyside-Tahoe City
UV
89
Hell Hole
Reservoir
R
ubicon
Meeks Bay
R
iv
e
r
UV ±
89
G
e
Loon Lake n
e
Tahoe City PUD Boundary r a
l
C
Sphere of Influence re
e
k
County Boundary 0 1 2
Miles
ELDORADO COUNTY
Communities
District Boundary from Tahoe City PUD, SOI from Placer County LAFCo
Figure 14-1 TAHOE CITY PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT
Truckee Glenshire-Devonshire
Donner Lake
Lake Van Norden
North Shore Blvd
Ice Lakes
UV
267
N orthForkAmerican
DirtRd
Kings Beach
R iver UV Tahoe Vista
89
UV
28
MiddleForkAmericanRiver
Dollar Point
PLACER COUNTY
Lake Tahoe
Sunnyside-Tahoe City
UV
89
Hell Hole
Reservoir
R
ubicon
Meeks Bay
R
iv
e
r
UV ±
89
G
e
Loon Lake n
e
Tahoe City PUD Boundary r a
l
C
Sphere of Influence re
e
k
County Boundary 0 1 2
Miles
ELDORADO COUNTY
Communities
District Boundary from Tahoe City PUD, SOI from Placer County LAFCo
Figure 14-2 TAHOE CITY PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
Areas of Interest
Along Highway 89, at the entrance to Squaw Valley, the TCPUD and the Squaw Valley Public
Services District have overlapping boundaries. Here, the TCPUD serves 17 water customers,
29 sewer customers (with the potential of up to 177 customers) and it owns 7,283 linear feet
of multi-use trail. These facilities/customers are located within both Districts’ boundaries.
The water customers are provided water through a purchase agreement with Squaw Valley
Public Service District.
14.4: Accountability and Governance
The District operates under the leadership of an elected five-member Board of Directors, with
a General Manager providing daily oversight and management of staff and resources. The
District holds regularly scheduled meetings on the third Friday of each month, at 8:30 a.m. in
the TCPUD Board Room located at 221 Fairway Drive, Tahoe City. District staff indicates that
all meetings are held in compliance with the Brown Act and all laws governing public
meetings. Meeting notices and agendas are posted at the front entry of the District
Administrative building, at the U.S. Post Office in Tahoe City, at the Tahoe City Library, on
the District website at www.tcpud.org and sent via email to all those requesting the
information. In addition, the District maintains an email list of all interested parties and
emails the agendas and the web links to the Board packet. Meetings can be viewed via live
video-feed from the District website; archived videos of past meetings are also available
through the website. Public comments are accepted at scheduled meetings, and also can be
provided by letters and email to the District. For meetings not requiring Brown Act
compliance, such as staff-hosted workshops, District staff utilizes a variety of techniques to
encourage public involvement including local media, posted signs in town, and an extensive e-
mail list. District staff also provide regular updates at other agency, local service club, and
homeowner association meetings. Individuals who are interested in a particular topic or item
may provide the District with their contact information to allow the District to keep them
informed of upcoming meetings on the subject matter.
Operating procedures and practices, including budgets, personnel policies, fees and rates,
capital improvements plans, and other documents are available for public review at the
District’s offices and many are also available on the PUD’s website. District operating hours
are 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday.
The District and its activities undergo public review procedures, including financial review by
independent auditors. There are sufficient mechanisms in place to ensure that actions and
operating procedures of the District are open and accessible to the public. The District
maintains a website at http://www.tcpud.org where residents can obtain District news,
meeting minutes, meeting agendas, water and sewer rates, and other helpful information.
Directors are elected to four-year terms; the last election having occurred in 2014. Each
Director is compensated per Government Code Section 16002(a) which allows a PUD Board of
Directors to provide by resolution that its members receive compensation in an amount not to
Draft Final, August 2018
Chapter 14, Tahoe City PUD 14-6
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
exceed $400 per month ($4,800 per year) and medical, dental, and vision coverage paid by
the District. The District had contested elections in 2010, 2012 and 2014, indicating a high
level of public interest and participation. The current Board of Directors is as follows:
Table 14.1: Tahoe City PUD Board of Directors,
2018
Director Term Expiration
Judy Friedman 2020
John Pang, President 2018
Ron Treabess 2020
Dan Wilkins, Vice President 2018
Scott Zumwalt 2020
Customer complaints can be submitted to the District via the TCPUD’s website, by email,
phone, in writing to TCPUD, PO Box 5249, Tahoe City, CA 96145 or in person. The District
received six complaints in 2012 related water and sewer rates and location of the Farmer’s
Market. In 2011, five complaints were received regarding maintenance of trails and water
rates. The PUD conducted a customer survey in January 2015 to solicit feedback about its
service, programs, facilities, and operations Survey results were published in a “District
Report Card” published on its website at: http://www.tahoecitypud
.com/download/general/repcar.pdf.
In 2015 the Board and management staff worked together to develop a strategic plan to guide
staff in planning, development, and workload. This strategic plan was adopted in 2016. The
District aims to update its strategic plan every five years.
14.5: Management Efficiencies and Staffing
The District’s five-member Board of Directors oversee the functions of the General Manager
who is responsible for day-to-day activities and operations. The General Manager directs the
planning, oversight, and investigation of all operations, projects, programs, and activities
within the District. Additionally, the General Manager directs the preparation and
presentation of the District’s annual budget, represents the District in labor contract
negotiations, and represents the District with regards to rules, regulations, and services
provided to the public and local, state, and federal agencies. District operations are
organized into four departments: Utilities (which include water and wastewater), Parks and
Recreation, Engineering, and Governance and Support Services. Staffing has increased
slightly in recent years from 50.65 FTE in 2003 to 53.15 FTE in 2013 (TCPUD, 2013, p. 25).
Draft Final, August 2018
Chapter 14, Tahoe City PUD 14-7
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
Within the last few years, the District has capped employee benefits and increased employee
contributions to benefits, which has increased management efficiencies for the District.
Figure 14.3: Tahoe City PUD Organizational Chart
The District has received a number of awards for excellence since 2009, including the
following:
• Electrical/Instrumentation Award, Kevin Ferrell – CWEA Sierra Section (2010)
• Collection Systems Award, Tab Strada – CWEA Sierra Section (2011)
• Best in the Basin Award – Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (2012)
• Supervisor of the Year, Rich Lehman – CWEA Sierra Section (2012)
• Plant Safety Award – CWEA Sierra Section (2012)
• Collection System of the Year Award – CWEA Sierra Section (2012)
• ACWA/JPIA HR LaBounty Safety Awards (2009, 2010, 2012, 2014)
• Supervisor of the Year, Dan Lewis – CWEA Sierra Section (2014)
Contract Services
Due to the seasonality and nature of workload, the District indicated they use contractors to
minimize the need for new full-time, year-round positions. The District uses a local
technology consulting company to handle network administration and technology help-desk
services. Local contractors are also used to assist with snow removal from District facilities,
and to facilitate emergency response and repairs. The Recreation Department hires contract
instructors to provide specialized recreational programs like cooking, music and exercise
classes. The District utilizes the State CMAS Contract and the National Joint Powers Alliance
(NJPA) for purchasing in an effort to reduce costs and limit the need for dedicated
procurement staff.
Draft Final, August 2018
Chapter 14, Tahoe City PUD 14-8
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
Technology/Management
The District has been increasing its use of systems and technology throughout the
organization. A complete, spatially referenced asset database has been developed using GIS
(Geographic Information Systems) and GPS (Global Positioning Systems) technology. This GIS
system has been deployed in the field to operations staff for both Utilities and Parks, and is
used to access mapping as well as capture critical data in the field.
The Utilities and Parks departments have implemented a Computerized Maintenance
Management System (CMMS) to electronically manage and track work orders. The system
allows staff to capture and generate reports to help inform both maintenance and operations
decisions as well as capital replacement decisions. The system is integrated with the
District’s GIS asset database.
The Utilities Department uses SCADA (supervisory control and data acquisition) to efficiently
and proactively manage its critical sewer and water infrastructure. The Utilities Department
also utilizes technology and software programs to efficiently manage their sewer line CCTV
inspection program, sewer line cleaning program and water valve exercise program. The
District has implemented an enterprise software system to electronically manage documents
and retention and uses an enterprise level accounting software system to manage and provide
financial reporting.
Overall, the District carefully selects and implements systems and technologies with the goal
of creating efficiencies for staff or providing higher levels of service for its customers.
14.6: Population and Growth
Population
To determine the existing population, 2010 U.S. Census data was used as a preliminary
indicator. This data, shown in Table 14.2 below estimates a population of approximately
4,839 permanent residents within the Census Tract Block Groups that comprise the
approximate shape file boundaries of the sphere of influence for the District.
Draft Final, August 2018
Chapter 14, Tahoe City PUD 14-9
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
Table 14.2 Census Data on Population & Housing
Census Block Census Estimated Census Estimated # Calculated # of
Tract Group Population of Housing Units permanently owner
occupied units*
201.04 2 565 580 191
201.04 1 343 536 177
221 1 702 1,000 330
2 259 408 135
3 389 Data not available Data not available
222 1 728 786 259
2 181 553 182
223 1 228 452 149
2 481 1,090 360
320 1 783 1,206 400
3 180 1,068 352
Total 4,839 7,679 2,535
Source: GIS Shape files and http://www.census.gov/2010census/popmap/
*Note: 33% of total housing units are assumed to be permanently occupied by owners per the
Travel Assessment. However, the District believes that only 25 % are owner occupied.
Estimates of population in resort areas are difficult to predict, as populations are transient
and have significant variation throughout the year. There are no current studies that
accurately project the number of seasonal visitors during peak times. Service providers
typically provide services based on land use type and variety of complicated flow or fixture
unit values.
Like all districts in the Tahoe Basin, there is a large influx of seasonal residents and visitors
that add to TCPUD’s daily peak service demands. The nonresident population is comprised of
a variety of users from absentee owners, vacation rentals, camping and day visitors. The
Placer County Office of Economic Development, Placer County Tourism, Placer County Visitors
Bureau and North Lake Tahoe Resort Association commissioned a study in 2009 to document
the tourism impact in the county as a whole. Information was also collected for the high
country and particularly the Tahoe Basin. While this study does not specifically project the
seasonal population peaks associated with tourism and recreational uses, it does demonstrate
the emphasis on seasonal uses that accommodate the visitors to the area (Placer County OED,
2009). All of this translates into service demands for the TCPUD.
The following excerpts are taken from the Travel Industry Assessment:
Second Homeowner Trends
The Travel Industry Assessment reports that within the High Country Region, a large
percentage of the housing units serve as private vacation homes and/or vacation
rental properties, most notably for the communities of North Lake Tahoe. ………
nearly two-thirds (67 percent) of all single-family homes, condominiums, and time-
shares are not owner-occupied.
Draft Final, August 2018
Chapter 14, Tahoe City PUD 14-10
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
According to the District, approximately 25 percent of the homes are full-time residences.
However, for purposes of this MSR analysis, it was assumed that 33 percent of housing units
are permanently occupied, consistent with the Travel Industry Assessment.
The number of housing units in a region can also be used to calculate population. Past studies
have produced a variety of estimates for the number of housing units within TCPUD’s
boundary. The Travel Industry Assessment counted the number of single-family residential,
condominium, and time-share housing units in the PUD’s three zip codes and determined the
number to be 12,783. This number seems to be an overestimate, likely because zip code
96145 extends outside the PUD’s boundary area. The District’s 2010 Urban Water
Management Plan estimated the total residential units in the service area at 3,772 units based
on census data from the year 2000 (TCPUD, 2011). This is significantly lower than the 7,679
housing units estimated by the 2010 U.S. Census (see Table 14.2).
The Travel Industry Assessment also describes commercial properties as follows:
Commercial Lodging Properties
Within Placer County, there are a wide variety of lodging accommodation rooms
distributed among hotels, motels, bed & breakfasts, rented condominium “villages”,
and single-family vacation homes throughout Placer County….. In addition to those
lodging accommodations, property management companies operate vacation rental
activity for many single-family vacation homes throughout North Lake Tahoe.
There are several inns and hotels that operate within the PUD’s boundaries including the
Granlibakken Resort (165 units); Pepper Tree Inn (51 units); America’s Best Value (46 units);
Aviva Inn (24 units); Tahoe City Inn (32 units); and the Henrikson building (tbd ~ 120 units). In
addition to lodging properties and second home rentals there are a variety of other smaller
units and camping accommodations to meet the visitor overnight needs. These commercial
businesses and other visitor serving facilities create a demand for the public services that
TCPUD provides.
Since the data from the U.S. Census is not consistent with data from other past studies
regarding the number of housing units and the population, this MSR analysis will rely upon
service connection data. The water and wastewater connections included in Table 14.3
reflect the demand presented by permanent residents, seasonal uses and/or demands as well
as visitor uses.
Table 14.3: Service Connections
Service #Customers in 2003 #Customers in 2008 #Customers in 2013-
2014
Water2 3,825 3,910 4,188
Wastewater2 7,210 7,443 7,5403
Parks 5,300 800,000* 1,000,0004
2 Measured by number of connections
Draft Final, August 2018
Chapter 14, Tahoe City PUD 14-11
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
3 Source: Tahoe-Truckee Sanitation Agency personal communication
4 District estimate of total annual users of Parks and Recreation Facilities (including visitors)
As shown in the above table, TCPUD services significantly more wastewater connections, as
compared to water service connections. This is because 12 other private water companies
provide water service to customers within TCPUD’s boundaries. Therefore, the number of
wastewater connections is a better indicator of population served.
For purposes of this MSR analysis, it is assumed that the wastewater connections are
distributed among residential, commercial, visitor serving motels, and
government/institutional uses as shown in Table 14.4 below.
Table 14.4: Estimated Distribution of 7540 Wastewater Connections
Estimated Percentage Estimated # of
wastewater connections
Residential 92.65% 6,986
Commercial 5.86% 442
Visitor Serving Motels etc. 1.00% 75
Government/Institutional 0.50% 37
It is noted that one wastewater connection to a visitor serving motel or inn can serve many
visitor rooms. The ratio of housing units to non-farm business establishments in Placer County
is approximately 1:15.81 and this value was used to estimate the percentages in Table 14.4,
above. It is also noted that one wastewater connection to a residential property can serve
many units. For example, a duplex or apartment building may only have one formal
wastewater connection, but serve several separate residential units. For purposes of this MSR
analysis, it is assumed that of the total 6,986 residential connections, 85% of these serve
single family homes. For the remaining 1,048 connections to multi-family structures, it is
assumed that each multi-family structure has an average of four residential units. This yields
4,192 housing units located in multi-family structures. Therefore, the total number of
housing units within the PUD’s boundaries is estimated to be 10,130. This is somewhat higher
than the 2010 U.S. Census estimate of 7,679 residential units and significantly lower than the
12,783 units estimated by the Travel Industry Assessment.
Based on the number of housing units estimated in the preceding paragraph, the existing
population of TCPUD is calculated to be 8,524 permanent residents and 17,307 overnight
visitors2 (at maximum occupancy). The permanent resident population represents a small
part (33 percent) of the total population (visitors and vacationers) that the District serves.
1 Data source: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06/06061.html
2 17,307 visiting population calculated from 6,986 housing units * 2.55 persons per household = total
population of 25,831persons. Assuming 33% of population is permanent then 25831-8524 =17,307.
Draft Final, August 2018
Chapter 14, Tahoe City PUD 14-12
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
Table 14.5: Existing Population of TCPUD
# Wastewater # Housing Units Estimated Permanent Estimated Visitor
Connections Population Population
7,540 10,130 8,524 17,307
Projected Growth and Development
Historical Growth Rate
It is Placer County General Plan policy to steer urban growth to the cities. The 2013 Placer
County Housing Element confirms that policy. While the county has grown at a rapid pace,
much of this growth has occurred within the cities. Incorporated areas of the county grew at
an Average Annual Growth Rate (AAGR) of 5.2 percent. Unincorporated Placer County’s
population grew at an AAGR of 1.8 percent between 1990 and 2000.
From 2000 to 2010, Placer County as a whole had a 3.4 percent AAGR for population, a rate
nearly three times California’s population AAGR of 1.0 percent during this period. Most of
this growth occurred in the incorporated areas of the county where the AAGR was 5.2 percent
between 2000 and 2010. Population growth rates within the district were estimated using
historical growth rates provided by the 2010 Census and District staff.
Land-Use and Planning Documents
Primary land uses in the District include residential, commercial and recreational/tourism.
The District doesn’t anticipate any changes to these basic land uses. The Lake Tahoe area is
under the jurisdiction of several agencies, including the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency
(TRPA), Placer County, as well as various State agencies, due to the fact that the lake
straddles California and Nevada. TRPA was jointly created in 1969 as a bi-state compact by
the states of California and Nevada to meet Lake Tahoe basin-wide planning needs, including
the development of general plans and other planning documents. TRPA is the agency
responsible for regional planning, development and redevelopment oversight, regulatory
enforcement, and implementation of environmental protection and restoration of Lake Tahoe
and the surrounding region. Areas over which the TRPA has authority include new
construction, erosion control, storm water runoff, shore-zone development and protection,
road construction, land use, and tree
conservation and harvesting. Through
its 1987 General Plan, TRPA provides
environmental quality standards and
ordinances designed to achieve these
thresholds. The Code of Ordinances
within the 1987 General Plan
regulates land use, density, land
coverage, excavation, and scenic
impacts with the intention of
bringing the region into conformance
with specified environmental
thresholds.
Draft Final, August 2018
Chapter 14, Tahoe City PUD 14-13
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
In December 2012, the TRPA Governing Board adopted the Lake Tahoe Regional Plan Update.
The Regional Plan Update leaves many of the policies of the 1987 Regional Plan in place while
providing more autonomy to local governments through adoption of Area Plans. The 2012
Regional Plan identifies goals and policies to guide decision making as it affects the Tahoe
Region’s resources and environmental thresholds. Goals and policies are addressed in six
major elements including land use, transportation, conservation, recreation, public services
and facilities, and implementation. The Regional Plan Update initiated a Region-wide
transition to a planning and permitting system where all requirements—TRPA, local, state,
and federal—are addressed in coordinated Area Plans.
The Existing Conditions Report indicated that the TRPA Regional Plan Update prioritizes
redevelopment and infill of existing town centers at higher intensities than exist in other
areas of the Region. During the next 20 years, much of the projected residential and non-
residential development is expected to occur in mixed-use developments within these
centers. Chapter 31 of the TRPA Code of Ordinances establishes the maximum multi-family
residential density at 15 units per acre. Additionally, compliant affordable housing projects
are provided a 25 percent density bonus. Based on the existing capacity of vacant parcels
located throughout the Plan Area, and TRPA policies focused on high-intensity mixed use
development within centers (primarily Tahoe City and Kings Beach), there appears to be
sufficient land to accommodate the projected 580 new housing units and 900,000 square feet
of commercial space within the Plan Area.
The Tahoe City PUD area falls into two of the proposed North Tahoe sub-planning areas; the
Greater Tahoe City Area and the West Shore Area sub-planning areas. The overall concept to
be employed by the area plan is to concentrate growth in the town center (Tahoe City and
Kings Beach) within these two sub-area plans while stabilizing land uses outside of the two
town centers.
The Placer County General Plan serves as the County’s vision for long-term land use
development and conservation. Placer County’s General Plan adopted on August 16, 1994,
and updated May 21, 2013, provides a series of goals, policies, standards and implementation
programs to guide the land use, development, and environmental quality of the County. The
County’s General Plan is generally consistent with TRPA planning documents. While the
General Plan was updated, the area plans in the Tahoe Basin were not.
Placer County has embarked (2011) on a more compressive planning update for the Tahoe
basin area plans. In an effort to develop more cohesive, user-friendly Planning documents for
the Tahoe Community/General Plan Update, the nine Tahoe basin plans will be consolidated
into a single over-arching Community Plan policy document with four sub-planning areas each
with their own zoning ordinances and design standards specific to each Plan Area. The Public
Review Draft Tahoe Basin Area Plan and an updated Notice of Preparation became available
for a 60 day public comment period via Placer County in June 2015. A revised Draft Tahoe
Basin Area Plan was published in April 2016. A Draft EIR/EIS per CEQA is expected to be
published in the Summer 2016. Thereafter, the next steps include refining the Plan,
publishing a final EIR/EIS, review and adoption of the Plan and EIR/EIS by the Placer County
Draft Final, August 2018
Chapter 14, Tahoe City PUD 14-14
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
Board of Supervisors, and a TRPA Submittal and
Conformance Review3. Placer County adopted the
Tahoe City Community Plan in February 1994. This plan
will be replaced and updated by the proposed Tahoe
Basin Community Plan. The primary land uses within the
district boundaries are residential, commercial, and
recreation.
Future Development Potential
The 1994 Tahoe City Community Plan projects that there
are a total of 352 undeveloped properties within the
planning area, of which 263 are buildable based on TRPA
regulations. It is projected that buildout of the 263 lots
will occur on a gradual basis within the 10-year life of
the Plan and perhaps beyond that.
Within the District, the most significant proposed development project would be located at
Homewood Ski Resort. The Homewood Mountain Resort Master Plan was approved by the Placer
County Board of Supervisors in 2011. The project approval was subject to litigation which was
settled out of court in January 20144. Under the Master Plan the resort will redevelop mixed-
uses at the North Base area, residential uses at the South Base area and a lodge at the Mid-
Mountain Base area. The 17-acre North Base area will include six new mixed-use buildings
and eight new townhouse buildings to provide 36 residential condominiums, 16 townhouses,
20 fractional ownership units, 75 traditional hotel rooms, 40 two-bedroom for sale
condominium/hotel units, 30 penthouse condominium units, 25,000 square feet of
commercial floor area (CFA), 13 affordable housing units and a 30,000 square foot skier
services lodge. The 6-acre South Base area will be converted to 95 ski-in/ski-out residences
in a series of clustered chalets and one centralized condominium lodge. Please note that the
total number of residential units was reduced by 13, consistent with the 2014 legal
settlement.
The Mid-Mountain Base area will include a new 15,000 square foot day-use lodge with a
detached gondola terminal linked to the lodge by a covered passage, a new learn-to-ski lift,
an outdoor swimming facility for use during the summer months by West Shore residents, a
new snow-based vehicle (e.g., grooming equipment) maintenance facility, and two water
storage tanks. As noted above, all future development must be in conformance with the
TRPA, 2012, Lake Tahoe Regional Plan Update.
Based on the above information, it is assumed that the maximum compound annual growth
rate for the District’s area is approximately 1.0 percent. The 20-year compound annual
3 For more details see County website at: http://www.placer.ca.gov/departments/
communitydevelopment/planning/tahoebasinareaplan
4 Legal settlement was described in the Tahoe Daily Tribune newspaper at:
http://www.tahoedailytribune.com/news/9992880-113/homewood-resort-ski-tahoe
Draft Final, August 2018
Chapter 14, Tahoe City PUD 14-15
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
growth rate of 1.0 percent is used to project the District’s population base for the next 20
years, over 5-year increments, as shown in the following table.
Table 14.6: Permanent Population –Projected to 2035 within TCPUD’s
LAFCO Boundary
Year 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035
Estimated 8,524 8,959 9,416 9,896 10,400
Population
1 compound year annual growth rate based on 20 year Census trend
It should be noted that the estimated peak Overnight Visitor Population in the year 2015 is
17,307 persons. If visitation also increases at a one-percent rate, the Overnight Visitor
Population in the year 2035 could reach 21,118 by the year 2035. Day-use only visitors are
not included in this estimate.
The estimated maximum growth rate in the District’s sphere of influence is a rate of 1.0
percent.
Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities
By state definition, a disadvantaged unincorporated community (DUC) has a median household
income (MHI) less than 80 percent of the statewide average. According to 2010 Census data,
California’s MHI is $60,883, which qualifies any community with a MHI less than $48,706 as a
DUC. TCPUD serves portions of both Placer County and El Dorado County. Although the
District is above the state median annual household income overall, there are specific
neighborhoods within the District that qualify as disadvantaged communities. Within its Placer
County service area, data5 indicates that the community of Lake Forest, near Dollar Point,
has a MHI of $44,950, which is below the DUC threshold. Additionally, a 2010 TRPA report
indicates that Lake Forest has blighted aesthetic and social conditions (TRPA, 2010). The
District recently acquired the privately-owned Lake Forest Water system following a request
of the System’s customers and after protracted litigation.
Within its El Dorado County service area (i.e. the southern portion of Tahoma and the Meek’s
Bay area), DWR does classify this area as a “Disadvantaged Community Tract” meaning it
meets the DUC criteria (CDWR, 2014). As described in this MSR, the communities do receive
water, wastewater, and fire protection services. No public health and safety issues have
been identified. For additional information, please refer to Chapter 3, Section 3.6,
Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities, in this MSR.
(DUCs). Tahoma and Lake Forest Communities both meet the criteria of 80 percent of the
state median income, which defines a DUC.
5 Data from: http://www.parkinfo.org/factfinder2011/grantee
Draft Final, August 2018
Chapter 14, Tahoe City PUD 14-16
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
14.7: Financing
This section evaluates the factors affecting the financing of operations and improvements for
Tahoe City PUD. Information on District financing is derived from audited financial
statements for the Fiscal Year 2013, as well as information provided by District staff. The
District follows a calendar year (January 1 – December 31) budget cycle and each year the
Board of Directors adopts an operating and capital budget (Mann, Urratia, Nelson, CPAs &
Associates, LLP, April 18, 2014, p. 3). These statements represent the financial statements of
the District’s consolidated services, and follow Government Accounting Standards Board
(GASB) method of Accrual accounting.
Disclaimer: The financial information provided in this MSR section was accurate as of its
writing in 2014. However, the District updates its financial information on an annual basis.
Therefore, the financial information in this MSR has been superseded and readers are
encouraged to read the newer financial statements and budgets published by the District on
their website at: http://www.tahoecitypud.com/ .
District Revenues and Expenditures
The TCPUD uses property tax, user fees, grants and interest income to provide its services
(Mann, Urratia, Nelson, CPAs & Associates, LLP, April 18, 2014, p. 2). The District maintains
two individual governmental funds. Governmental activities consist of parks and recreation
operations, which are paid for by property taxes, user fees, and capital and operating grants
and donations. The following table is the statement of revenues and expenditures.
Table 14.8: Tahoe City PUD Statement of Revenues and Expenditures (Governmental
Funds), Fiscal Year 2013
Total
Governmental
Source General Debt Service Funds
Revenues
Fees $ 505,974 $ 14,266 $ 520,240
Property Taxes 4,631,006 938,345 5,569,351
Interest (2,487) -- (2,487)
Grants 551,250 -- 551,250
Other 170,212 289 170,501
Total Revenues $5,855,955 $952,900 $6,808,855
Expenditures
Current
Public Works – Parks 2,017,398 -- 2,017,398
Recreation 624,534 -- 624,534
Draft Final, August 2018
Chapter 14, Tahoe City PUD 14-17
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
Other Operating 201,516 -- 201,516
Capital Outlay 545,633 -- 545,633
Debt Service:
Principal -- 796,035 796,035
Interest -- 156,576 156,576
Total Expenditures $3,389,081 $952,611 $4,341,692
Revenues over $2,466,874 $ 289 $2,467,163
Expenditures
Source: Independent Auditor’s Report, FY 2013 (Mann, Urratia, Nelson, CPAs & Associates,
LLP, April 18, 2014, p. 26)
Per the 2013 audit and as shown in Table 14.8 above, property tax represents the majority of
revenue for the District and it comprises over 79 percent of the total revenue. In 2013
property tax revenue was projected to increase by 0.2 percent due to slight increases in
assessed valuations in the unincorporated areas of Placer County. Of the 2013 property tax
revenue, Parks and Recreation receives 30 percent with the remaining going to fund capital
and reserves and general debt service.
Per the 2013 audit and as shown in Table 14.8 above, water and sewer rate revenues
represent a small (eight percent) part of TCPUD’s total revenue. TCPUD aims to set rates to
cover operations and current and future water and sewer capital projects.
The District’s water and sewer rates are reviewed annually and are made available on its
website. In 2015 the water rates6 were comprised of both a base rate and a variable rate
based on water usage. The base residential rate ranged from $59 per month for a 0.75”
water meter size up to $549.26 per month for a 6.00” water meter size. The water usage
rate for residential customers varies from $1.91 to $8.25 per 1,000 gallons per month based
on a four tiered increasing block rate structure depending on the amount of water utilized. A
residential customer with a 0.75” water meter size who uses 10,000 gallons per month would
pay a water bill of $79.50 per month (i.e. $59 base rate plus $20.50 usage rate). Commercial
water base rates vary between $71 for a 0.75” water size to $879.75 for an 8.00” water meter
size. The commercial usage rate ranges from $5.63 to $5.73 per 1,000 gallons per month
depending on usage based on a two tiered increasing block. Additionally, private fire
sprinklers or fire hydrants on private property are subject to a $29.70 per inch fee.
Rates7 for sewer are billed either monthly or quarterly; approximately 53% of customers are
billed monthly with the remainder (sewer only) on a quarterly basis. Sewer fees include
monthly service rates and connection fees. The sewer connection fee is only charged when a
new connection is established. The monthly rates vary depending on the type of customer.
6 Current water rates are available at:
http://www.tahoecitypud.com/download/general/2015waterrates.pdf.
7 Sewer rates for 2015 are available on the District’s website at:
http://www.tahoecitypud.com/download/general/2015sewerrates.pdf
Draft Final, August 2018
Chapter 14, Tahoe City PUD 14-18
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
Residential dwelling units pay $38.41 per month. Commercial facilities such as a gas station
pay $57.73 per month. The District also has a method to calculate commercial fees based on
the square footage of the commercial facility. Commercial buildings of less than 1,000 sq. ft.
pay $38.41 per month (the same as a residential unit).
The water and sewer rates set by the District take into consideration numerous cost factors
different than much of Placer County including: the costs of operating in a highly regulated,
sensitive environment; heavy winter climate; mountainous terrain; an extremely fragmented
water system; building restrictions significantly reducing any new development revenue; and
high costs of living which lead to high labor costs.
On July 18, 2014 the TCPUD Board conducted a public meeting on the results of water and
sewer rate study that was prepared consistent with Proposition 218 (TCPUD-b, August 2014).
This rate study considered capital replacement projects and projections on operations to
recommend a 5-year rate plan for water and sewer. Proposition 218 requires that a District’s
revenues do not exceed the cost of service and that rates are proportionally fair between
customer types. The Board ultimately adopted a rate plan which concurs with the sewer rates
adopted in 2009 but which extends the timeframe for an additional five years to reach. Sewer
rates would increase by a maximum of 5.7% annually over the next five years. Water base
rates will increase on an average by 6% annually from 2015 through 2019. These rates are the
maximum to be implemented over the next five years.
The District operates one proprietary fund with enterprise funds to account for its water,
sewer, and engineering departments (Mann, Urratia, Nelson, CPAs & Associates, LLP, April 18,
2014, p. 7).
Draft Final, August 2018
Chapter 14, Tahoe City PUD 14-19
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
Table 14.9: Proprietary Fund Summary, 2013
Operating Revenues Water and Sewer Fund
Service and inspection fees $8,116,007
Connection fees 152,025
Penalties and discounts 63,375
Other 92,128
Total operating revenues $8,425,535
Operating Expenses
Personnel 3,009,253
Operations 2,236,638
Depreciation 1,444,240
Total operating expenses $6,690,131
Operating Income $1,735,404
Non-operating Revenues (Expenses)
Property taxes 23,287
Interest income 104,964
Proceeds from sales of capital 23,413
assets
Interest expense (6,120)
Total non-operating revenues $145,544
Income1 $1,880,948
1 Income before capital contributions and transfers.
Source: Independent Auditor’s Report, 2013
(Mann, Urratia, Nelson, CPAs & Associates, LLP, April
18, 2014, p. 29)
District Assets and Liabilities
The TCPUD invested approximately $3.4 million in parks, water and sewer infrastructure
capital projects, with an emphasis on completing the Lake Forest Water project, water supply
and projects to improve firefighting support, design and permitting for Homewood Bike Trail,
and HVAC improvements at the Administration building.
Draft Final, August 2018
Chapter 14, Tahoe City PUD 14-20
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
The following summary provides an overview of the District’s assets and liabilities:
Table 14.10: Summary of Net Position, 2013
Assets and Liabilities Amount
Assets
Current Assets
Cash/Cash Equivalent $8,047,067
Receivables 2,564,237
Prepaid items/Other 300,739
Subtotal 10,912,043
Noncurrent Assets
Restricted Cash/Cash Equivalent 65,000
Facility improvement receivables 16,822
Other Postemployment benefits,
315,073
net
Net pension asset 1,731,683
Capital assets
Non-depreciable assets 1,265,157
Depreciable assets 30,338,777
Subtotal 31,603,904
Total Assets $44,839,324
Liabilities
Current Liabilities $756,898
Noncurrent Liabilities 254,849
Total Liabilities $1,001,747
Net Position
Investment in Capital Assets, Net of 31,310,220
Related Debt
Restricted 65,000
Unrestricted 12,452,357
Total Net Position $43,827,577
Source: Independent Auditor’s Report, 2013 (Mann, Urratia, Nelson, CPAs & Associates,
LLP, April 18, 2014, p. 28).
Long Term Liabilities and Debt
At the end of the 2013 fiscal year, the TCPUD had total bonded debt outstanding of
$4,772,504. Of this amount, $2,761,765 is debt backed by the government, $368,764 is
special assessment debt, and $1,641,975 is pension-related debt (Mann, Urratia, Nelson, CPAs
& Associates, LLP, April 18, 2014, p. 17). The TCPUD has negotiated for employees to
contribute a larger share of required pension contributions and addressed CalPERS investment
committee regarding their portfolio allocation.
Draft Final, August 2018
Chapter 14, Tahoe City PUD 14-21
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
Asset Maintenance and Replacement
Each year the TCPUD updates a five year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), which provides a
schedule of planned improvements within the timeframe and identifies TCPUD and grant
funding sources that will help pay for those improvements (TCPUD, 2013). The CIP includes a
number of ongoing programs and one-time projects to perform regular maintenance on
infrastructure and to replace those assets that have reached the end of their useful life. The
District has assigned the useful lives listed below to major capital assets (Mann, Urratia,
Nelson, CPAs & Associates, LLP, April 18, 2014, p. 36):
Water and sewer plant 10-40 years
Recreational facilities 10-20 years
Building 40 years
Equipment 3-20 years
Vehicles 4-13 years
Cost Avoidance
The TCPUD jointly owns and operates the Joint Sewerage Facilities (JSF) with the North Tahoe
Public Utility District (NTPUD). The JSF consists of the Dollar Point interceptor and the Odor
Control Station at Burton Creek Drive and State Route 28. This facility is used to convey all of
NTPUD wastewater flows and the majority of TCPUD’s North Shore wastewater flows from
Dollar Point to the Truckee River Interceptor pipeline, which is owned and operated by the
Tahoe Truckee Sanitation Agency (TTSA).
The District participates in the “Tahoe Truckee Area Emergency Contingency Plan Agreement
for Mutual Aid”. The Agreement is a mutual aid agreement that sets forth a policy of mutual
cooperation to provide sewer and/or water emergency aid. Thirteen agencies are signatories
to the Agreement including TCPUD, SVPSD, TSD, TTSA, NCSD, NTPUD, and ASCWD, which are
also covered in this MSR.
14.8: Water Services
Water Service Overview
The TCPUD provides water service to 4,188 customers (TCPUD, 2013, p. 3) via three major
systems (Tahoe City Main, Rubicon, and McKinney) and two minor systems (Alpine Peaks and
Truckee-Tahoe Forest Tract). Although groundwater is the primary water source for TCPUD,
the District does maintain intakes to obtain water from the Lake for both treatment and
emergency raw water supply. TCPUD’s water systems are regulated and permitted by the
California State Water Resources Control Board – Division of Drinking Water (DDW) for water
quality and delivery.
Within Tahoe City PUD sewer service boundaries, an additional 12 other water companies
provide water service to customers. These other companies are comprised primarily of
private investor owned utilities, a few mutual water companies and two other public water
providers (Talmont Resort Improvement District and McKinney Water District). The geographic
Draft Final, August 2018
Chapter 14, Tahoe City PUD 14-22
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
relationship between these other water companies and the TCPUD is shown in Figure 14.4
(next page).
The District operates five separate and non-contiguous water systems as listed below:
• Tahoe City Main System: Extends from Dollar Point to Tahoe Tavern. Includes the
former Lake Forest Water Company acquired in 2012.
• Quail Lake/McKinney System: Extends from Homewood south and east along the
shoreline to McKinney Creek. Now includes the former Tahoma Meadows Mutual Water
Company consolidated in 2013.
• Alpine Peaks System: A small system approximately five miles west of Tahoe City,
serving the area west of Tahoe Tavern.
• Rubicon System: Serves the area between Meeks Bay and Bliss State Park, including
the Meeks Bay Vista system and the former Tamarack Mutual Water System.
• Truckee-Tahoe Forest Tract System: Serves a small area across from the entrance to
Squaw Valley. This area is served purchased water from Squaw Valley Public Services
District and is not described in further detail below.
Water Supply/Demand
Water Supply
Tahoe City Main System
The Tahoe City Main system supply is currently provided by groundwater, although there are
three lake intakes (Dollar point, Grove Street, and Cedar Point) that are currently used for
emergency use only. Active groundwater wells include Tahoe Tavern Well (500 gpm), Tahoe
City Well No. 2 (1050 gpm), Tahoe City Well No. 3 (1500 gpm), Highlands Well No. 1 (60 gpm),
and Highlands Well No. 2 (170 gpm). In addition to the lake intakes, the District has one
standby well – Tahoe City Well No. 1 (up to 500 gpm). The District is currently redrilling
Tahoe City Well No. 1 to remove it from standby status with an estimated capacity of 750-
1000 gpm. Overall, the supply available to the Tahoe City Main system is 3,280 gpm (CDPH,
2013).
Draft Final, August 2018
Chapter 14, Tahoe City PUD 14-23
CARNELIAN BAY
D
o
SQUAW VALLEY
Squaw
Creek
Tahoe Truckee Forest Tract System
llarC
reek
BurtonCreek
Fulton Water Co
North Tahoe Public Utility District
§¨¦
89 Tahoe City (Subregional) System §¨¦
28
ALPINE MEADOWS
DOLLAR
Lakeview Water Co
Creek POINT
Bear
Lake Forest System
T
ru
ckeeRiver
TAHOE
CITY
Tahoe Park Water Co
Washoe Heights Water Co
Talmont Resort Improvement District
Tahoe Park Water Co
§¨¦
89
SUNNYSIDE
WardCreek
ALPINE PEAKS Tahoe Park Water Co
Alpine Peaks System
LAKE
Ward Well Water Co
TAHOE
Timberland Water Co
Skyland/Nielsen Water Co
Creek
wood TAHOE
Black PINES
Tahoe Pines/Tahoe Swiss Village Water Co
HOMEWOOD
Creek
Madden
McKinney/Quail System
Madden Creek Water
Homewood
Canyon
TAHOMA
PLACER COUNTY
EL DORADO COUNTY
McKinney Estates Water District
§¨¦
89 Tahoe Cedars Water Co
Tahoma Meadows System
k
Cree
Kinney
Mc
Glenridge Water Co MEEKS
BAY
Creek
General
Water Service Purveyors
ek
Tahoe City Public Utility District ks
Cre
Rubicon System
e
e
M
Other Water Purveyors
Other Public Water Agencies
RUBICON
District Service Area
BAY
1 inch = 1 miles
Miles
0 0.5 1 2 Gulch
µ
TAHOE CITY PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT
Lonely
DISTRICT SERVICE AREA
P.O. BOX 5249
TAHOE CITY, CA. 96145
(530) 583-3796 WATER PURVEYORS Map prepared by: KH
Date: Sep. 11, 2013
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
Quail/McKinney System
The Quail/McKinney supply system consists of both groundwater and surface water from Lake
Tahoe. Groundwater consists of the Crystal Way Well, which was drilled in 1994 and has a
pumping capacity of 500 gpm. The system also has two other inactive wells (McKinney Wells
No. 1 and 2) that have high iron content and have been recommended for destruction. The
District also has a 300 gpm intake and interim surface water treatment plant on Lake Tahoe
at Chambers Landing, which is in use only during summer months. The District also has an
emergency interconnection with the McKinney Water District which can provide water to
either agency and is regulated by an agreement. The system has an overall capacity of 800
gpm (CDPH, 2012b). Although the Crystal Way Well has a pumping rate of 500 gpm, the
aquifer that supplies the well has limited capacity and cannot supply year round system
demand. Water supply must be supplemented from the interim surface water treatment
plant during the summer to prevent the aquifer from being depleted. The TCPUD is currently
in preliminary design and permitting phase of the construction of a new, permanent water
treatment plant. The initial design incorporates sufficient capacity to serve the
Quail/McKinney System’s projected build out as well as a number of private water systems
nearby.
Alpine Peaks System
The Alpine Peaks water system is supplied by Riley Springs, which is comprised of two
horizontal wells manifolded together. The first horizontal well was drilled in 1974 and the
second well was drilled in 1980. Total horizontal depths of the wells are 320 and
approximately 400 feet, respectively. The spring is located in steep terrain that is accessible
form the local neighborhood. The spring outlets and associated valves are enclosed by
concrete rings with commercial aluminum hatch covers. The combined capacity of the
springs is approximately 175-200 gpm (CDPH, 2012a).
Map courtesy of
https://gis.water.ca.gov 1
Draft Final, August 2018
Chapter 14, Tahoe City PUD 14-25
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
Table 14.11: Water production and storage facilities
Estimated Reliable
Pumping Capacity Capacity
Production Facility (gpm) Storage Facility1 (million gallons)
TCPUD Main
Tahoe City Well 01 Up to 500 Bunker Tank 0.5
Tahoe City Well 02 1,050 Tahoe Tavern Tank 0.5
Tahoe City Well 03 1,500 Four Seasons Tank 0.5
Tahoe Tavern Well 500 Rocky Ridge Tank 0.5
Highlands Well No. 1 60 Lower Highlands 0.5
Tank
Highlands Well No. 2 170 Upper Highlands 1.2
Tank
Subtotal 3,280 3.7
Quail/McKinney
Chrystal Way Well 500 Quail Tank 0.375
Lake Tahoe Intake 300
(summer only)
Subtotal 1,100 0.375
Alpine Peaks
Riley Spring 120-130 Steel Tank 0.5
Subtotal 130 0.5
Rubicon system
Rubicon Well 01 260 Rubicon Tank 01 0.20
Rubicon Well 02 280 Rubicon Tank 02 0.28
Rubicon Well 03 500 Rubicon Tank 03 0.08
Subtotal 1,040 0.56
Total Capacity 5,550 5.135
Source: CDPH Annual Reports for the four systems. 2012, 2013.
Rubicon System
The Rubicon supply system consists of three groundwater wells: Rubicon Well 01-Silvertip was
drilled in 1962 (260 gpm), Rubicon Well 02-Lakeview was drilled in 1985 (280 gpm), and
Rubicon Well 03-Ridge was drilled in 1998 (500 gpm). The combined capacity of the wells is
1,040 gpm. In 2010, the annual production was 43.9 mg(CDPH, 2012c).
Water Demand
Within the TCPUD service area, water is primarily used for residential and commercial
purposes; there are no significant industrial, manufacturing or agricultural land uses (TCPUD,
TCPUD 2010 Urban Water Management Plan, Amended 2011, pp. 3-3). The District serves
approximately 200 commercial customers and 7,500 homes (TCPUD, Personal communication
with TCPUD staff, 2013), and in 2012 had 4,106 customers which are defined as utility
connections. Commercial use accounts for about 15 percent of the total water demand and is
not expected to change significantly because it is assumed that the District’s commercially
Draft Final, August 2018
Chapter 14, Tahoe City PUD 14-26
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
zoned area is at buildout. The exception to this is redevelopment such as the Homewood Ski
Resort development, which includes 25,000 square feet of commercial space and a 30,000
square foot skier services lodge. Except for the parks, there is very little recreational water
demand. The golf course located within the service area has a private water supply (TCPUD,
TCPUD 2010 Urban Water Management Plan, Amended 2011, pp. 3-4). Water demand by
district customers in 2014 was only 413.3 million gallons8, the second lowest amount of water
on record, indicating good results from water conservation efforts.
The TCPUD relies primarily on groundwater to meet normal demands, with the exception of
summer time surface water diversions to augment supply in the McKinney/Quail system as
discussed above. Due to restricted growth in the TCPUD’s current service area, future
demands are expected to stay relatively flat (TCPUD, TCPUD 2010 Urban Water Management
Plan, Amended 2011, pp. 3-5), with the exception of acquisition of other water systems. To
promote water conservation and comply with State law, the District has installed water
meters at all service connections and since 2008 has billed customers using consumption
based rates. Additionally, in April 2015, the District released its Water Conservation and
Drought Response Standards (Ordinance 284) (TCPUD, 2015).
Tahoe City Main System
The Tahoe City Main system serves 2,762 customers and has an estimated population of 4,000
permanent residents and up to 15,000 seasonal (CDPH, 2013). The 9-year average of the
maximum day demands (MDD) (2003-2011) was 0.70 gpm per connection, with a high of 0.78
gpm per connection since meters were installed on all service connections in 2007 (CDPH,
2013).
Quail/McKinney System
The Quail/McKinney water system serves an estimated permanent population of
approximately 750 and a seasonal population of 1,600. The 8-year average of the maximum
day demands (MDD) (2003-2010) is 1.02 gpm per connection (CDPH, 2012b).
Alpine Peaks
Alpine Peaks is a community water system serving a residential community with 95
connections. The community has a year-round population of 12 and a maximum seasonal
population of 250. The Alpine Peaks water system annual water usage was 6.6 mg in 2010,
with a maximum month usage at 1.03 mg and peak usage in July. The maximum day demand
(MDD) was shown as 0.06 mg. The California Waterworks Standards (CWS) requires a water
system to meet MDD through its source capacity. The MDD of 0.06 mg corresponds to 42 gpm;
therefore, the reported source capacity of 120 gpm meets the MDD requirement. Further, for
water systems with less than 1,000 service connections, the CWS requires the storage
capacity to equal the MDD to meet peak demands, of which the existing 0.5 mg storage meets
the 0.06 mg MDD (CDPH, 2012a).
8
Data source: http://www.moonshineink.com/news/news-briefs-february-13-march-12-2015
Draft Final, August 2018
Chapter 14, Tahoe City PUD 14-27
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
Rubicon System
The Rubicon system is located entirely within El Dorado County and it serves a maximum
population of up to 1,200 persons. The average maximum day demand (MDD) over the 6-year
period 2003-2010 was 0.76 gpm per connection with a high of 0.93 gpm per connection
(CDPH, 2012c).
Table 14.12: TCPUD Projected Supply/Demand Summary (acre-feet/year)
Acre-feet/Year
2012 2017 2022 2027 2032
Supply Available 2178 2178 2178 2178 2178
Demand 1486 1401 1436 1455 1473
Surplus/Deficit +692 +777 +741 +723 +705
Notes: Due to the installation of water meters, consumption based rates, and
conservation programs, the water demand in the system has decreased dramatically
since 2007. The 2012 demand was high due to a very dry year. Demands estimated
for 2017–2032 are based on an average of the dry year of 2012 and the wet year of
2011 and increase proportional to those increases predicted in the 2010 Urban Water
Management Plan (TCPUD, 2013, p. 12).
Water Infrastructure and Facilities
Treatment Systems
Tahoe City Main System
The District provides continuous disinfection of each groundwater well source. Surface water
sources, which are for emergency purposes only, would also be provided with continuous
disinfection if put into use in emergencies. The District injects 12.5 percent sodium
hypochlorite solution into the discharge pipe at each well to disinfect the water for
consumption. The water produced by the District’s wells meets all current primary and
secondary drinking water standards (CDPH, 2013).
Quail/McKinney
The Quail/McKinney system has a temporary water treatment plan (WTP) that is direct
filtration and has a 300 gpm design capacity. The plant is known as the McKinney Quail
Interim Surface WTP and is only operated during summer months. The WTP consists of pre-
treatment, filtration, screening, reclamation, and disinfection (CDPH, 2012b).
Alpine Peaks System
No treatment is provided at the Alpine Peaks water system.
Draft Final, August 2018
Chapter 14, Tahoe City PUD 14-28
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
Rubicon System
Since disinfection is precautionary only, chlorination of all wells is not required. However,
Rubicon Well 01 has a substandard sanitary seal. Because of this substandard sanitary seal,
continuous disinfection is performed. No other treatment facilities are within the system
(CDPH, 2012c).
Water Storage
Community water systems serving more than 1,000 connections are required to provide
sufficient source and storage capacity to meet peak hour demands for a minimum of four
consecutive hours. The water system must be able to meet these requirements in each
pressure zone as well as the system as a whole. Peak hour demands are estimated to be 150
percent of the average maximum day flow rates. These requirements do not include
emergency and fire water storage requirements.
Tahoe City Main System
The estimated peak hour demand for the Tahoe City Main system as a whole is 3,300 gpm,
which is approximately the same as the District’s source capacity of 3,280 gpm; therefore,
the District’s total storage capacity of 3.7 mg is sufficient to meet the requirements of the
system as a whole as well as in each pressure zone. See Table 14.12 for a summary of storage
within the system.
Quail/McKinney System
Storage within the Quail/McKinney water system consists of Quail Tank, a welded steel tank
with a capacity of 0.375 mg.
Alpine Peaks System
Water for the Alpine Peaks water system flows from the wells by gravity from 7,286 feet
elevation to the distribution system and a 500,000-gallon welded-steel storage tank located at
7,268 feet elevation. The tank was constructed in 1970 and in 2008 a video inspection
indicated no repairs were needed. No treatment is provided at this site (CDPH, 2011).
Rubicon System
The Rubicon system’s storage consists of three steel tanks with a total capacity of 560,000
gallons.
Distribution and Transmission
TCPUD Main
The District’s Tahoe City Main system has six pressure zones, which range from 25 to 140 psi.
The District maintains adequate pressure at all service connections in compliance with
current Waterworks Standards. Distribution lines consist of approximately 39 miles of steel,
plastic, asbestos cement (AC), polyvinylchloride (PVC), and ductile iron (DI) pipes ranging
from 2 to 12 inches in size. The smaller diameter pipes are generally in poor to good
condition, while the larger diameter pipes (8-12 inches) are in average to excellent condition.
Further, the District is transitioning to high density polyethylene (HDPE) lines near sewer
Draft Final, August 2018
Chapter 14, Tahoe City PUD 14-29
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
mains. The system also includes two pressure sustaining valves (PSVs), a pump station, and
backup generator. In 2012, the CDPH found the distribution system to be in good overall
condition, with the exception of some older undersized mains, which are in poor condition
(CDPH, 2013).
Quail/McKinney
The Quail/McKinney system has two pressure zones, which ranges from 35 to 120 psi. The
distribution system consists of a treated water pump station, two PRV stations, and
approximately 7.4 miles of steel, AC, PVC, HDPE, and DI pipelines. The steel lines tend to be
in poor to average condition and are scheduled for replacement. The remaining lines are all
in generally good condition.
Alpine Peaks System
The Alpine Peaks water system is comprised of AC pipe ranging from 4-12 inch diameter,
which is being replaced with PVC during repairs and maintenance activities. A pressure
reducing station controls pressures in the lower pressure zones. Most service lines are
galvanized pipe, and polyethylene pipe is used when
replacing those lines. There are no known low-head Photo Curtesy of Duncan Golf
pipelines in the system, and no known lead pipes, joints
or lead solder. Operating pressures in the upper
pressure zone are approximately 30 to 100 psi; the lower
pressure zone has 40 to 100 psi pressures. Service
connection PRVs are required when service connection
pressure is above 60 psi. There are 14 backflow
prevention devices, all of which were tested in 2010.
The backflow prevention program meets the intent of
the cross-connection regulations (CDPH, 2012a).
Rubicon System
The system serves 614 connections within five pressure zones. The zones range from 30 to
180 psi and have a total storage capacity of 0.56 mg (CDPH, 2012c, p. 3). The Rubicon water
system has approximately 15.3 miles of main lines consisting of galvanized steel, steel,
asbestos-cement (AC), polyvinyl chlorine (PVC), or ductile iron. The distribution system
includes two booster pump stations, one of which is portable, and two pressure reducing
valves. The Rubicon system has no transmission infrastructure. Overall the system is reported
to be in good condition by the CDPH, which noted that the District’s sources met all primary
and secondary drinking water standards (CDPH, 2012c).
Challenges in Provision of Water Services
The District noted a number of challenges to its adequate provision of water services to
customers, citing operation of five separate and non-contiguous water systems, serving half as
many water customers as sewer customers due to the presence of other water purveyors as
the most significant. The interspersing of twelve other water purveyors (i.e. private and/or
mutual water companies) within the Districts service area result in a situation where
Draft Final, August 2018
Chapter 14, Tahoe City PUD 14-30
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
approximately 50% of the wastewater service connections of the District are served water by
other water purveyors. The consequence is a disjointed, inefficient water delivery system of
approximately 17 separate water systems within the District’s service area, with each system
requiring separate water sources and separate water storage reservoirs. The redundancy and
overlap of water infrastructure for 7,636 connections results in an uneconomical delivery of
water to all residences and businesses in the area. Many of the small systems lack the
customer-base to address significant infrastructure needs such as sufficient storage,
redundant sources, and fire suppression ability. Although the District’s CIP is designed to
address challenges for the District’s water services, it is not designed to address the needs of
these other systems if they fail.
Other challenges include aging infrastructure, drought, power outages, climate change, and
new mandates and regulations. Most communities in California utilize new residential and
commercial developments as opportunities to upgrade local infrastructure. However, in the
north Lake Tahoe area there has been a lack of new development for a variety of reasons and
this reduces the amount of private capital invested into the water system. Many of these
challenges are similar to those faced by other service providers in the Basin. It is noted that
2014 is the third year of a significant drought and conditions have been deemed “extreme” by
state water agencies. The Tahoe City Public Utility District’s Board of Directors declared
Stage 2 drought restrictions for its water service areas in July 2014.
Climate Change
The US Bureau of Reclamation manages water supply in the Truckee River Basin and is
undertaking a number of studies to evaluate the degree to which water supply and demand
may be impacted by future changes in climate. This includes the Truckee River Basin Study,
as well as funding researchers at the Desert Research Institute to develop an integrated
groundwater, surface water, and climate change model of the Martis Valley Groundwater
Basin. Scenarios specific to the District accounting for climatically shifting runoff availability
have not been completed. However, the District stands poised with redundant water sources
to account for anticipated growth and reductions in available supplies.
The District participates in the Tahoe-Sierra Integrated Regional Water Management
Partnership, which identifies regional climate change scenarios and impacts.
Water Service Adequacy
The District currently provides sufficient water service to its customers. Further, to better
meet the long-term needs of the District, the West Lake Tahoe Regional Water Treatment
Plant (WTP) project is currently under design, which consists of a 1.0 mgd, expandable to 1.5
mgd, surface water treatment plant. The WTP could provide treated water to the west shore
of Lake Tahoe from the Meeks Bay area north to the Timberland area (TCPUD, 2013).
The CDPH annual inspection reports for the 4 water systems generally indicate:
• Source capacity is adequate to meet maximum day demands
Draft Final, August 2018
Chapter 14, Tahoe City PUD 14-31
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
• Storage capacity is adequate in accordance with Section 64554 of the California
Waterworks Standards
• Water deliveries meet all current primary drinking water standards
• Water systems appear to be operated in professional and conscientious manner
14.9: Wastewater Services
Wastewater Service Overview
The TCPUD provides wastewater collection services to customers within its service area.
Wastewater from Dollar Point to Tahoe City is conveyed through the Joint Sewerage
Facilities, which conveys TCPUD wastewater, comingled with North Tahoe PUD wastewater, in
the Dollar Point interceptor. Wastewater from the Tahoe City area, south to Emerald Bay is
conveyed through the West Shore Export pipeline. Flows from the Dollar Point Interceptor
and the West Shore Export combine in the Cal Trans Tahoe City yard, which marks the
beginning of the Truckee River Interceptor. The Truckee River Interceptor pipeline, which is
owned and operated by the Tahoe Truckee Sanitation Agency (TTSA), conveys all TCPUD and
NTPUD wastewater from this point all the way
to Truckee. All treatment and disposal is
provided by TTSA.
Wastewater Capacity
The TCPUD provides wastewater collection
services to approximately 7,540 customers
within its boundaries, 232 of which are
commercial and/or industrial. In recent years
the average daily flow was 0.8 mgd. The
Design Daily Flow, or allocated maximum
flow, to the TTSA is 7.8 mgd. According to the 2014 TCPUD Risk-Based Sewer System
Management Plan, there are no known hydraulic capacity limitations within the collection
system during either dry or peak wet weather events.
Average flows from TCPUD are approximately 0.8 mgd for the time period 2005-2013. The
design daily flow, which is an allocated maximum flow to TTSA), is 7.8 mgd. Peak flows are
generally experienced in late March through May due to snow melt and runoff, and in July and
August due to high occupancy rates. Flows are lowest in October and November due to
climate and low occupancy (TCPUD, 2014, pp. 8-9).
Table 14.13 Tahoe City PUD Current and Future Wastewater Flows
Average Day Demand Peak-Hour Flow
Timeframe MGD MGD
Current 0.8 1.6
Projected Increases 0.05–0.10 N/A
Source: TCPUD response to LAFCO Request for Information, 2013.
Draft Final, August 2018
Chapter 14, Tahoe City PUD 14-32
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
No significant growth is expected within the District’s boundaries. Given that the wastewater
collection system is underutilized (i.e. has additional capacity within the design daily flow, of
7.8 mgd) the District does not anticipate any need for expansion within the planning period of
this MSR.
Wastewater Infrastructure and Facilities
Treatment Systems
The District does not provide any wastewater treatment. Wastewater treatment is provided
by T-TSA.
Collection and Transmission
The TCPUD collects wastewater from within its
Table 14.14: Sewer System
service area, which extends from D.L. Bliss State
Characteristics
Park to the Dollar Point area, north from Tahoe City
to the Placer/Nevada County line just south of Tahoe City PUD System Facilities
Number of Connections 8,103
Truckee town limits. The District’s collection
Length of Gravity Mains 150
system consists of pipelines ranging in size from 4 to
miles
36 inches in diameter (TCPUD, 2014, pp. 8-2). Length of Force Mains 7 miles
Manholes 2,349
Wastewater Pump 21
The TCPUD discharges wastewater to the TTSA
Stations
Truckee River Interceptor (TRI) for conveyance out
Source: TCPUD SSMP,2014 (page 8-
of the Basin and to a treatment plant in Truckee 2)
(TCPUD, 2014, pp. 8-9). The TRI is owned and
operated by TTSA and conveys all raw sewage 17
miles to Truckee where it is treated at the TTSA regional water reclamation plant, which also
treats wastewater for Squaw Valley, Alpine Meadows, Northstar and areas of Truckee. Sewage
flow and infiltration/inflow (I/I) is critical to the design of sewer collection and transport
systems. The District has a preventive maintenance and repair plan included within its Sewer
System Management Plan (SSMP) that addresses I/I flow issues.
Under the TCPUD Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), a number of updates to the sewage system
are underway. The primary focus of the CIP in 2013 was the Tahoe City Residential System
Rehabilitation, which will commence with planning and design work in 2014. Other project
priorities include pump and control upgrades, sewer flow meter and pump station bypass
facilities (Placer County, 2014, pp. 4-22).
Wastewater Challenges
The District noted aging infrastructure, power outages, and increased regulation and
oversight by other agencies as challenges. Most communities in California utilize new
residential and commercial developments as opportunities to upgrade local infrastructure.
However, in the north Lake Tahoe area there has been a lack of new development for a
variety of reasons and this reduces the amount of private capital invested into the
Draft Final, August 2018
Chapter 14, Tahoe City PUD 14-33
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
wastewater system. However, the PUD also notes that providing wastewater service to
private development projects can also sometimes be a challenge. The District’s CIP is
designed to address the challenges described in this paragraph.
Wastewater Service Adequacy
Based on the available information described in the District’s 2014 Sewer System Management
Plan, TCPUD provides adequate collection of wastewater to its customers.
14.10: Park, Recreation, and Trails Service
Park Service Overview
In 1947 the District began maintenance of Commons Beach and local street lighting. In 1968
the District added recreation uses to its provision of services (District Resolution No. 295).
Recreation facilities operated by the District include parks, trails, beaches, boat landings,
golf course, campgrounds, and community centers. Additionally, the Tahoe Rim Trail goes
through Tahoe City in its circuitous route around Lake Tahoe. It is estimated that over
1,000,000 recreationalists use the
District’s facilities annually
(TCPUD, 2013, p. 11).
Infrastructure Needs and
Deficiencies
The District’s Parks and
Recreation Department operates
and maintains 7 athletic fields, 9
community parks, 3 beach parks,
campground, boat ramp, 6 tennis
courts, dog park, 22 miles of
trails and 5 community buildings receiving over 1 million use visits annually. The Department
also oversees the Nordic center, 5 playgrounds, river ingress/egress facilities, 2 portable
stages, sidewalks and 118 streetlights, 4 public plazas and Tahoe City Wye islands (TCPUD,
2013, p. 61). Most of these facilities are owned by other agencies and operated by TCPUD
under various agreements and contracts.
Draft Final, August 2018
Chapter 14, Tahoe City PUD 14-34
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
Table 14.15: Summary of Recreation Facility Acreage by
Type
Type of Facility Acres
Day Use Beaches 108
Day Use Areas 54.6
Community Sports and Recreation 16
Community Centers 3.9
Golf Courses 35.8
Campgrounds 2.13
Total 220.43
Truckee River Bike Trail 7,283 linear
feet
Source: Draft Tahoe Community Area Plan, (Placer County,
2014, pp. 5-2) at http://www.placer.ca.gov/~/media/
cdr/Planning/CommPlans/TahoeBasinCPUpdate/DraftPolicy
Doc/Ch5RecPublicSvc.pdf
As noted Table 14-15 above, the TCPUD owns and maintains the popular Truckee River Bike
Trail, a multi-use trail. The Truckee River Bike Trail is being replaced and rehabilitated
during the summer of 2018. Although the trail provides transportation and associated air
quality benefits, it is included as part of the District’s park and recreation services. TCPUD
conducted a survey of bike trails users in 2017 which found that nearly all respondents (96%)
say that trails play a significant positive role in their enjoyment of North Lake Tahoe. 64% of
survey respondents were visitors to Squaw Valley, west shore, and other areas of Lake Tahoe,
Martis Valley, and Truckee (TCPUD, 2017).
The District does not currently have adopted park standards. However, they do follow
standards set by California Parks and Recreation Society and National Recreation and Parks
Association. The District is currently in the process of updating its 2000-2010 Master Plan
where recreation needs and deficiencies will be identified and prioritized.
The District has a number of maintenance agreements with other agencies which partially
defray costs. A Placer County Maintenance Service Agreement provides partial funding for
Lake Forest Beach Park, Commons Beach Park, Heritage Plaza, Customs House, Squaw Valley
Park and Squaw Valley bike trails. The State of California Department of Transportation
Maintenance Agreement addresses maintenance of the bike trails, including the following:
State Route 89 from Sugar Pine Point State Park to Squaw Valley Road and State Route 28
from 400 north of Jack Pine Avenue to Dollar Drive. The District also has maintenance
agreements with California State Parks, U.S. Forest Service, California Tahoe Conservancy and
Tahoe Truckee Unified School District to maintain and operate some of their facilities in the
District boundaries. The State of California Department of Boating & Waterways grant helps
to support the sailing program (TCPUD, 2013, p. 58).
The District also provides both indoor and outdoor recreation programs, activities and
community events, which are provided at a discount to residents. TCPUD’s Recreation
Draft Final, August 2018
Chapter 14, Tahoe City PUD 14-35
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
Department served over 75,000 users through 65 programs in 2012, with the Commons Beach
concerts being the largest serving over 12,000 participants. Some of the programs include
aquatics, adult sports, RAP Afterschool Program, day camp, special events, youth sports, and
Rideout Community Center recreation programs (TCPUD, 2013, p. 79).
Park and Recreation Challenges
Some of the challenges the District faces in the area of Parks and Recreation are coordinating
maintenance and obtaining funding with multiple agencies including Placer County, California
State Parks, U.S. Forest Service and Tahoe Truckee Unified School District. Other challenges
include regulatory requirements for projects, lack of adequate funding from the other
agencies, and meeting ADA requirements in a mountain community. Additionally, the lack of
new development in the North Tahoe region results in a lack of private capital being invested
in park facilities, as compared to other communities in the State. If the current drought
conditions continue, the District may face the difficult challenge of balancing water use with
the need to irrigate certain facilities like sports fields and the golf course.
Recreation Service Adequacy
The District provides a wide variety of parks and recreation opportunities to its residents and
visitors to the Lake Tahoe region. The District continues to actively seek and obtain grant
funding to increase and maintain its facilities, such as the recent acquisition of a golf course
and improvements to the Lake Forest Boat Ramp. Other local adjoining agencies like Squaw
Valley and Alpine Meadows do not provide recreation or parks services and many of their
residents rely on the District’s services. North Tahoe Public Utility District provides parks
services and limited recreational programs.
Status of, and Opportunities for, Shared Facilities
The TCPUD and the North Tahoe Public Utility District provide similar services (wastewater
collection, water, parks and recreation). Additionally, TCPUD is located adjacent to and
southwest of the North Tahoe Public Utility District. Given the similarity of service provision
and geographic proximity, it is recommended that prior to the next MSR or SOI Update for
these districts (approximately year 2023), the two districts should jointly consider whether it
is possible to gain efficiencies through shared services or infrastructure and send a one-page
memo to LAFCo describing the results of this joint consideration.
14.11: Determinations
Population and Growth
1. There were approximately 10,130 residential housing units within the Tahoe City
Public Utility District as of 2015. This includes 4,192 housing units located in multi-
family structures and 5,938 single family homes.
Draft Final, August 2018
Chapter 14, Tahoe City PUD 14-36
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
2. The District serves a total of 17,814 people on average and this represents 8,524
permanent residents and approximately 9,290 visitor/vacationers on an average day.
3. Peak overnight visitors are estimated to be 17,307 persons. This does not include day-
use only visitors.
4. Approximately 33 percent of the homes within the District boundaries are full-time
residences.
5. The District projects that future growth will occur at a rate of 1.0 percent.
Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities
6. The Lake Forest neighborhood in north Lake Tahoe meets the financial criteria to be
classified as a DUC, based on data from the 2010 Census. This neighborhood does
receive water service and wastewater collection services from TCPUD. Fire protection
services are provided to this neighborhood by the North Tahoe Fire Protection District.
No health and safety issues have been identified.
7. A portion of TCPUD’s boundaries that cross into El Dorado County have been identified
as a DUC by DWR. A portion of this area does receive water services and wastewater
collection services from TCPUD. Fire protection services are provided by the Meek’s
Bay Fire Protection District, which contracts to the North Tahoe Fire Protection
District. No health and safety issues have been identified.
Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities
8. The Tahoe City Public Utility District was originally formed in 1938.
9. The District currently provides wastewater collection, water, parks and recreation
services within its boundaries.
10. The District utilizes its Capital Improvement Plan to plan and budget for needed
infrastructure.
Water
11. In general, the District has sufficient water supplies to meet average and maximum
day demands.
12. The District noted a number of challenges to its adequate provision of water services
to customers, citing aging infrastructure, climate, drought, equipment failure, power
outages, and new regulations.
13. The District currently provides sufficient water service to its customers.
14. To better meet the long-term needs of the District, the West Lake Tahoe Regional
Water Treatment Plant (WTP) project is currently under design, which consists of a 1.0
mgd, expandable to 1.5 mgd, surface water treatment plant.
15. The District prepares an Urban Water Management Plan and annually updates a 5-year
Capital improvement Plan.
16. Water conservation is important to the District and it has recently taken several
measures to support customer water conservation including: 1) compliance with State
law by installing water meters at all service connections; 2) adopting Ordinance 284
Water Conservation and Drought Response Standards on April 2015.
17. Water delivery appears to be adequate in the foreseeable future.
Draft Final, August 2018
Chapter 14, Tahoe City PUD 14-37
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
Wastewater
18. The District’s wastewater service provision is limited to collection services. All
treatment and disposal is provided by the Truckee-Tahoe Sanitation Agency, of which
the District is a member.
19. The District has a Sewer System Management Plan and 5-Year Capital improvement
Plan in place to identify and plan for needed maintenance and upgrades of its system.
20. The District provides adequate collection of wastewater to its customers.
21. The District noted equipment failures, aging infrastructure, and power outages as
challenges to the provision of services. The District’s 5-year Capital improvement Plan
is aimed towards addressing these challenges.
Parks and Recreation
22. The District provides a wide variety of parks and recreation opportunities to its
residents and visitors to the Lake Tahoe region.
23. The District follows standards set by California Parks and Recreation Society and
National Recreation and Parks Association.
24. It appears that the park facilities are adequate at this time.
25. The District continues to actively seek and obtain grant funding to increase and
maintain its facilities, such as the recent acquisition of a golf course and
improvements to the Lake Forest Boat Ramp.
26. It is noted that three districts in the North Tahoe Martis Valley area provide recreation
services (ASCWD, North Tahoe PUD, and Tahoe City PUD) as shown in Table E1-1 in the
Executive Summary. Other recreation service providers in the region include the
Truckee Donner Recreation and Park District, California State Parks, and the U.S.
Forest Service. Given this plethora of recreation service providers, LAFCO and its
subject districts should study whether additional efficiencies could be gained through
structural or organizational changes.
Financial Ability of Agency to Provide Services
27. On an annual basis, the TCPUD adopts a comprehensive budget. The FY 2015 budget is
available to the general public via the District’s website. This budget demonstrates
adequate finances for the continued ability of the District to provide services and to
meet current obligations and those expected in the near future.
28. Daily operations and maintenance of water and wastewater services are funded by the
regular service charges and fees. Property taxes also contribute to these services.
29. The District’s operating revenues exceed expenditures.
30. Information on the District’s rates is posted on its website at:
http://www.tahoecitypud.com/
31. The District practices cost reduction through careful purchasing, bidding processes,
and other mechanisms. In the short-term, no additional cost-avoidance opportunities
have been identified at this time.
Draft Final, August 2018
Chapter 14, Tahoe City PUD 14-38
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
Status of, and Opportunities for, Shared Facilities
32. The TCPUD and the North Tahoe Public Utility District provide similar services
(wastewater collection, water, parks and recreation). Additionally, TCPUD is located
adjacent to and southwest of the North Tahoe Public Utility District. Given the
similarity of service provision and geographic proximity, it is recommended that prior
to the next MSR or SOI Update for these districts (approximately year 2023), the two
districts should jointly consider whether it is possible to gain efficiencies through
shared services or infrastructure and send a one-page memo to LAFCo describing the
results of this joint consideration.
33. Although the District does not directly share its facilities with other agencies, it does
have several cooperative agreements with neighboring service providers including:
a. water purchase agreement with Squaw Valley Public Service District to serve
customers along Hwy 89.
b. participation in the “Tahoe Truckee Area Emergency Contingency Plan
Agreement for Mutual Aid” which sets forth a policy of mutual cooperation to
provide sewer and/or water emergency aid.
c. an agreement with the McKinney Water District, Tahoe Park Water Company,
and North Tahoe PUD for an emergency interconnection which can provide
water to either agency.
d. Placer County Maintenance Service Agreement provides partial funding for Lake
Forest Beach Park, Commons Beach Park, Heritage Plaza, Customs House,
Squaw Valley Park and Squaw Valley bike trails.
e. State of California Department of Transportation Maintenance Agreement
addresses maintenance of the bike trails, including the following: State Route
89 from Sugar Pine Point State Park to Squaw Valley Road and State Route 28
from 400 north of Jack Pine Avenue to Dollar Drive.
f. maintenance agreements with California State Parks, U.S. Forest Service,
California Tahoe Conservancy and Tahoe Truckee Unified School District to
maintain and operate some of their facilities within the District boundaries.
g. State of California Department of Boating & Waterways grant helps to support
the sailing program.
34. No additional opportunities for facility sharing have been identified at this time.
Draft Final, August 2018
Chapter 14, Tahoe City PUD 14-39
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
Accountability for Community Service Needs, Including Governmental
Structure and Operational Efficiencies
35. The District demonstrated accountability through its prompt disclosure of information
requested by LAFCo for preparation of this MSR.
36. Board meetings are publicly noticed and comply with the Brown Act, California’s open
meeting law. They are held monthly.
37. No boundary changes are pending or proposed at this time. It is recommended that
Placer LAFCO staff work to resolve the three “Review Areas” shown on Figure 14-2 to
address concerns that TCPUD and El Dorado LAFCO have with the Placer County GIS
data on the boundary/SOI.
38. All Board members have access to District data, records and information.
39. The District has adequate public outreach, with a public website featuring meeting
minutes, and general information.
40. The District has a strategic plan that outlines its mission statement, vision statement,
and goals and objectives.
41. The TCPUD encourages two-way communication with its constituents through its
website and other communication tools.
14.12: References
Agreement for Services with Truckee Sanitation District. (1992, March 22). CA.
Amendment to Agreement for Services with Truckee Sanitation District. (2005, September
13). CA.
California, State of. Department of Water Resources. 2015. Website entitled “Resources -
Disadvantaged Communities (DAC) Mapping Tool”. Available on-line at:
<http://www.water.ca.gov/irwm/grants/resources_dac.cfm>. Accessed 11/2/15.
CDPH. (2011). Domestic Water Supply Permit: Public Water System No. 3110028. Sacramento:
CDPH.
CDPH. (2012a). Public Water System No. 3110044 Annual Inspection Report. Sacramento:
CDPH.
CDPH. (2012b). Public Water System 3110011 Annual Inspection Report (Quail/McKinney).
Sacramento: CDPH.
CDPH. (2012c). Public Water System No. 0910012 Annual Inspection Report (Rubicon).
Sacramento: CDPH.
CDPH. (2013). TCPUD Main 3110010 Annual Inspection Report. Sacramento: CDPH.
Corporation, A. E. (Amended 2011, October 18). TCPUD 2010 Urban Water Management Plan.
Retrieved July 13, 2014, from TCPUD:
http://www.tahoecitypud.com/download/general/10uwmp.pdf
ECO:LOGIC Engineering. (2002). NCSD Master Water Plan Update. Rocklin: ECO:LOGIC.
James Marta & Company, LLP. (2012). Northstar Community Services District Financial
Statements, Independent Auditor's Report. Truckee: NCSD.
Draft Final, August 2018
Chapter 14, Tahoe City PUD 14-40
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
Mann, Urratia, Nelson, CPAs & Associates, LLP. (2013). TCPUD Annual Financial Report With
Independent Auditor's Report. Sacramento: Mann, Urratia, Nelson, CPAs & Associates,
LLP.
Michael Brandman Associates. (2013, March 21). Sphere of Influence Update Truckee Sanitary
District. Retrieved January 21, 2014, from Nevada County LAFCo:
http://www.mynevadacounty.com/nc/lafco/docs/LAFCo%20Sphere%20Plans%20and%2
0Related%20Materials/DRAFT%20SPHERE%20PLAN%20UPDATES/TSD-
Material%20for%20Website/TSD-
Final%20Documents/TSD%20SOI%20Adopted%20May%202013.pdf
NCSD. (2012, December 19). NCSD Board Meeting Minutes. Retrieved January 7, 2014, from
Northstar Community Services District:
http://www.northstarcsd.org/docs/Board_Minutes/12-19-
2012%20Regular%20Meeting%20Minutes.pdf
NCSD. (2013). Placer LAFCO MSR Update Request for Information. Auburn.
NCSD. (2013). Sewer System Management Plan. Truckee: NCSD.
NCSD. (2013). Trails. Retrieved December 18, 2013, from Northstar CSD:
http://www.northstarcsd.com/trails.html
NCSD. (2014, January). Northstar Fire Department. Retrieved January 21, 2014, from
Northstar Community Services District: http://www.northstarcsd.org/fire.html
NCSD. (2014, February). Refuse. Retrieved February 8, 2014, from Northstar Community
Services District: http://www.northstarcsd.org/refuse.html
PCWA. (2011). Placer County Water Agency 2010 Urban Water Management Plan. Auburn:
PCWA.
PCWA. (2013, October 4). News Release: PCWA Plans Transfer of Martis Valley Water Service
to Northstar CSD. Retrieved January 8, 2014, from PCWA:
http://www.pcwa.net/files/News_Releases/2013/10-04-
2013_PCWA_Plans_Transfer_of_Martis_Valley.pdf
Placer County. (2003, December 16). Martis Valley Community Plan. Retrieved January 8,
2014, from Placer County: http://www.placer.ca.gov/~/
media/cdr/Planning/CommPlans/MartisValley/MartisValleyCommPlanDec2003.pdf
Placer County. (2011). Engineering Report for Consideration of a Permit for the NCSD
Domestic Water Supply System (System No 3110028. Auburn: Placer County.
Placer County. (2014). Chapter 4 Recreation, Public Services, and Facilities. Retrieved July
31, 2014, from Tahoe Basin Community Plan Update:
http://www.placer.ca.gov/~/media/cdr/Planning/CommPlans/TahoeBasinCPUpdate/
DraftPolicyDoc/Ch5RecPublicSvc.pdf
Placer County Office of Economic Development. (2009). Placer County Travel Industry
Assessmentand Detailed Economic Impact Estimates, 2002-2008. Prepared by Dean
Runyan Associates and Chuck Nozicka Consulting. 69 pages. Available on-line at:
<http://www.placer.ca.gov/departments/CEO/Econdev>.
Placer LAFCO. (2004). Municipal Services Review Area 3 Services. Auburn: Placer LAFCO.
PMC. (2013, November). Northstar Mountain Master Plan Draft EIR. Retrieved January 8,
2014, from Placer County :
http://www.placer.ca.gov/Departments/CommunityDevelopment/EnvCoordSvcs/EIR/
NorthstarMMP.aspx
Draft Final, August 2018
Chapter 14, Tahoe City PUD 14-41
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
PMC. (2013, February). Sphere of Influence Update Truckee Sanitary District Draft EIR.
Retrieved January 18, 2014, from Nevada LAFCo:
http://www.mynevadacounty.com/nc/lafco/docs/LAFCo%20Sphere%20Plans%20and%2
0Related%20Materials/DRAFT%20SPHERE%20PLAN%20UPDATES/TSD-
Material%20for%20Website/CEQA%20Documents/Draft%20EIR%20for%20TSD%20SOI%20U
pdate.pdf
Taggart and Taggart, LTD. (2013). Progress Report by Permittee for 2012: Permit Number
016619. Sacramento: SWRCB.
TCPUD (2011). 2010 Urban Water Management Plan. Amended October 18, 2011. 111 pages.
Available on-line at: <http://www.tahoecitypud.com/download/general/10uwmp.pdf>.
TCPUD. (2012). TCPUD Annual Budget Fiscal Year 2013. Tahoe City: TCPUD.
TCPUD. (2013). Personal communication with TCPUD staff. (K. Harrison, Interviewer)
TCPUD. (2013, August 14). Response to Placer LAFCO Request for Information. Tahoe City,
CA.
TCPUD. (2014, May). Risk-Based Sewer System Management Plan. Retrieved July 31, 2014,
from Tahoe City Public Utilities District: http://www.tahoecitypud.
com/download/utilities/2014ssmp.pdf.
TCPUD. (Amended 2011, October 18). TCPUD 2010 Urban Water Management Plan. Retrieved
July 13, 2014, from TCPUD: http://www.tahoecitypud.com/
download/general/10uwmp.pd.f
TCPUD-b. (August 2014). Comprehensive Water and Sewer Rate Study. unincorporated Placer
County - Tahoe City: HDR Engineers.
TCPUD. April 2015. Water Conservation and Drought Response Standards (Ordinance 284).
22 pages. Available on-line at: http://www.tahoecitypud.com/download/
general/ord284.pdf.
TCPUD. August 25, 2017. Bike Trail Annual Survey – Summary Report 2017. Kurt Althof,
Author. 27-pages. Available on-line at: <http://www.tahoecitypud.com/sites/default
/files/documents/Parks/Bike%20Trail%20Survey%20Summary%202017%20Final.pdf>.
Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA). August 31, 2010. Environmental Assessment for North
Lake Tahoe Preliminary Redevelopment Area Plans: Kings Beach/Stateline Tahoe Vista
Lake Forest Tahoe City/Gateway. Attachment E. PMC consultants, contributors.
Stateline, Nevada. 80-pages. Available on-line: http://www.trpa.org/wp-
content/uploads/Attachment_E_Final-EA.pdf. Retrieved August 28, 2016.
Draft Final, August 2018
Chapter 14, Tahoe City PUD 14-42
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
C 15
HAPTER
Tahoe Forest Hospital District
(photo courtesy of www.google.com/maps )
Table of Contents
15.1 Agency Profile .................................................................................................. 15-2
15.2 Overview of Agency ........................................................................................... 15-3
15.3: Formation and Boundary ..................................................................................... 15-3
15.4: Accountability and Governance ............................................................................. 15-7
15.5: Management Efficiencies and Staffing ..................................................................... 15-8
15.6: Population and Growth ...................................................................................... 15-11
15.7: District Services .............................................................................................. 15-18
15.8: Infrastructure and Facilities ............................................................................... 15-21
15.9: Financing ...................................................................................................... 15-23
15.10: Challenges .................................................................................................... 15-28
15.11: Service Adequacy ........................................................................................... 15-28
15.12: Determinations .............................................................................................. 15-30
15.13: References ................................................................................................... 15-32
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 15, TF Hospital District 15-1
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
15.1 AGENCY PROFILE
TAHOE FOREST HOSPITAL DISTRICT
Type of District: Local Hospital/Health Care
Enabling Legislation: The Local Health Care District Law: Health and Safety Code sections 32000-
32492
Functions/Services: Critical Access Hospital, skilled nursing, Home Health, Hospice, Cancer Center
Main Office: 10121 Pine Avenue, Truckee, CA
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 759, Truckee, CA 96160
PHONE NO.: 530-582-6011
Fax No.: 530-587-2532
Web Site: www.tfhd.com
Email: information@tfhd.com
Administrator: Harry Weis, CEO Email: sjackson@tfhd.com
Phone: 530-582-3480
Other Contact: Ted Owens, ED Governance Email: towens@tfhd.com
Phone: 530-582-6551
Governing Body: Elected Board of Hospital Directors Term Expires
Charles Zipkin, M.D., President December 2018
Randy Hill, Vice-President December 2020
Alyce Wong, Secretary December 2020
Dale Chamblin, Treasurer December 2018
Mary Brown, Director December 2018
Meeting Schedule: Fourth Thursday of each month at 6:00 p.m.
Meeting Location: Tahoe Truckee Unified School District Admin Offices, 11603 Donner Pass Road
Truckee, CA
Date of Formation: May 3, 1949
Principal County: Placer County
Other: Multi-county district serving Placer County and Nevada County
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 15, TF Hospital District 15-2
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
15.2 OVERVIEW OF AGENCY
SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING SERVICES
The Tahoe Forest Hospital District provides hospital and related medical services to residents
of Placer and Nevada counties as well as those residing in more outlying areas, including
Sierra County and Western Nevada. See Figure 15-1 for District boundary and Sphere of
Influence. This is the second Municipal Service Review (MSR) for the District.
TYPE AND EXTENT OF SERVICES
Healthcare facilities under the District’s jurisdiction include the Tahoe Forest Hospital in
Truckee and Incline Village Health Center, located in Nevada. The hospital provides services
that include acute and long-term medical care, outpatient/ambulatory care medical clinic,
cancer care, hospice, and home health care. There is also a heliport onsite to accommodate
helicopter ambulances. The District also operates a health service satellite facility in Tahoe
City, which provides radiology, laboratory, and physical therapy services. The Incline Village
Hospital is also operated by TFHD, which extends the District’s service area outside of their
delineated boundary and into the state of Nevada.
LOCATION AND SIZE
TFHD is located in the unincorporated area north and west of Lake Tahoe and encompasses
portions of both Placer County and Nevada County. The District’s boundaries encompass
390,585 acres (610 square miles); although its service area is much larger. The communities
of Truckee, Soda Springs, Tahoe City, and Tahoma lie within the District boundaries.
15.3: FORMATION AND BOUNDARY
The District was formed on May 3, 1949 as an independent special district via a vote by local
residents. The formation of this District was enabled under the provisions of The Local Health
Care District Law as set forth in the Health and Safety Code (Section 32000 et seq.) of the
State of California. A Resolution of the Board of Supervisors for Nevada County authorizing
the District’s formation was approved on May 2, 1949 and this Resolution was filed with the
California Secretary of State on the following day.
BOUNDARY HISTORY
The District’s boundaries were originally established in 1949. Since then, Placer LAFCo
approved annexations into the District in 1972, 1976, and 1984. The District’s sphere of
influence was adopted in 1986. The boundaries include portions of both Placer County and
Nevada County as shown in Figure 15-1. Placer County has the majority of assessed value of
land, and is therefore, the Principal County, and the District is under Placer LAFCo
jurisdiction.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 15, TF Hospital District 15-3
Tahoe Forest Hospital District
Sierra
§¨¦
80
ÃÃ
Nevada 89
State of
Tahoe Forest Nevada
Hospital
ÃÃ '"
J^
20 Truckee-Tahoe
§¨¦
Donner Lake Airport
80 ÃÃ
Incline Village 431
ÃÃ Community
267
Hospital'"
ÃÃ
89
ÃÃ
NorthForkAmericanRiver 28
Placer
ÃÃ
28
ÃÃ
89 Lake Tahoe
Legend
'"
Hospital
J^
Airport
Hospital District in Nevada County
Hospital District in Placer County
California County Boundary El Dorado ²
Created by Nevada County GIS Division
4/6/2016
Every reasonable effort has been made to assure the accuracy of the maps
and data provided; nevertheless, some information may not be accurate.
The County of Nevada assumes no responsibility arising from use of this
information. THE MAPS AND ASSOCIATED DATA ARE PROVIDED WITHOUT
WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, either expressed or implied, including but
not limited to, the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness
for a particular purpose. Before making decisions using the information
provided on this map, contact the Nevada County Public Counter staff
to confirm the validity of the data provided.
El Dorado Alpine
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
SPHERE OF INFLUENCE
The District’s Sphere of Influence (SOI) includes portions of Nevada and Placer Counties, and
extends southerly for a short distance into El Dorado County (Refer to Figure 15-2). Although
the District’s SOI extends briefly into El Dorado County, the TFHD does not own or manage
any facilities in El Dorado County. The District feels that its existing sphere of influence is
sufficient for its needs. However, the District does own and operate facilities that are
located outside the SOI as discussed in the following paragraph.
EXTRA-TERRITORIAL SERVICES
The District’s website states that it serves a total of six rural counties in two states and
covering 3,500 square miles. The District’s formal boundaries include 610 square miles and
its SOI adds an additional 306 square miles. This leaves the remaining 2,584 square miles of
service area unmapped by LAFCO. TFHD does provide service to residents of the state of
Nevada via its facilities located in Incline Village. TFHD also provides service to residents in
Sierra County. That portion of the District’s service area that is located in the state of
Nevada and in Sierra County is located outside the District’s formal boundaries and SOI.
Additionally, TFHD serves visitors who may require medical attention while visiting within in
the North Lake Tahoe-Truckee region. The proximity to Interstate 80 with its sometimes
challenging driving conditions due to periodically poor weather conditions produces transient
patients in need of emergency services. This is understandable, given the vacation,
recreational and tourism draw and the geographic elevation of the Truckee and North Lake
Tahoe region.
AREAS OF INTEREST
TFHD did not identify specific areas outside the District boundaries that require services from
the District. It is not clear what services TFHD provides in Sierra County.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 15, TF Hospital District 15-5
20 N 12 E 20 N 13 E
20 N 15 E 20 N 16 E 20 N 17 E
20 N 14 E
19 N 12 E 19 N 14 E 19 N 18 E
19 N 13 E 19 N 17 E
19 N 15 E
19 N 16 E
18 N 12 E 18 N 13 E 18 N 18 E
18 N 14 E N E V A D A
18 N 16 E 18 N 17 E
C O U N T Y
89
18 N 15 E
80
Truckee
17 N 18 E
80
17 N 12 E 17 N 13 E 17 N 14 E
17 N 16 E 17 N 17 E
17 N 15 E
267 16 N 18 E
Kings Beach
89 Tahoe Vista
16 N 17 E
16 N 12 E 16 N 13 E 16 N 14 E 28
16 N 15 E
16 N 16 E
P L A C E R Dollar Point
C O U N T Y
Lake Tahoe
15 N 12 E 15 N 13 E 15 N 14 E Sunnyside-Tahoe City
15 N 15 E
15 N 16 E 89
14 N 15 E 14 N 16 E
14 N 12 E
14 N 13 E 14 N 14 E
14 N 17 E
13 N 14 E 13 N 15 E 13 N 16 E 13 N 17 E
Tahoe Forest Hospital District E L D O R A D O
Tahoe Fo1r3e sNt 1H3o Espital District C O U N T Y
Sphere of Influence
Towns/Communities
County Boundary 0 2 4
Miles District Boundary from Placer County GIS and Nevada County LAFCo,
SOI from Placer County LAFCo
Figure 15-2 TAHOE FOREST HOSPITAL DISTRICT
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
15.4: ACCOUNTABILITY AND GOVERNANCE
The District is governed by a five-member Board of Directors, who are elected by registered
voters within the District boundaries. Regularly scheduled meetings are held on the fourth
Thursday of each month at 6:00 p.m. Meetings are located at the Tahoe Truckee Unified
School District Admin Offices, 11603 Donner Pass Road, Truckee, CA. The current Board
members are as follows:
Name Role Term
Charles Zipkin, M.D. President 2014 – 2018
Randy Hill Vice- President 2016 - 2020
Alice Wong Secretary 2016 – 2020
Dale Chamblin Treasurer 2014 - 2018
Mary Brown Director 2014 – 2018
Directors serve a four-year staggered term of office. Compensation is $100 per meeting
capped at $500 per month. Health benefits are offered to directors during the time of their
service on the board. Health benefits can be extended to immediate family (TFHD, 2014). In
the most recent election (held in November 2014), seven candidates vied for three positions
with a voter turnout of 73%. The District is a “registered voter district,” as the board
members are elected by registered voters residing within the District’s boundaries.
Meetings of the Board of Directors are open to the public and conducted in compliance with
the Ralph M. Brown Act. Legal counsel is present at all public meetings to ensure Brown Act
compliance. “Public Input” is called for by the Board President and is so noted on the public
meeting agenda, and recorded in the meeting minutes (TFHD, 2014).
Meeting notices/ agendas are posted throughout the Health System (several campus and
foundation locations) at least 72 hours before a regularly scheduled meeting. Agendas are
also posted on the TFHD website and emailed directly to constituents that have requested
such. Minutes are posted on the TFHD website following approval by the Board.
Board meetings have recently been moved to the Tahoe Truckee Unified School District Admin
Offices, 11603 Donner Pass
Road, Truckee, CA. This
meeting location allows board
meetings to be “livestreamed”
on the Truckee Tahoe
Community Television website,
ttctv.org and by link on TFHD’s
website, TFHD.com, so that
residents and vacation
homeowners can view the
meeting in real time.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 15, TF Hospital District 15-7
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
To efficiently manage the District, the Board of
Directors has established several sub-committees
including the Governance Committee, Retirement CONTACT INFORMATION:
Committee, Board Finance Committee, Board
Harry Weis, CEO
Community Benefit Committee, Board Personnel
10121 Pine Ave,
Committee, and the Board Quality Committee. No
Truckee, CA 96161
action is taken at the committee level, but
(530) 582 3480
recommendations are made to the Board. The Board
invites and welcomes the community to attend the
committee meetings. Committee meetings also meet
the requirements of the Brown Act. Committee
meeting agendas and minutes are posted on the
District’s website. In addition to regular Board meetings and committee meetings, the Board
also has a number of Special Meetings.
Ethics are important to hospital administration. The Board most recently reviewed ethics
laws during its retreat in Tahoe City on March 17, 2015. Additionally, the District’s practices
with compliance ethics, ethics in patient care, and ethics in business practices are posted on
its website at: http://www.tfhd.com/compliance-ethics.asp. These practices are
consistent with the requirements of California Government Code §53235.
TFHD approved its conflict of interest code in 1978. This code was revised in 1991, 2010,
2014, and 2015. The Political Reform Act (California Government Code Section 81000, et
seq.) requires local government agencies to adopt and promulgate conflict-of-interest codes.
The Fair Political Practices Commission has adopted a regulation (2 California Code of
Regulations Section 18730) that contains the terms of a standard conflict-of-interest code,
which can be incorporated by reference in an agency’s code. TFHD has designated positions
that are required file their statements of economic interests with the District. (See also
California Government Code §87203).
15.5: MANAGEMENT EFFICIENCIES AND STAFFING
Authority of the TFHD lies primarily with the elected Board of Directors. TFHD’s Chief
Executive Officer (CEO) is hired by the Board and reports directly to the Board. The CEO has
responsibility of the overall operations system and this includes insuring that TFHD delivers
high-quality, cost effective care and coordinating the development of services and facilities.
The CEO has several direct reports including the Foundations, CFO, COO, CNO, CIO, and the
Human Resources Department.
Bob Schapper served as CEO for twelve years from 2003 to 2015 and he retired from TFHD
with agreement of the Board. Virginia Razo was interim CEO from January 28, 2015 to April
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 15, TF Hospital District 15-8
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
2015. Jake Dorst was appointed as the District’s interim CEO on May 1, 2015. In November
2015, the Board appointed a new permanent CEO named Harry Weis.
The TFHD Chief Financial Officer is charged with supervision of the patient financial services,
material management, as well as a budget analyst. The medical staff including the retail
pharmacy, reports to the District’s COO. There are more than 25 specialties and sub-
specialties represented on the medical staff. The medical staff is 100% board certified.
TFHD has received many awards including:
• Exceptional 5-star rating for Patient Satisfaction from the Centers for Medicare &
Medicaid Services,
• One of America's Top 100 Critical Access Hospitals in 2012 by the National Rural Health
Association
• Rural Center of Excellence by UC Davis,
• and many others.
There are approximately 750 full-time and part-time employees of the District organized as
shown in Figure 15-2.
Complaints Mission Statement
Part of management’s responsibility is responding to
We exist to make a difference in
customer complaints. Complaints may be directed to
the health of our communities
the TFHD Patient Advocate, Trish Foley at (530) 582
through excellence and compassion
6567 or by email at PFoley@TFHD.com. Complaints
in all we do.
that are delivered to the members of the board,
administration or other staff are directed to the
Patient Advocate. In 2015 TFHD received 104 total complaints, 64 related to Care, 35 related
to Service Delivery and 5 related to Billing (TFHD, 2016).
Permits
The Tahoe Forest Hospital District is licensed as a Critical Access Hospital by the CA
Department of Public Health (CDPH), which is renewed on an annual basis. The license
establishes a capacity of 72 beds including 25 for general acute care and 37 for skilled nursing
and ten others. TFHD received permission to operate specialized equipment for its Cancer
Center on August 7, 2012 from the CDPH. The Office of Statewide Health and Planning must
approve all new construction projects proposed by the District. There are currently no legal
or administrative challenges regarding existing permits held by TFHD.
Since the District operates a facility in the state of Nevada, they are required to be licensed
by the Nevada Department of Human Resources, Division of Health. The Tahoe Forest
Hospital Laboratory has also received accreditation and awards for excellence from COLA, a
non-profit accreditation organization.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 15, TF Hospital District 15-9
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
The District’s Truckee facilities received accreditation from the California Medical
Association/Joint Commission of Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations in June of 2000.
The District maintains all required permits and is not currently named in any investigations,
government inquiries, or litigation. Industry standards in the medical field are established by
various agencies including, but not limited to, Department of Health Services, Joint
Commission of Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations, Health Care Financing
Administration, Title 22, Medicare, and MediCal. The District is subject to both planned and
“no notice” inspections. The results of such inspections typically rated the TFHD as meeting
and/or exceeding industry standards.
15.6: POPULATION AND GROWTH
The existing population and projected future growth are analyzed in MSRs because they are
directly related to existing and future demand for most public services.
POPULATION
The size of the existing population
throughout the Tahoe Forest Hospital
District boundary area is substantially
affected by seasonal variations, distinct
user groups and the abundance of second
homes. It is beyond the scope of this MSR
to project seasonal populations; although
we have provided rough estimates based
upon studies that describe and
characterized some of the seasonal
population dynamics along with the visitor
accommodations are referenced herein.
TFHD’s boundaries encompass several distinct sub-regions including:
1. Tahoe City
2. North Tahoe
3. Squaw Valley
4. Alpine Springs
5. Northstar
6. Truckee
7. Donner Summit
The population within these subareas, with the exception of Truckee, has been studied in
other chapters of this MSR. The population in these six sub-regions, when added together,
yields the population residing within TFHD’s boundaries, as shown in Table 15.1, below.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 15, TF Hospital District 15-11
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
Table 15.1: Existing Population in Six Sub-Regions of TFHD’s Boundary
Sub-Regions in TFHD’s Existing Permanent Estimated
Boundary Population Current Peak
Visitor
Population1
Tahoe City 8,524 2 17,307
North Tahoe 5,486 11,1383
Squaw Valley 950 3,5004
Alpine Springs 191 1,5465
Northstar Community 136 12,000
Services District
Truckee 17,8976 21,4737
Donner Summit/Serene 298 2502
Lakes
Total in TFHD 33,482 69,466
Based on the data shown in the above table, it is estimated that TFHD’s boundaries
encompass an Existing Permanent Population of 33,482 persons. The overnight visitor
population during peak season is estimated at 69,466 persons as of the year 2015. The Town
of Truckee represents 54% of the permanent population and 31% of the visitor population.
PROJECTED GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT
Land Use Planning Documents
Projections for future development and hence increased service demands within the Martis
Valley, North Lake, and Highway 89 Corridor areas comprising TTAD’s boundary area are
based on information provided in the 1994 Placer County General Plan and related area plans,
1995 Nevada County General Plan, 2003 Martis Valley Community Plan, 2025 Town of Truckee
General Plan, Tahoe Regional Planning Agency documents and other sources. At the time
when the Placer County portion of Martis Valley Community Plan was completed in 2003 and
the Truckee 2025 General Plan was updated in 2006 (and updated in 2009), the area was in a
phase of rapid growth and development, the recent economic downturn was unforeseen and,
1 This column shows the # overnight visitors. (Day-use only visitors are not included.)
2 See Chapter 14 for details.
3 Calculated from total population of 14691 (=5523*2.55 persons per household). Subtracted 5507 = 9184.
4 1315 housing units from absentee owners (i.e. visitors) x 2.55 persons per household. Please note that several
thousand move visitors could be accommodated in hotel rooms located within the District.
5 Overnight visitor population for ASCWD calculated from 653 units x 2.55 persons per household and 89% absentee
owner unit rate.
6 Calculated from 16211 persons in Town of Truckee per DOF data on website:
http://www.townoftruckee.com/departments/planning-division/growth-and-development/truckee-population-
and-housing-estimates plus 1686 persons in Martis Valley per 2010 census.
7 Calculated from 6692 vacation homes in Truckee plus 1729 vacation homes (not permanently occupied) in Martis
Valley * 2.55 persons per household.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 15, TF Hospital District 15-12
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
as a result, both plans have overestimated
growth. It is important to note, however, that
planned capacity for growth still remains. See
discussion below under Town of Truckee
General Plan.
Future population growth within the North
Tahoe and Martis Valley region is dependent
upon zoning and general plan policies and land-
use designations in the region. Regional
population and zoning/general plans are described in detail in Chapter 3 of this MSR. The
three local land use jurisdictions that have authority to grant entitlements to new
development within TFHD’s boundaries include Nevada County, Placer County, and the Town
of Truckee. Additionally, there are several federally managed properties located near the
airport including the Martis Creek Lake National Recreation Area (U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers) and the Tahoe National Forest (U.S. Forest Service).
The Placer County General Plan which is largely applicable to the North Lake Tahoe Basin and
Highway 89 corridor area was adopted in 1994. Each of the major communities in the Lake
Tahoe area is also covered by area or community plans, which are being incorporated into the
Proposed/Review Draft Tahoe Basin Area Plan, June 2015. The Placer County General Plan
serves as an umbrella plan for the five sub-plans listed below it in the table including: 2003
Martis Valley Community Plan; Proposed/Review Draft Tahoe Basin Area Plan; 1983 Squaw
Valley General Plan and Land Use Ordinance; Proposed Draft Village at Squaw Valley Specific
Plan; and the Alpine Meadows General Plan. For the most part (not including Alpine Meadows
and Squaw Valley planning area), the Tahoe Basin is under the oversight planning control of
the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRAPA). The following table provides an overview of
the various land use planning documents applicable to the TFHD boundary area and relevant
to projections of future growth in the area.
Table 15.2: Planning Documents
Planning Document Jurisdiction Citation Year Adopted
2025 Truckee General Plan Town of (Truckee, 2006).8 2006
Truckee
Nevada County General Plan Nevada County (Nevada County, 1996. Updated
(1996 with 2014 Land Use 1996)9 2014)
Element and Housing Element,
5th Revision)
1994 Placer County General Placer County (Placer County, 1994 (Updated
Plan (as updated May 21, 2013) 1994)10 2013)
8 Truckee General Plan: http://laserfiche.townoftruckee.com/Weblink/PDF/ uloj2y45db1nasz14f00di45/19/
Town%20of%20Truckee%202025%20General%20Plan.pdf
9 Nevada County General Plan at: https://www.mynevadacounty.com/nc/cda/planning/Pages/Nevada-County-
General-Plan.aspx
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 15, TF Hospital District 15-13
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
• 2003 Martis Valley Placer County (Placer County, December 16,
Community Plan11 2003)12 2003
• Proposed/Review Draft Placer County (Placer County, Not yet
Tahoe Basin Area Plan 2015)13 Adopted. Draft
on June 2015
• 1983 Squaw Valley General Placer County (Placer County, 1983
Plan and Land Use 1983)
Ordinance
• Proposed Draft Village at Placer County (Squaw Valley Not yet
Squaw Valley Specific Plan Real Estate, LLC, Adopted. Draft
2014) on October
2014
• Alpine Meadows General Placer County (Placer County, 1968
Plan 1968)14
2012 Lake Tahoe Regional Plan TRPA (TRPA, 2012)15 2012
The majority of land contained within the district is managed by the United States Forest
Service. The primary developed land use is residential and commercial/retail in small
communities such as Truckee, Tahoe City and Kings Beach. Other existing land uses are
resort/recreation such as ski resorts and golf course communities.
New approved developments16 that will affect population growth within TFHD’s boundaries
include:
• Martis Camp (formerly known as Siller Ranch) was approved by Placer County to allow
a with 650 lot subdivision, an 18-hole golf course and a 50,000-square-foot lodge.
• Coldstream Specific Plan was approved by Town of Truckee August 25, 2014 for a
178.6± acre parcel to allow development of residential, mixed use commercial, and
open space. The project was formerly known as PC-1 and owned by the Tiechert
Corporation. It is located east of Donner State Park.
• Joerger Ranch Specific Plan (PC-3) was approved by Truckee Town Council on March
24, 2015 allowing a mixed use planned community located at the intersection of
10 General Plan on County website at:
http://www.placer.ca.gov/~/media/cdr/Planning/CommPlans/PCGP/PCGP2013.pdf
11 The urban core of Martis Valley is the Town of Truckee. Outlying areas will continue to support and be supported
by the services found within the Town. The Nevada County portion of the 1975 plan area has not been updated,
although the 2025 Town of Truckee General Plan covers their portion of the Martis Valley.
12 Martis Valley Comm Plan at: http://www.placer.ca.gov/~/media/cdr/Planning/CommPlans/MartisValley/
MartisValleyCommPlanDec2003.pdf
13 http://www.placer.ca.gov/departments/communitydevelopment/planning/tahoebasinareaplan
14 Alpine Meadows GP at: http://www.placer.ca.gov/~/media/cdr/Planning/CommPlans/NTahoeCPs
/AlpineMeadowsGeneralPlan.pdf
15 LT Regional Plan, 2012 at: http://www.trpa.org/regional-plan/
16 Recent property development approved by and considered by the Town of Truckee is listed on its
website at: http://www.townoftruckee.com/departments/planning-division/growth-and-
development/major-development-projects
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 15, TF Hospital District 15-14
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
Highway 267, Brockway Road
and Soaring Way. The Specific
Plan provides zoning for a
variety of land uses including
commercial/retail, office,
industrial, residential and
open space.
Proposed developments that are not
yet approved include:
• Canyon Springs is a proposed
subdivision creating 177
single-family parcels, eight
parcels for affordable housing
and approximately 171 acres
of open space. Access is proposed off of Martis Peak Road with a gated emergency
access off of Edinburgh Drive. This project has not yet been approved by Truckee
Town Council.
• Pollard Station - A senior neighborhood located on the 8.05-acre Davies/Fitch
property. The project proposes 118 separate residential units, and 40, two-bedroom
condominium units for independent senior living.
• Truckee Springs Summary Plan is under consideration and if approved by Truckee
would allow either 80 multi-family residential units or 120 hotel/lodging units plus
public facilities and a few single-family residential units within the Downtown Master
Plan area.
Projected Population Numbers
Hospital service demands are projected by estimating the total population of an area and the
age of the population. Age is an important factor in hospital demand, because older patients
are more likely to utilize hospital services. The 2004 MSR projected that the population
within the Tahoe Forest Hospital District would grow at a rate of approximately 3.2 percent
annually. This growth rate was not realized because of slower population and economic
growth in the region. For planning purposes TFHD relies upon the University of Nevada
Technical Report entitled “The Impact of Tahoe Forest Hospital on the Local Economy 2012”
states that “The District’s 2013 population of 38,600 represented a 3.9% increase in
population over the past five years. This is lower than the 4.9% population increase for the
state of California. District population is projected to increase by 2.3% by 2017”. Using the
projected growth rate of 2.3 percent annually, future population residing within the District’s
boundaries is estimated as shown in Table 15.3, below.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 15, TF Hospital District 15-15
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
Table 15.3: Projected Permanent Population Growth with TFHD Boundaries
Year 2017 2022 2027 2032
Estimated Permanent 39,488 40,396 41,325 42,276
Population
Data Source: TFHD, 2014
For this MSR, a new analysis was conducted using equivalent dwelling units (EDUS) as a metric
to relate to population growth. The projected EDU’s shown in in Table 15.4, below, for the
years 2017 to 2032 are based upon anticipated future population growth from the total
growth in the 6 sub-regions. The economic downturn from 2009 to present may have resulted
in pent up demand for development. For example, projected planned growth associated with
the 2025 Town of Truckee General Plan has not occurred on pace with expectations. The
same can be said for Northstar-at-Tahoe. Northstar-at-Tahoe will experience growth that
should approach buildout by 2034 (See Northstar CSD MSR). Other resort communities (Tahoe
City, Kings Beach, etc.) in the Lake Tahoe Basin are not expected to achieve a high level of
growth. The projections in Table 15.4 reflect a more modest and conservative increasing
growth curve through 2032.
TABLE 15.4: EDU PROJECTIONS WITHIN TFHD BOUNDARY AREA
Projections
2003 2008 2012 2017 2022 2027 2032
EDUs 35,374 39,150 40,572 42,557 44,857 48,195 51,792
Percent change -- 11% 4% 5% 5% 7% 7%
Percent change per
-- 2% 0.90% 1% 1% 1.50% 1.50%
year
Total (i.e. permanent
plus visitor) Population
108,520 114,385 122,897 132,069
Calculated from
EDU’s17
Data Source: 1) Table 16.3, T-TSA EDU Projections, 2) EDU data from Chapter 7, Donner Summit
Public Utility District, and 3) EDU data from Chapter 11, Sierra Lakes County Water District.
In the year 2032, the area is expected to have a total population of 132,069. Assuming that
65% of the dwelling units are owned by absentee owners, the permanent population18
calculates to 46,224 and the visitor (i.e. vacation/absentee home) population calculates to
85,845. The hospital’s estimate of future growth presented in Table 15.3 is slightly lower
than this MSR’s estimate presented in Table 15.4 above.
17 2.55 persons per household is the metric used to convert EDUs into population, based on data from
2010 census and more recent data from CA Dept. of Finance.
18 This estimate assumes that 89% of dwelling units are utilized by visitor or secondary vacation homes.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 15, TF Hospital District 15-16
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
DISADVANTAGED UNINCORPORATED COMMUNITIES
As described in Chapter 3, LAFCo is required to consider the provision of public services to
disadvantaged unincorporated communities (DUCs). Senate Bill (SB) 244 requires LAFCo to
identify and consider disadvantaged unincorporated communities (DUCs) when preparing MSRs
and Sphere updates for cities and special districts that provide sewer, water, or structural
fire protection services. Although TFHD does not provide critical services such as sewer,
water, or structural fire protection, information regarding DUCs within TFHD’s boundaries is
provided herein to portray socio-economic information.
A DUC is defined by the Water Code as one in which the median annual household income
(MHI) is 80 percent of the statewide
average. In 2010, the statewide MHI was
FIGURE 15.3: DUC'S IDENTIFIED BY DWR
$60,883; 80 percent of that is $48,706.
Severely disadvantaged communities
are defined as areas with a median
income of less than 60% of the State's
median household income.
Relevant data were reviewed for the
TFHD boundary area. Two DUCs have
been identified within the TFHD
boundary, its SOI, and/or adjacent
areas. The California Department of
Water Resources (DWR) has developed
a methodology to determine the
location of DUCs using the census-
designated places19 (CDPs). DUC status
is determined based on the DUC
definition provided in DWR's Proposition
84 and 1E Integrated Regional Water
Management Guidelines, dated August,
2010. DWR has developed a mapping tool to help determine which communities in an
Integrated Regional Water Management (IRWM) region meet the DUC median household
income (MHI) definition for grants20. The maps and geographic information system files are
derived from the US Census Bureau's American Community Survey and are compiled for the
five-year period 2006-2010. DWR has included, in the maps, a calculated field which
indicates the DUC status for different census geographies (Place, Tract, and Block Group).
Within TFHD’s boundaries two areas, Soda Springs and Kings Beach are recognized by the
19 The U.S. Census Bureau identifies “census designated place” as the statistical counterpart of a city
in that it is a named place with a concentration of residents, housing, and commercial activity, but is
located in a county’s unincorporated territory.
20 Department of Water Resources IRWM Grant Program, Disadvantaged Communities (DAC) Mapping
Tool. www.water.ca.gov/irwm/grants/resourceslinks.cfm.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 15, TF Hospital District 15-17
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
Department of Water Resources as DUCs as
shown in Figure 15-3. The median
household income as of July 1, 2015 for the
Kings Beach Census Designated Place was
$40,621 and for the Soda Springs21 CDP was
$44,621.
Additionally, data from the California
Department of Finance22 has mapped areas
of low unemployment / low poverty in
order to exclude these designated areas
from the New Employment Credit program.
FIGURE 15.4: HIGH INCOME AREAS BY DOF
The areas shown in Figure 15.4 have
incomes which are higher than average. Another indicator of income is determining whether
a census tract is eligible for special home financing by California Home Financing Agency.
There are no neighborhoods in the North Tahoe/Martis Valley region that are eligible23 for this
type of home financing because median incomes are too high to qualify.
15.7: DISTRICT SERVICES
SERVICE OVERVIEW
TFHD is a full-service health system and it offers inpatient, outpatient, and community
services. The major change since LAFCo’s 2004 MSR is the construction of the Gene Upshaw
Cancer Center located in a stand-alone building on the hospital campus. This cancer center is
associated with UC Davis. TFHD’s inpatient, outpatient, and community services are listed
below:
Inpatient Services:
• Medical
• Surgical
• Obstetric
• Orthopedic
• Swing Bed Program
• Extended Care
• Intensive Care
Outpatient Services:
• Ambulatory Surgery
• Diagnostic Imaging
• Laboratory
• Emergency Services
21 Data Source: http://california.hometownlocator.com/ca/nevada/soda-springs.cfm
22 Data source: http://maps.gis.ca.gov/gobiz/dga/default.aspx
23 Data source: http://qct.huduser.org/tables/1statetable.odb?statefp=6.0&DDAYEAR=2013
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 15, TF Hospital District 15-18
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
• MultiSpecialty Clinics
• Oncology
• Hospice
• Home Health
• Health Clinic/Occupational Health
• Physical Therapy
• Integrative Health Services
• Retail Pharmacy
Community Services:
• Health Education
• Health Screenings
• Wellness
• Disease Prevention Programs
In addition, the system provides a number of medical specialties including:
• Asthma/Allergy
• Cardiology
• Chronic Pain Management
• Dermatology
• Ear, Nose, Throat
• Emergency Medicine
• Family Practice
• Gastric Surgery
• Gastroenterology
• General and Vascular Surgery
• Internal Medicine
• OB/GYN
• Oncology
• Opthalmology
• Oral Surgery
• Orthopedics
• Pediatrics
• Plastic Surgery
• Podiatry
• Pulmonology
• Radiology
• Sleep Disorders
• Urology
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 15, TF Hospital District 15-19
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
DEMAND FOR DISTRICT SERVICES
Inpatient services typically include the care of patients whose condition requires formal
admission to a hospital. Usually patients are only admitted to a hospital when they are
extremely ill or have severe physical trauma. The District’s Audited Financial Statement for
FY2013/2014 provided the data presented in Table 15.5, below, regarding inpatient services.
Table 15.5: INPATIENT BUSINESS ACTIVITY
Acute 2014 2013
Admissions 1,617 1,661
Length of stay 2.89 2.95
Average daily census 12.8 13.4
Occupancy percentage 44.2 % 46.4%
Patient days 4,679 4,907
Total ICU days 914 983
Total medical/surgical days 2,845 3,040
Total obstetrics days 920 872
Total M/S swing days 283 252
Nursery days 877 797
Deliveries 366 365
Skilled Nursing Unit
Patient days 12,133 11,723
Average daily census 33 32
Occupancy percentage 89.8% 86.8%
Data Source: Matson & Isom, 2014
The above data indicates that admissions, patient days, and occupancy decreased in Acute
Care for 2014, as compared to the previous year. However, patient days and occupancy
increased in the Skilled Nursing Unit for 2014, as compared to the previous year.
Outpatient services are typically medical procedures or tests that can be done in a medical
center without an overnight stay. Many procedures and tests can be done in a few hours. For
example, a blood test at a lab is an outpatient service. The District’s Audited Financial
Statement for FY2013/2014 provided the data presented in Table 15.6, below, regarding
outpatient services.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 15, TF Hospital District 15-20
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
Table 15.6 OUTPATIENT BUSINESS ACTIVITY
2014 2013
Emergency department visits 16,264 16,324
Laboratory tests 143,751 146,388
Home health visits 3,778 3,980
Radiology exams 10,600 10,542
Ultrasound exams 3,848 3,658
Cat scan exams (including PET CT) 3,951 3,889
MRI scan exams 1,851 1,705
Radiation oncology procedures 4,174 3,599
Surgery cases 1,093 1,132
Surgery minutes 99,961 86,167
Data Source: Matson & Isom, 2014
The above data indicates that emergency room visits, lab visits and home health visits all
declined slightly in 2014 as compared to the previous year. However, radiology exams,
ultrasound exams, and cat scans all increased slightly in 2014 as compared to the previous
year.
15.8: INFRASTRUCTURE AND FACILITIES
The District owns and operates the Tahoe Forest Hospital located at 10121 Pine Avenue, near
Donner Pass Road, Truckee, CA (in Nevada County). The hospital was initially constructed in
1950 and since then has undergone a series of expansions, in 1966, 1980, 1986, 1978, 1991,
1995, and 2002. This hospital offers a 24-hour emergency room, diagnostic imaging, health
clinic, hospice, ICU, inpatient and outpatient surgery, laboratory, long term care, obstetrics,
occupational health, and a sleep disorders clinic.
Incline Village Community Hospital is located at 880 Alder Avenue, near Tahoe Blvd., in
Incline Village, NV, 89451. This hospital is located outside of the District boundaries approved
by LAFCO. It serves the population of the North Lake Tahoe area including Kings Beach,
Crystal Bay and Incline Village. Incline Village Community Hospital offers 24-hour emergency
care, in- and outpatient surgery, complete diagnostic capabilities with state of-the-art CT
scanner, full-service laboratory, sleep disorder center, physical therapy and multispecialty
clinics.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 15, TF Hospital District 15-21
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
In addition to the two hospitals, the District offers a cancer center, the Tahoe Institute for
Rural Health Research, and the Tahoe Center for Health and Sports Performance. The District
also owns 51% of Truckee Surgery Center, LLC.
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
With the passage of Measure “C” in 2007, TFHD issued $98.5 million in bonds to improve
healthcare facilities. A Facilities Development Plan (TFHD, 2015) was created to guide
prioritization and construction of these facilities. Consistent with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Districted adopted a mitigated negative declaration
for the Facilities Development Plan in July 2010. Construction was completed on several
capital improvement projects during the years 2010 to 2016 including:
• Pharmacy relocation and remodel
• Dietary relocation and remodel (phase one)
• Cancer Center building
FIGURE 15.5: INCLINE VILLAGE HOSPITAL
• Central Energy Plant
Upgrades/Relocation
• Skilled Nursing Facility
addition and remodel
• Interim birthing at
Western Addition
• Office relocations
• IT Data Center
• Fluoroscopy and
diagnostic Imaging
Equipment Replacement
• Medical records at the
’66 building (conceptual design in progress)
• Emergency Department and Sterile Processing Department – Increment II (construction
in progress)
• South Building, Birthing/Dietary Phase II
• South Building, Birthing Fourth LDR
• South Building, Phase 5 Interim Birthing
OPPORTUNITIES TO SHARE FACILITIES AND TO COLLABORATE
Tahoe Forest Hospital District (TFHD) is the only hospital district in the Eastern Placer County
and Eastern Nevada County areas. Although there are no opportunities for shared facilities
with other hospital districts, TFHD does collaborate with the local school district which allows
TFHD to utilize its administrative offices for public meetings.
Memorandums of understanding (MOU’s) are a mechanism to formalize agreements for
collaboration among various parties. TFHD and Washoe County have a MOU for a Mutual Aid
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 15, TF Hospital District 15-22
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
and Evacuation Plan. TFHD and the Truckee Donner Recreation & Parks District have a MOU
to support the local hospital in the event of an emergency (TFHD, 2014).
15.9: FINANCING
This MSR analysis only reviews the financial information for the Tahoe Forest Health System.
The District also has the benefit of two private foundations: the Tahoe Forest Hospital
Foundation and the Incline Village Hospital Foundation. Financial information for these two
private foundations is not included in this MSR analysis. Information on the Incline Village
Community Hospital (IVCH) is not provided in this MSR since it is located in the State of
Nevada. IVCH it has its own budget (separate from the Tahoe Forest Hospital District budget)
and this budget is audited separately, using a methodology that is consistent with the
regulations of the State of Nevada. The budget, including projected revenues, for IVCH is
partially based on insurance program reimbursement rates that are unique to Nevada such as
its State-based Marketplace, known as Nevada Health Link and Nevada Medicaid.
Disclaimer: The financial information provided in this MSR section was accurate as of its
writing in 2016. However, the District updates its financial information on an annual basis.
Therefore, the financial information in this MSR has been superseded and readers are
encouraged to read the newer financial statements and budgets published by the District on
their website at: https://www.tfhd.com/ /
The District utilizes a rigorous budget preparation methodology and fixed asset accounting.
Budgets are adopted in public meetings on an annual basis. The fiscal year begins on July 1
and ends on June 30. Both budgets and audits are available to the public via the District’s
website. This MSR reviewed the independent auditor’s report for Fiscal Year (FY) 2013/2014
and dated October 24, 2014, as attached to the District’s Financial Statements. The audit
found that there were no issues of noncompliance with financial regulations that could have
an effect on the financial statement (Matson & Isom, 2014). The most recent financial
statement is for FY 2014-2015 and is dated February 8, 2016.
The District complies with guidelines from Local Health Care District Law and the Office of
Statewide Health Planning and Development of the State of California in regards to the
maintenance of financial records (Matson & Isom, 2014). TFHD utilizes enterprise fund
accounting, meaning that the charges for services are intended to pay for the costs of
providing such services. Revenues and expenses are recognized on the accrual basis
consistent with Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) Statement No. 62 (Matson
& Isom, 2014).
A financial summary for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2014 is:
• Total assets were $254,624,083.
• Total cash and cash equivalents were $79,664,461.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 15, TF Hospital District 15-23
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
• Net patient account receivables were $ 21,124,945.
• Days net patient service revenue in net patient accounts receivable was 72 days.
• Net Capital assets were $ 144,885,000.
• Assets Limited as to Use were $ 1,878,250.
• Total liabilities were $ 159,691,235.
• The net position was $97,263,475.00
REVENUES
The TFHD’s sources of revenue consist of payment of patient fees, district taxes, income from
interest on investments, as well as philanthropy. The portion of revenue from patient fees
primarily comes from third-party payors, including Medicare, Medi-Cal, and commercial
insurance organizations. Revenues can be divided into two basic types:
• Operating revenues are received from fees associated with the direct provision of
health care services.
• Non-operating revenues include property tax revenues, grants, and other
contributions.
Although amounts vary from year to year, Operating Revenues consist of Daily Hospital
Services (approximately 13%), Ambulatory Services (16%), and Ancillary Services (71%). From
those revenues are subtracted bad debts, charity care, Medicare and Medi-Cal contracted
adjustments, and other contracted adjustments and deductions. This results in the ‘Net
Patient Revenues’ detailed in Table 15.7. Other operating revenue are derived from
additional costs for services. Non-Operating Revenue is derived from property taxes, interest
income, rental income, and donations, minus interest expense as detailed in Table 15-7. The
following table is a summary of District revenues as reported in the Audited Financial
Statements for FY 11/12, FY 12/13 and FY 13/14.
Table 15.7: Revenues TFHD
Years Ended June 30 2012 2013 2014
OPERATING REVENUES
Net Patient Revenue $99,795,015 $101,566,879 $107,664,272
Other revenue 6,711,124 6,142,592 6,710,952
Total Operating Revenues 106,506,139 $107,709,471 $114,375,224
Years Ended June 30 2012 2013 2014
NON-OPERATING REVENUES (EXPENSES)
Property tax revenue $4,824,796 $5,716,834 $4,902,246
Property tax revenue - general obligation
3,222,798 4,986,760 4,744,356
bonds
Gain (Loss) recognized on joint venture 59,376 (30,517) (191,666)
Interest income 300,070 330,077 280,574
Rental income - net 17,559 242,348 237,992
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 15, TF Hospital District 15-24
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
Donations 677,690 549,507 659,104
Gain (Loss) on disposal of assets 24,125 (11,867) 1,000
Interest expense (4,483,822) (4,448,220) (5,390,206)
Total Non-operating Revenues (Expenses) $ 4,642,592 $7,334,922 $5,243,400
Data Source: Matson & Isom, 2012, 2013 and 2014
As shown in Table 15.7 above, total revenues increased by four percent from 2013 to 2014. In
FY 13/14, non-operating revenues were 22 percent of total revenues. Property tax revenue
accounts for approximately 12 percent of total revenue; however, about half of this amount
(i.e. 6 percent) is derived from general obligation bonds and used for capital improvements.
It is the Board’s practice to limit the use of tax revenues to pay for capital needs, bond debt,
community health, and as a contribution to reserves.
INVESTMENTS
TFHD has an adopted investment policy which serves to establish the District’s cash
investment objectives, authority and responsibility, approval, instrument limitations,
concentrations, terms, reporting, judgment and care, and the liability of the District
Treasurer, CEO, and CFO/Controller. The stated investment objective is, “to maximize the
return on invested cash while minimizing risk of capital loss and adhering to the investment
policy…”
The District’s investment concentrations include unlimited investments in the California Local
Agency Investment Fund, as well as U.S. Government guaranteed investments. The District is
generally authorized, under state statute and local resolutions, to invest in demand deposits
with financial institutions, savings accounts, certificates of deposit, U.S. Treasury securities,
federal agency securities, State of California notes or bonds, notes or bonds of agencies
within the State of California, obligations guaranteed by the Small Business Administration,
bankers’ acceptances, commercial paper, and the LAIF.
TFHD has $36,733,000 invested in capital facilities such as the hospitals, and net capital were
$144,900,000 as of FY13/14. Additionally, TFHD had $79,664,461 in total cash, deposits, and
other investments as of FY13/14.
EXPENDITURES
The following is a summary of District Operating Expenses as reported in the Audited Financial
Statements for FY 11/12, FY 12/13 and FY 13/14.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 15, TF Hospital District 15-25
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
Table 15.8: Operating Expenses TFHD
Years Ended June 30 2012 2013 2014
OPERATING EXPENSES
Salaries and wages $37,130,794 $38,778,617 $40,492,967
Employee benefits 20,399,939 19,943,943 20,764,643
Professional fees 14,040,941 17,850,419 18,673,595
Supplies 12,893,813 15,206,878 14,939,799
Purchased services 7,404,230 7,680,764 10,104,398
Depreciation and amortization 4,991,727 7,239,280 8,642,417
Insurance 550,407 636,454 711,516
Other 5,766,233 6,133,885 5,938,373
Total Operating Expenses $103,178,083 $113,470,240 $120,267,708
NET OPERATING INCOME (OR LOSS) $3,328056 ($5,760,769) -5,892,484
Data Source: Matson & Isom, 2012, 2013 and 2014
In both FY 13/14 and FY 12/13, operating expenses exceeded operating revenue; however,
total revenues (including non-operating revenue) did NOT exceed TFHD expenses and the
District’s net position at the end of the fiscal year 13/14 13/14 was $97.3 million, indicating a
very stable financial situation.
DEBT
TFHD does have $136,086,838 in debt as of June 30, 2014, with a current annual payment
totaling $2,295,193. Most of the debt is related to the capital improvements approved by
voters as part of Measure C in 2007 as shown in Figure 15-6. TFHD maintains a bond rating of
BBB- (Lower medium grade) as published by credit rating agencies.
Figure 15-6: TFHD Debt as of FY
13/14
General Obligation
Bonds Series 2007
Revenue Bonds Series
2006
Variable Rate Demand
Revenue Bonds Series
2002
Bank equipment leases
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 15, TF Hospital District 15-26
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
Measure “C” was passed by 72 percent of District voters in both Nevada and Placer counties in
2007. Measure “C” authorized the Tahoe Forest Hospital District to issue $98.5 million in
bonds to improve healthcare facilities including:
• expansion and enhancement of the Emergency Room;
• maintenance of critical medical services including pediatrics, maternity, long term
care for seniors and cancer care; and
• upgrade facilities that are outdated or do not meet state-mandated earthquake safety
standards.
A Citizens Oversight Committee reviews annual independent audit reports and reviews the
expenditure of Measure C funds. The Committee monitors expenditures of Measure C funds by
reviewing the monthly balance sheets, profit and loss statements, and monthly invoices
related to Measure C projects. The Committee’s findings are communicated to the TFHD
Board, and to the community via a separate website at: http://hospitalcoc.org/ . In January
2014, as part of its annual report, the Committee issued the following finding: “The COC
believes that the district is in compliance with the letter and intent of Measure C based on
the detailed oversight exerted during the past year.”
RATE RESTRUCTURING
The hospital(s) is an enterprise activity in which fees are charged for service. The District
charges all patients equally based on an established pricing structure for services rendered.
The Master Schedule of Charges is evaluated on an ongoing basis to ensure that only allowable
are billed in order to comply with insurance practices including Medicare and Medi-Cal
regulations. It should be noted that the Gene Upshaw Cancer Center does accept cancer
patients regardless of their ability to pay.
COST AVOIDANCE
TFHD uses several financial mechanisms to avoid unnecessary costs. The District participates
in a joint-powers authority structured organization to obtain professional liability insurance.
The organization, which is known as the BETA group, is governed by a board of directors
drawn from the participating agencies. Because of the joint structure, the BETA group is not
required to pay federal or state income taxes or state premium tax, which results in
additional savings of the cost of the insurance.
The District is self-insured to provide employee health insurance including group medical,
dental, and vision coverage. A third party administers these coverages for the District. The
District is self-insured for workers’ compensation insurance. A third party administers this
coverage for the District.
All billing and payroll activities are performed within the District’s administration, as opposed
to employing outside consultants. The District does not anticipate that growth throughout
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 15, TF Hospital District 15-27
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
the area will result in exceedance of service capacity or decrease in the level of service.
Contracts for TFHD projects are solicited through the selective bid process, ensuring the most
efficient cost per project. Contractors are paid comparable rates for the same quality of
service.
There are no opportunities for the District to participate in joint financing and/or funding
practices, as TFHD is the only hospital district in the area. The District has not defaulted on
bonds or any of the other financing mechanism.
15.10: CHALLENGES
Retaining a permanent CEO has recently been a challenge for the District. However, with the
appointment of a new permanent CEO in the Fall of 2015, it is hoped that a productive
relationship between the Board and the CEO can be established. It should be noted that
other upper management positions appear to be stable with minimal turnover.
Hospital staff that directly deliver patient care often work long hours; however, overtime pay
seems to be minimal in comparison to other hospitals. Future workforce planning that
considers whether staff should be added, reduced, or shifted around and future discussions
regarding overtime pay should be conducted in an open and transparent manner.
The Affordable Care Act of 2012 may provide benefits to hospitals over the long-run through
an expansion of the number of patients with health insurance, increased patient revenues,
and a presumable reduction in emergency visits. However, all hospitals may feel challenged
to meet the new requirements of the ACA including significant changes in the financing model
for the California Medi-Cal program; increases in the demand for care; and, and lower
uncompensated care costs for the uninsured. Most significantly, The Affordable Care Act
shifts the hospital reimbursement model from one based on the volume of care given to one
based on the quality of care. TFHD is in a unique situation because although it is a rural
hospital, it cares for a population composed of both residents and tourists.
15.11: SERVICE ADEQUACY
Determining the adequacy of service to patients in hospitals relates to quality measures and it
is difficult to find recent publicly reported listings, rankings, report cards and recognition for
California hospitals.
The Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) has created
a standardized survey instrument and data collection methodology for measuring patients'
perspectives on hospital care. While many hospitals have collected information on patient
satisfaction, prior to HCAHPS there was no national standard for collecting or publicly
reporting patients' perspectives of care information that would enable valid comparisons to
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 15, TF Hospital District 15-28
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
be made across all hospitals. HCAHPS survey items complement the data hospitals currently
collect to support improvements in internal customer services and quality related activities.
The HCAHPS survey asks patients to rate hospitals in 12 categories, as listed in Table 15.9,
below. The results of the HCAPS survey for the Tahoe Forest Hospital are shown via a
visualization tool at the Hospital Quality Institute website at:
http://www.hqinstitute.org/post/hcahps-star-ratings-data-visualization-tool-california. The
HCAHPS survey rated Tahoe Forest Hospital as a 5 star facility (the highest rating out of a max
of 5 stars).
Table 15.9 Results of HCAHPS Survey
HCAHPS Performance Measure Patient Survey Star Rating for Tahoe
Forest Hospital as of April 2015
Care transition 5
Cleanliness 4
Communication about medicines 4
Discharge information 4
Doctor communication 4
Nurse communication 5
Overall hospital rating 5
Pain management 5
Quietness 3
Recommended hospital 5
Staff responsiveness 5
Summary star rating 5
Data source: http://www.hqinstitute.org/post/hcahps-star-ratings-data-
visualization-tool-california
The category that Tahoe Forest Hospital received its lowest score was “quietness” which was
rated as 3-star. All other categories were rated either 4-star or 5-star. Although there are
several other indicators of service adequacy for hospitals such as the number of complaints,
patient wellness and other outcomes, hospital occupancy rates, community acquired
pneumonia mortality rates, and inpatient mortality rates, we found data for these indicators
to be either: 1) over ten years old, or 2) not readily available. The best indicator for hospital
quality that the consultant team was able to find is the HCAHPS survey results presented in
Table 15.9 above and this data shows that TFHD provides very high quality service.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 15, TF Hospital District 15-29
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
15.12: DETERMINATIONS
GROWTH AND POPULATION PROJECTIONS
1. The permanent population residing within the Tahoe Forest Hospital District
boundaries is estimated to be 33,482 persons. The overnight visitor population during
peak season is estimated at 69,466 persons as of the year 2015.
2. The future growth rate of the Agency service area is approximately 2.3 percent.
3. While there is planned growth that has been a part of the various planning programs
for many years, there are no projections, projects or plan updates on the horizon that
would suggest that growth will exceed those levels reflected in the respective lead
agency planning documents.
DISADVANTAGED UNINCORPORATED COMMUNITIES
4. Within TFHD boundaries, the communities of Kings Beach, Carnelian Bay, some
neighborhoods within Tahoe City and Soda Springs met the State’s standard for DUCs
(i.e. income is less than 80 percent of the state median family income) as of 2015.
5. This MSR describes how the core services (water, sewer, and structural fire protection
services) are adequately provided to disadvantaged communities within eastern Placer
County. TFHD is not responsible for assuring that these services are adequately
provided to disadvantaged communities. No health and safety issues have been
identified within the DUCs.
PRESENT AND PLANNED CAPACITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES
7. Hospital facilities are sufficient to ensure that the Tahoe Forest Hospital District will
be able to provide sufficient service in the future.
8. TFHD is continuing its course to complete several capital improvement projects aimed
at ensuring older facilities are earthquake compliant and finishing other construction
projects (such as the Gene Upshaw Cancer Center) utilizing Measure C funds.
9. Occupancy rate at Tahoe Forest Hospital is 44.2 % in Acute Care and 89.8% in Skilled
Nursing.
10. The Tahoe Forest Hospital has
enough beds to accommodate
current and projected demands for
service. The recently constructed
facilities authorized by Measure C
will ensure TFHD’s ability to deliver
health care services into the future.
11. Facilities at the Incline Village
Hospital were not analyzed in this
MSR because this facility is located
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 15, TF Hospital District 15-30
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
outside the District boundaries and is located in a different state.
12. There were no outstanding infrastructure deficiencies identified in analysis of the
Tahoe Forest Hospital District and its operations as of 2015. Existing review
mechanisms appear sufficient to ensure that facilities and equipment will continue to
be replaced and upgraded as service needs require.
FINANCIAL ABILITY OF AGENCY TO PROVIDE SERVICES
13. The Tahoe Forest Hospital District has sufficient financing mechanisms in place to
ensure short- and long-term provision of services within its current boundaries. The
District adequately finances improvements and services through existing fees and
revenue streams, and has financial reserves and assets sufficient to ensure financial
stability. The District does not appear to need to find additional sources of revenue to
meet projected service demands associated with service provision.
14. The District had over $136 million in debt in 2014 and its repayments are on schedule.
15. Most of TFHD’s revenues (i.e. 78 percent) is classified as “operating revenue” and is
derived directly from fees paid by patients and their insurers for health care service.
16. The District does have a facility located in the State of Nevada. However, no tax
dollars from the district cross the state line. The IVC hospital has a separate budget
and separate audit.
STATUS OF, AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR, SHARED FACILITIES
17. TFHD collaborates with the local school district which allows TFHD to utilize its
administrative offices for public meetings.
18. TFHD and Washoe County have a MOU for a Mutual Aid and Evacuation Plan.
19. TFHD and the Truckee Donner Recreation & Parks District have a MOU to support the
local hospital in the event of an emergency.
20. No other opportunities for shared facilities or other government structure options
were identified in the MSR. These opportunities are limited in that the District is
geographically isolated in the mountainous region of the Sierra Nevada and is located a
substantial distance from other hospitals and healthcare districts.
ACCOUNTABILITY FOR COMMUNITY SERVICE NEEDS, INCLUDING
GOVERNMENTAL STRUCTURE AND OPERATION EFFICIENCIES
21. TFHD is governed by an elected five-member Board of Directors.
22. All major administrative documents related to the Board and the District, such as
meeting agendas, meeting minutes, financial statements, budgets and other
information are made available to the public through a variety of distribution
mechanisms including e-mail and the District website.
23. TFHD readily responded to LAFCO’s request for information, thereby demonstrating
accountability and cooperation.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 15, TF Hospital District 15-31
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
24. Healthcare facilities under the District’s jurisdiction include the Tahoe Forest Hospital
in Truckee; Incline Village Health Center, located in Nevada; and a health service
satellite facility located in Tahoe City. Operation of the Incline Village Hospital
extends the District’s service area outside of their delineated boundary and into the
state of Nevada.
25. It is recognized that hospital districts are unique, when compared to other public
service districts in that patients may travel to seek health care services.
15.13: REFERENCES
Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS). Hospital
Survey. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Baltimore, MD. Available on-line
at: <http://www.hcahpsonline.org>. Accessed August 23, 2015.
Matson & Isom. Financial Statements With Independent Auditors’ Report. Tahoe Forest
Hospital District. June 30, 2014 and 2013. October 24, 2014. 44 pages. Available on-
line: <http://www.tfhd.com/pdf/Tahoe-Forest-FS-Final-14.pdf>. Accessed
30July2015.
Matson & Isom. Financial Statements with Independent Auditors’ Report. Tahoe Forest
Hospital District. June 30, 2013 and 2012. November 22, 2013. 45 pages. Available on-
line: <http://tfhd.com/pdf/June-30-2013-2012.pdf>. Accessed 30July2015.
Matson & Isom. Financial Statements with Independent Auditors’ Report. Tahoe Forest
Hospital District. June 30, 2014 and 2013. October 17, 2012. 44 pages. Available on-
line: <http://tfhd.com/pdf/June-30-2012-2011.pdf>. Accessed 30July2015.
Placer County. General Plan Update. General Plan Background Report, Technical Appendices,
Appendix A: Large Water Systems. September 25, 1992. Contributing authors include
Crawford Multari & Starr, DKS Associates, Psomas and Associates, et. al. 382 pages.
Placer LAFCo. Municipal Service Review for North Lake Tahoe and Martis Valley. 2004.
Auburn, CA.
Tahoe Forest Hospital District. Facilities Development Plan. 2010 as updated July 1, 2015. 4
pages. Prepared by Geney/Gassiot Inc. General Contractors. Available on-line at:
<http://hospitalcoc.org/assets/downloads/agendas/2015/7-1-15-COC-MtgAgenda.pdf
Tahoe Forest Hospital District. Response to LAFCo’s Request for Information. Coordinated by
Mr. Ted Owens. January 2014.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 15, TF Hospital District 15-32
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
Tahoe Forest Hospital District. Website, Home Page. Available on-line at:
<http://www.tfhd.com/>. Accessed 1August2015.
U.S. Department of Commerce (USDC), United States Census Bureau. 2010 Demographic
Profile. American Fact Finder Website. Accessed on 5July2015. Available on-line at:
<http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/community_facts.xhtml>.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 15, TF Hospital District 15-33
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
CHAPTER 16: TAHOE-TRUCKEE
SANITATION AGENCY
This Municipal Service Review (MSR) describes the Tahoe Truckee Sanitation Agency (T-TSA).
This Agency was formed in 1971 and currently provides conveyance, treatment, and disposal of
sewage and industrial wastewater service within its boundaries.
Table of Contents
16.1: Services, Formation, and Boundary ........................ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16-1
16.2: Accountability and Governance ...............................................................16-5
16.3: Management Efficiencies and Staffing ........................................................16-8
16.4: Population and Growth .........................................................................16-9
16.5: Financing ........................................................................................ 16-13
16.6: Opportunities for Shared Facilities ......................................................... 16-22
16.7: Wastewater Services .......................................................................... 16-23
16.8: Challenges ...................................................................................... 16-29
16.9: Service Adequacy .............................................................................. 16-29
16.10: Determinations ............................................. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16-29
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 16, Tahoe Truckee Sanitation Agency 5-1
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
16.1: Agency Profile
Tahoe-Truckee Sanitation Agency
Type of District: Statutorily created Special Purpose District
Enabling Legislation: Water Code Appendix, Chapter 114
Functions/Services: Collection, treatment, and disposal of sewage, and industrial wastewater
Main Office: 13720 Butterfield Drive, Truckee, CA 96161
Mailing Address: same
Phone No.: (530) 587-2525
Fax No.: (530) 587-5840
Web Site: www.ttsa.net
General Manager: LaRue Griffin Email: lgriffin@ttsa.net
Governing Body: Board of Directors
Dale Cox Squaw Valley Public Service District 2018-2022
S. Lane Lewis North Tahoe Public Utility District 2016-2020
Jon Northrop Alpine Springs County Water District 2016-2020
Dan Wilkins Tahoe City Public Utility District 2018-2022
Blake Tresan Truckee Sanitary District 2018-2022
Meeting Schedule: 2nd Wednesday of the month at 9:00 a.m.
Meeting Location: Agency Board Room
13720 Butterfield Drive, Truckee, CA 96161
Date of Formation: November 17, 1971
Principal County: Placer County
16.2 Overview of Agency
Although T-TSA’s Principal County is Placer County, the Agency also reaches constituents in El
Dorado and Nevada Counties. Placer LAFCo is specified as the principal LAFCo in the T-TSA Act
(California Water Code Appendix, Chapter 114, §114-21).
Summary Description of Existing Services
The Tahoe-Truckee Sanitation Agency (T-TSA or Agency) is the sole operator of the regional
wastewater treatment facility serving Eastern Placer County and Eastern Nevada County. The
T-TSA is a regional agency, located in Truckee, California, which was established to treat and
dispose of wastewater generated in the area located between Truckee and Lake Tahoe. The
T-TSA receives wastewater from its member districts at various locations along the Truckee
River Interceptor (TRI) sewer line which runs from Tahoe City to the T-TSA Water Reclamation
Plan east of the Town of Truckee (see Figure 16-1 – T-TSA Service Area Map). The T-TSA
oversees conveyance, treatment and disposal of sewage and industrial waste within the
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 16, Tahoe Truckee Sanitation Agency 5-2
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
agency’s service area. As provided in the formation legislation, the member agencies include
the following:
• Truckee Sanitary District (TSD)
• North Tahoe Public Utility District (NTPUD)
• Squaw Valley Public Service District (SVPSD)
• Alpine Springs County Water District (ASCWD)
• Tahoe City Public Utility District (TCPUD)
Northstar Community Services District (NCSD) is also served by T-TSA facilities through a
contract with TSD for shared use of TSD’s collection system infrastructure in route to the T-
TSA.
Location and Size
The T-TSA headquarters and Water Reclamation Plant (WRP) is located in the Martis Valley,
east of the Town of Truckee, and its service areas covers portions of Nevada County and Placer
County, as well as a small portion of El Dorado County. The Truckee River borders the WRP to
the north and Martis Creek is located east of the facility. The geographic size of each of the
five-member agencies is listed in Table 16-1 and the total encompassed by T-TSA is 58,375
acres.
Formation
The Porter Cologne Act (adopted in 1969) expanded the enforcement authority of the State
Water Resources Control Board and the nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards (including
the Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board, which oversees TTSA). The Act placed a
moratorium on exports of sewage from the Tahoe Basin and required that all non-compliant
treatment facilities be replaced (Placer LAFCO, 2004, pp. 4.2-53). As discussed above, the T-
TSA was formed by a special act of the California Legislature known as the Tahoe-Truckee
Sanitation Agency Act, which became effective in November 1971. This Act created the T-TSA
for the conveyance treatment and disposal of sewage, industrial waste and storm water within
the service area of the agency; prescribing its organization, powers, and duties; and repealed
the North Lake Tahoe-Truckee River Sanitation Agency Act (Chapter 1503 of the Statues of
1967).
Boundary History
The legislation creating T-TSA recognizes two types of annexations; annexation of territory that
has been annexed to a member district and annexation of territory not within a member
district.
Jurisdiction for the first type of annexation is retained by the TTSA, although in that case, the
annexation to TTSA is automatic, and TTSA is only responsible for making the appropriate filings
to complete the action. Annexation of territory not within a member district, such as the
territory of the NCSD, would be subject to Placer County LAFCo’s review because Placer County
is T-TSA’s principal county (Quad Knopff, 2003, pp. 2-2).
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 16, Tahoe Truckee Sanitation Agency 5-3
Truckee
1
T-TSA Water
Nevada County Reclamation Plant
Placer County
2
6
3
Kings Beach
4
5
Tahoe City
6
Legend
1 Truckee Sanitary District (TSD) Tahoe Pines
2 Northstar Community Services District
3 North Tahoe Public Utility District
4 Squaw Valley Public Service District
5 Alpine Springs County Water District
6 Tahoe City Public Utility District
15,500 7,750 0 15,500 Feet
*Note: Northstar Community Services District territory is being
a Scale 1:186,000
1in = 15,500ft
Source: GIS Depot DRGs, Quad Knopf, Inc 2003.
Figure 16-1
Tahoe - Truckee Sanitation Agency (T-TSA)
Nevada County LAFCo
Service Area Eastern County
Wastewater MSR
Drw. By: M.H. Plot Date: 6/24/2003 Job No.: 02524
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
Although a number of annexations have occurred in conjunction with annexations to member
districts in Nevada and Placer Counties, no separate LAFCo actions were required (LAFCo files).
LAFCo approved two annexations: in 1975, the T-TSA annexed the territory of the TSD (Bald
Mountain Annexation); and in 1974, the T-TSA annexed the Alder Hill Annexation. The boundary
for T-TSA is shown in Figure 16-2.
Sphere of Influence
No formal sphere of influence (SOI) for the T-TSA has been formally adopted by Placer LAFCo.
However, the Agency noted that Placer LAFCo has deemed its SOI is the combination of the
spheres of its member entities (T-TSA, 2013a, p. 4).
Extra-territorial Services
NCSD is served by way of a contract with TSD, one of T-TSA’s member entities. NCSD collects
wastewater within its boundaries and transmits raw sewage through a section of the TSD
collection system in route to the T-TSA WRP for treatment. The NCSD maintains a contract with
TSD for use of their transmission lines. Although not directly a member, wastewater from NCSD
is accepted into the T-TSA facilities through its contract with TSD. In 2016, the number of
connections served by NCSD had increased to 138 commercial accounts and 1,789 residential
services (personal communication, T-TSA, 2016).
16.2: ACCOUNTABILITY AND GOVERNANCE
The T-TSA Board includes a representative from each of the five-member agencies listed above.
The legislation provides for a membership of five entities with a total of four votes, with the
TCPUD, TSD, and NTPUD each having one vote, and the ASCWD and SVPSD each having one-half
vote. Of the four votes, two are from within the Tahoe Basin (TCPUD and NTPUD), and the
other two votes are outside the Tahoe Basin (TSD, ASCWD and SVPSD). Membership can only
be granted by an act of the State Legislature.
The T-TSA Board Members are appointed to the Board by the elected Boards of Directors of its
member entities for four-year terms. Board Members receive compensation of $100 per
meeting which typically occurs once per month. The current Board of Directors is listed below:
Board of Directors
Dale Cox Squaw Valley Public Service District 2018-2022
S. Lane Lewis North Tahoe Public Utility District 2016-2020
Jon Northrop Alpine Springs County Water District 2016-2020
Dan Wilkins Tahoe City Public Utility District 2018-2022
Blake Tresan Truckee Sanitary District 2018-2022
The Board meets on the 2nd Wednesday of the month at 9:00 a.m. The meeting location is
the Agency Board Room at 13720 Butterfield Drive, Truckee, CA 96161.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 16, Tahoe Truckee Sanitation Agency 5-5
89
NEVADA CO.
80
TTSA Wastewater
Reclamation Plant
Donner Lake
267
T
r
u
c
k
e
e
R
iv
e
r
28
89
PLACER CO.
89
Lake Tahoe
Hell Hole Reservoir
Rub
ic
o
n
Tahoe Truckee Sanitary Agency R ELDORADO
iv
Northstar Community Service District e r CO.
District Boundaries from Placer County GIS, 0 1 2
Nevada County GIS, and Eldorado County GIS. Miles
Figure 16-2 TAHOE TRUCKEE SANITATION AGENCY
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
The Agency’s operations are led by a General Manager providing daily oversight and
management of staff and resources. The Agency holds regularly scheduled meetings on the
second Wednesday of each month, at 9:00 a.m. Agency staff indicates that all meetings are
held in compliance with the Brown Act and all laws governing public meetings including public
posting of notices and agendas. The Agency and its activities undergo public review procedures,
including financial review by independent auditors. There are sufficient mechanisms in place
to ensure that actions and operating procedures of the District are open and accessible to the
public. The Agency maintains a website at www.ttsa.net where residents can obtain Agency
news, Board meeting agendas, and other information. Customers can send their comments or
complaints to the Agency office by mail, phone, or email. No complaints have been received
in recent years (TTSA, personal communication, 2015).
Member Agencies
Formation and geographic information about each of the 5+1 member agencies are described
in Table 16-1, below. Population data for these five districts (plus NCSD) is provided in Table
16-2 on page 16-10 of this MSR.
Table 16-1: Member Agencies Formation and Geographic Information
Name Year Enabling Legislation Size of Principal Counties
Formed Boundary LAFCo Served
Area in
Acres
Alpine Springs 1963 The County Water 3,779 Placer Placer
County Water District Law: Water
District Code §§ 30000-
33901
North Tahoe 1948 Public Utility District 4,112 Placer Placer
Public Utility Act: Public Utilities
District Code §§ 15501-18055
Squaw Valley 1964 The County Water 5,350 Placer Placer
Public Service District Law: Water
District Code §§ 30000-33901
Tahoe City 1938 The Public Utility 19,840 Placer Placer & El
Public Utility District Act: Public Dorado
District Utilities Code §§ 15501--
18055
Truckee Sanitary 1906 Sanitary District Act 25,294 Nevada Nevada &
District Placer
Non-member
Northstar 1991 The Community Services 1,9001 Placer Placer
Community District Law:
Services District Government Code §§
61000-61934.
Data Source: 2018 MSR on Lake Tahoe and the Martis Valley published by Placer LAFCo
1 In 2014, Placer LAFCo approved Resolution No. 2014-03 regarding the consolidation of water services between
the Northstar CSD and the PCWA Zone 4. However, the area served by sewer service remains at 1,900 acres.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 16, Tahoe Truckee Sanitation Agency 5-7
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
16.3: MANAGEMENT EFFICIENCIES AND STAFFING
The Agency consists of a five-member Board of Directors who oversees the functions of the
General Manager. The General Manager has full charge and control of the maintenance,
operation and construction of the wastewater treatment systems of the Agency, with full power
and authority to employ and discharge all employees and assistants, other than the Secretary
to the Board, Treasurer, Attorney and Auditor, prescribes their duties and fixes their
compensation. The General Manager performs such duties as may be imposed on him or her by
the Board. For example, the General Manager prepares and submits to the Board plans,
programs and budgets required to accomplish the goals and objectives of the Agency; prepares
reports and financial statements and makes recommendations to the Board; responsible for
solution of all problems related to maintenance, operation and construction of the treatment
works; negotiates agreements for service and develops standard ordinances for regulation of
the sewer system; acts as agency’s representative with respect to all services to be provided;
transmits instructions, receives information, interprets and defines Agency policies and
decisions (T-TSA, 2013a, p. 2).
The Agency employs a total of 49 full-time employee equivalents (FTE), 36 of which work in
wastewater service and 13 who work in administration and management. The District has five
departments including maintenance, operations, administration, engineering, and information
technology as shown in Figure 16-3.
Board of
Directors
General
Manager
Information
Maintenance Operations Administration Engineering
Technology
Figure 16-3: T-TSA Organizational Chart
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 16, Tahoe Truckee Sanitation Agency 5-8
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
16.4: POPULATION AND GROWTH
Existing Population
Population characteristics throughout the Truckee-Tahoe Sanitation Agency (T-TSA) service
area are substantially affected by seasonal variations, distinct user groups and the abundance
of second homes. There are seasonal variations in demand for wastewater treatment services,
due to the popularity of skiing and winter recreation in the area. The seasonal day user also
creates a significant portion of peak demand on urban services, including wastewater collection
and treatment. It is beyond the scope of this MSR to project seasonal populations; although we
have provided rough estimates based upon studies that describe and characterize some of the
seasonal population dynamics along with the visitor accommodations. The latter are reflective
in equivalent dwelling unit connections that serve the tourism and hospitality industry.
The population analysis contained in this wastewater municipal service review for T-TSA
reflects the projections for service demand for each of the Agency’s member districts. T-TSA
serves five-member districts as listed below:
1. Tahoe City Public Utility District (TCPUD)
2. North Tahoe Public Utility District (NTPUD)
3. Squaw Valley Public Service District (SVPSD)
4. Alpine Springs County Water District (ASCWD)
5. Truckee Sanitary District (TSD)
In addition to the five districts listed above, wastewater from NCSD is treated at the T-TSA WRP
through an agreement with the TSD. Placer LAFCo analyzed the existing and projected
population in five of the districts (TCPUD, NTPUD, SVPSD, ASCWD, and NCSD) in its recently
approved MSR for eastern Placer County. The population of TSD is analyzed in detail in Chapter
3 of this MSR document. The population in these 5+1 districts, when added together, yields
the population served by T-TSA as of early 2015, as shown in Table 16-2, below. Based on the
data shown in the Table 16-2, it is estimated that as of 2015 T-TSA’s boundaries encompassed
a permanent population of 32,616 persons. The overnight visitor population during peak season
is estimated at 62,811 persons as of the year 2015.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 16, Tahoe Truckee Sanitation Agency 5-9
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
Table 16-2: 2015 Population in 5+1 Districts Served by T-TSA
District Served by T-TSA # of Wastewater Existing Estimated
Connections Permanent Current Peak
Population Visitor
Population2
Alpine Springs County Water 653 191 1,5463
District
North Tahoe Public Utility 5,524 5,4864 11,138
District
Squaw Valley Public Service 1,0735 950 3,5006
District
Tahoe City Public Utility 7,540 8,524 7 17,307
District
Truckee Sanitary District 8 16,8389 17,32910 17,32011
Non-Member
Northstar Community Services 182012 136 12,000
District
Total served by T-TSA 33,448 32,616 62,811
Data Source: Placer LAFCo, 2018 MSR for Lake Tahoe and the Martis Valley
Projected Growth and Development
Projections for future development and hence increased service demands within the Martis
Valley, North Lake, and Highway 89 Corridor areas comprising T-TSA’s service area are based
on information provided in the 1994 Placer County General Plan and related area plans, 1996
Nevada County General Plan, 2003 Martis Valley Community Plan, 2025 Town of Truckee
General Plan, Tahoe Regional Planning Agency documents and other sources. At the time when
the Placer County portion of Martis Valley Community Plan was completed in 2003 and the
2 This column shows the # overnight visitors. (Day-use only visitors are not included.)
3 Overnight visitor population for ASCWD calculated from 653 units x 2.55 persons per household and 89% absentee
owner unit rate. See Placer LAFCo’s 2018 MSR for Lake Tahoe and the Martis Valley Chapter 6 for details.
4 NTPUD has 6,519 housing units with an average of 2.55 persons per household. An estimated 16,623 total peak
population resides within NTPUD boundaries.
See Placer LAFCo’s 2018 MSR for Lake Tahoe and the Martis Valley Chapter 10 for details.
5 Data Source: T-TSA, personal communication. This includes 39 commercial connections. In 2016 the number of
connections at SVPSD is approximately 1,082.
6 Please note that several thousand more visitors could be accommodated in hotel rooms located within the
District. See Placer LAFCo’s 2018 MSR for Lake Tahoe and the Martis Valley Chapter 12 for additional details.
7 See Placer LAFCo’s 2018 MSR for Lake Tahoe and the Martis Valley Chapter 14 for details.
8 Nevada LAFCo is the primary agency over TSD and analysis of TSD is included in Chapter 3 this MSR.
9 See also: TSD website at: http://www.truckeesan.org/home/index.php?site_config_id=109&page
_selection=2331&s_page= . This includes 14,435 residential and 1,876 commercial connections.
10 Calculated from 16211 persons in Town of Truckee per DOF data on website:
<http://www.townoftruckee.com/departments/planning-division/growth-and-development/truckee-population-
and-housing-estimates> plus 1686 persons in Martis Valley per 2010 census.
11 Peak visitor population is based on Chapter 3 of this MSR. Also, please note there are approximately 6692
vacation homes in Truckee plus 1729 vacation homes (not permanently occupied) in Martis Valley * 2.55 persons
per household.
12 2015 data. In 2016, NCSD’s number of connections had grown to 1,831, which includes 1,767 residential
accounts and 64 commercial accounts, per E. Martin, NCSD, Sept. 2016.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 16, Tahoe Truckee Sanitation Agency 5-10
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
Truckee 2025 General Plan was updated in 2006 (and updated in 2009), the area was in a phase
of rapid growth and development, the recent economic downturn was unforeseen and, as a
result, both plans have overestimated growth. It is important to note, however, that planned
capacity for growth still remains. Population, growth and land-use for the Town of Truckee is
described in more detail Chapter 3 of this MSR.
Future population growth within the North Tahoe and Martis Valley region which T-TSA serves
is dependent upon zoning and general plan policies and land-use designations in the region.
Regional population and zoning/general plans are described in detail in Chapter 3 of this MSR.
The Placer County General Plan which is largely applicable to the North Lake Tahoe Basin and
Highway 89 corridor area was adopted in 1994. Each of the major communities in the Lake
Tahoe area is also covered by area or community plans, which are being incorporated into the
Proposed/Review Draft Tahoe Basin Area Plan, June 2015. The Placer County General Plan
serves as an umbrella plan for the five sub-plans (see Table 16-3) including: 2003 Martis Valley
Community Plan; Proposed/Review Draft Tahoe Basin Area Plan; 1983 Squaw Valley General
Plan and Land Use Ordinance; Proposed Draft Village at Squaw Valley Specific Plan; and the
Alpine Meadows General Plan. For the most part (not including Alpine Meadows and Squaw
Valley planning area), the Tahoe Basin is under the oversight planning control of the Tahoe
Regional Planning Agency (TRAPA). The following table provides an overview of the various land
use planning documents applicable to the T-TSA service area and relevant to projections of
future growth in the area.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 16, Tahoe Truckee Sanitation Agency 5-11
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
Table 16-3: Planning Documents
Planning Document Jurisdiction Citation Year Adopted
2025 Truckee General Plan Town of (Truckee, 2006
Truckee 2006).13
Nevada County General Plan Nevada (Nevada County, 1996 (Updated 2014)
(1996 with 2014 Land Use County 1996)14
Element and Housing Element,
5th Revision)
1994 Placer County General Plan Placer County (Placer County, 1994 (Updated 2013)
(as updated May 21, 2013) 1994)15
• 2003 Martis Valley Placer County (Placer County, December 16, 2003
Community Plan16 2003)17
• Tahoe Basin Area Plan and Placer County (Placer County, Adopted by the Placer County
Implementing Regulations 2015)18 Board of Supervisors on
December 6, 2016 and by
TRPA Governing Board on
January 25, 2017
• 1983 Squaw Valley General Placer County (Placer County, 1983
Plan and Land Use Ordinance 1983)
• Proposed Draft Village at Placer County (Squaw Valley Not yet Adopted. Draft on April
Squaw Valley Specific Plan Real Estate, 2016
LLC, 2014)
• Alpine Meadows General Plan Placer County (Placer County, 1968
1968)19
2012 Lake Tahoe Regional Plan TRPA (TRPA, 2012)20 2012
T-TSA Projected EDUs
T-TSA reported the total equivalent dwelling unit connections (EDUS) to the regional waste
water treatment plant from 2003 through 2012 as shown in Table 16-4 (next page). The
projected EDU’s for the years 2017 to 2032 are based upon anticipated future population growth
from the total growth in the 6-member agencies. The economic downturn from 2009 to 2011
may have resulted in pent up demand for development. For example, projected planned growth
associated with the 2025 Town of Truckee General Plan has not occurred on pace with
expectations, as described in Chapter 3 of this MSR document. The same can be said for
Northstar-at-Tahoe, whose growth is expected approach buildout by 2034 (See Northstar CSD
13 Truckee General Plan:
http://laserfiche.townoftruckee.com/Weblink/PDF/uloj2y45db1nasz14f00di45/19/
Town%20of%20Truckee%202025%20General%20Plan.pdf
14 Nevada County General Plan at:
https://www.mynevadacounty.com/nc/cda/planning/Pages/Nevada-County-General-Plan.aspx
15 General Plan on County website at:
http://www.placer.ca.gov/~/media/cdr/Planning/CommPlans/PCGP/PCGP2013.pdf
16 The urban core of Martis Valley is the Town of Truckee. Outlying areas will continue to support and
be supported by the services found within the Town. The Nevada County portion of the 1975 plan area
has not been updated, although the 2025 Town of Truckee General Plan covers their portion of the
Martis Valley.
17 Martis Valley Comm Plan at: <http://www.placer.ca.gov/~/media/cdr/Planning
/CommPlans/MartisValley/ MartisValleyCommPlanDec2003.pdf>
18 http://www.placer.ca.gov/departments/communitydevelopment/planning/tahoebasinareaplan
19 Alpine Meadows GP at: <http://www.placer.ca.gov/~/media/cdr/Planning/CommPlans/NTahoeCPs
/AlpineMeadowsGeneralPlan.pdf>
20 LT Regional Plan, 2012 at: <http://www.trpa.org/regional-plan/>
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 16, Tahoe Truckee Sanitation Agency 5-12
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
MSR). Other resort communities (Tahoe City, Kings Beach, etc.) in the Lake Tahoe Basin are
not expected to achieve a high level of growth. The projections in Table 16-4 reflect a more
modest and conservative increasing growth curve through 2032.
Table 16-4: T-TSA EDU Projections
Projections
2003 2008 2012 2017 2022 2027 2032
EDUs 33,720 37,496 38,918 40,903 43,203 46,541 50,138
Percent change -- 11.1 3.8 5.1 5.6 6.9 7.7
Percent change per
-- 2.2 .76 1.0 1.1 1.4 1.5
year
Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities
Senate Bill (SB) 244, which became effective in January 2012, requires LAFCo to consider the
presence of any Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities (DUCs) when preparing an MSR
that addresses agencies that provide water, wastewater or structural fire protection services.
A DUC is an unincorporated geographic area with 12 or more registered voters with a median
household income of 80 percent or less of the statewide median household income. According
to the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2012-2016 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates,
California’s MHI is $63,783 for the year 2016, which qualifies any community with a MHI less
than $51,026 as a DUC. Within the Agency’s service area in Placer County, the communities of
Kings Beach, Carnelian Bay, and some neighborhoods within Tahoe City meet the states
standard for DUCs of 80 percent of the state median family income. For additional information
on DUCs in Placer County, please refer to the 2018 Placer LAFCo MSR for Lake Tahoe and the
Martis Valley, Chapter 3. No public health and safety issues have been identified.
16.5: FINANCING
This section evaluates the factors affecting the financing of operations and improvements for
T-TSA. Information on Agency financing is derived from audited financial statements for the
Fiscal Year 2011/2012, 2010/2011, 2013/2014, 2014/2015, and 2015/2016 as well as
information provided by Agency staff. These statements represent the financial statements of
the Agency and follow Government Accounting Standards Board (GASB) method of Accrual
accounting which aims to improve financial reporting by state and local governments. GASB 68
specifically requires all public agencies to identify their unfunded pension liabilities. Based on
recent recommendations from the Little Hoover Commission, this determination on the
financial ability to provide services is based upon several key financial performance indicators
that are shown in tables in the following pages.
Disclaimer: The financial information provided in this MSR section was accurate as of its writing
in 2018. However, the District updates its financial information on an annual basis. Therefore,
the financial information in this MSR has been superseded and readers are encouraged to read
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 16, Tahoe Truckee Sanitation Agency 5-13
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
the newer financial statements and budgets published by the District on their website at:
https://www.ttsa.net/ .
In California, special districts are classified as enterprise or non-enterprise districts, based on
their source of revenue:
Enterprise districts: Finance of district operations is via fees for public service. Under
this model, the customers that consume goods or services such as drinking or sewer
water, waste disposal, or electricity, pay a fee. Rates are set by a governing board and
there is a nexus between the costs of providing services and the rates customers pay.
Sometimes enterprise district may also receive property taxes which comprise a portion
of their budget.
Non-enterprise districts: Districts which receive property taxes are typically classified
as non-enterprise districts. Services that indirectly benefit the entire community, such
as flood or fire protection, community centers, and cemetery districts are often funded
through property taxes.
T-TSA is predominantly an enterprise district, since only 17 percent of the revenue is derived
from the property taxes. T-TSA’s multiple sources of revenue are detailed in Figure 16- 4,
below. Budgets are adopted in public meetings on an annual basis.
Financial Policies & Transparency
The Agency prepares and approves an annual budget, along with a five-year capital
improvement plan. Budget status updates are presented to the Board of Directors on a regular
basis. The fiscal year begins on July 1 and ends on June 30. The Agency’s budgets and annual
Financial Statements Supplementary Information and Independent Auditor’s Report for the two
most recent years are available to the public via the District’s website. Older budgets and
annual Financial Statements (AFS’) are available upon request to District staff. A summary of
the 21 significant accounting policies is provided in the Agency’s annual AFS.
One notable policy is the Board-Designated Net Position policy whereby the Agency has
designated a portion of the unrestricted net position for major plan Replacement Reserve in
order to provide funds for future replacement of the treatment plant and equipment. Excess
resources from operations are transferred into the reserve each year. The designated balances
as of June 30,2016 and 2015 were $11,676,353 and $10,618,319, respectively.
Table 16- 5: Summary of T-TSA Financial Policies & Transparency Indicators
Indicator Score Notes
Summary financial information presented √ The annual AFS and budget
in a standard format and simple language. clearly and transparently
present financial information
District has a published policy for reserve √ T-TSA’s policy on Board-
funds, including the size and purpose of Designated Net Position
reserves and how they are invested describes reserve policy.
Other financing policies are clearly √ 21 accounting policies are
articulated listed in the 2016 AFS –
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 16, Tahoe Truckee Sanitation Agency 5-14
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
Compensation reports and financial 0 Insufficient data. Consultants
transaction reports that are required to be did not find compensation
submitted to the State Controller's Office reports on T-TSA’s website.
are posted to the district website
Key to score:
√= Above average (compared to similar sewer districts)
∆= Average
0= Below average
Revenues and Expenses
T-TSA has two basic types of revenue:
Operating revenues consist primarily of charges for services.
Non-operating revenues and expenses are related to financing and investing type
activities.
Specific sources of revenue for T-TSA include service charges, other charges, property taxes,
interest earned, in-lieu taxes, aid agencies, other income, and contributions & fees. The
largest source of revenue is service charges paid by T-TSA customers directly for wastewater
treatment and disposal service. Businesses and homeowners pay a sewer fee to their local
collection District and pay a fee directly to T-TSA (bi-annually) for sewage treatment. When a
new building is constructed, connection fees are paid to both the local collection district and
to T-TSA to support the collection, conveyance, and treatment infrastructure. In a sense,
customers pay a portion of the sewer costs to two agencies, rather than paying one agency a
larger amount for all sewer service. The Agency also relies on property tax revenue, classified
as non-operating revenue, to fund 17 percent of its general and administrative operating
expenses. T-TSA also relies on connection fee income for funding capital improvements and
expansion projects. Service charges cover the cost of maintenance and operations.
The annual
Financial
Figure 16-4: Sources of Revenue
Statement and
FY 15/16
Independent
Auditor’s Report 0% 0%
1%
for fiscal years
1% 9%
ending June 30,
Service Charges
2012 and 2011
Other charges
determined that
the Agency 17% Property Taxes
demonstrated a Interest Earned
favorable In-Lieu Taxes
variance in 1% Aid Agencies
71%
service charge Other Income
revenue and Contributions & Fees
property tax
revenue meaning
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 16, Tahoe Truckee Sanitation Agency 5-15
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
that these revenues were higher than expected. The favorable variance in property tax revenue
is due to a conservative approach to budget estimates in the uncertain climate of California
property tax allocation. Specifically, in FY 11/12, the actual Operations and Maintenance and
Administrative and General Expenses were less than the budgeted amount because of a
combination of vacant employee positions; experiencing some long unpaid employee absences
due to injury or illness; obtaining competitive bids for maintenance and operations projects
that were less than anticipated; postponing some capital projects that were budgeted into the
following budget year; and receiving more favorable utility rates than were projected by the
utility company at the time the budget was prepared as shown in Table 16-6, below (Damore,
Hamric & Schneider, Inc., 2012, p. 8). For both of these fiscal years, operating expenditures
exceeded revenues.
Table 16-6: Statement of Revenues, Expenses and Changes in Net Assets,
fiscal years 2011/2012 and 2010/2011 (Actual Audited)
Fiscal Year
2010/2011 2011/2012
Revenues
Property Taxes $2,212,915 $2,177,609
Service Charges 11,934,529 12,067,555
Other Services 331,936 300,661
Connection Fees 906,450 1,403,875
Interest Earned 241,866 185,732
In-Lieu Taxes 386,689 395,110
Aid from other Governmental
23,754 24,001
Agencies
Other Income 300 375
Total Revenues $16,038,439 $16,554,918
Expenditures
Operations & Maintenance $11,842,309 $11,649,682
Administrative & General 1,188,341 1,271,706
Interest Expense 1,166,078 1,111,961
Depreciation 3,001,788 3,022,715
Total Expenditures $17,198,516 $17,056,064
Change in Net Position $(1,160,077) $(501,146)
Beginning Net Position 98,964,330 97,804,253
Ending Net Position $97,804,253 $97,303,107
Source: T-TSA Independent Auditor’s Report, June 30, 2012 and 2011; pg. 11.
Revenue for FY 15/16 was over $17 million. Data on the sources of revenue for FY 13/14, 14/15
and 15/16 is shown in Table 16-7 (next page).
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 16, Tahoe Truckee Sanitation Agency 5-16
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
Table 16-7: Statements of Revenues, Expenses and Changes in Net Position for
Fiscal Years Ended June 30, 2014, 2015, and 2016 (Actual Audited)
Fiscal Years
Revenues 2013/2014 FY 2014/2015 FY 2015/2016
Property Taxes $2,324,977 $2,497,457 $2,935,461
Service Charges $12,189,791 $12,247,486 $12,328,555
Other services $237,046 $67,177 $147,705
Connection Fees $1,639,117 $1,791,569 $1,567,620
Interest Earned $120,047 $128,960 $217,742
In-Lieu Taxes $418,489 $229,168 $228,271
Aid from other Governmental
Agencies $26,120 $24,083 $25,851
Other Income $48,193 $46,135 $60,150
Total Revenue $17,003,780 $17,032,035 $17,511,355
Expenditures
Operations & Maintenance $10,042,129 $9,795,687 $11,849,464
Administrative & General $1,455,547 $1,470,909 $1,639,732
Interest Expense $999,470 $941,021 $881,052
Depreciation $3,002,702 $3,004,800 $2,965,086
Total Operating Expenses $14,500,378 $15,212,417 $17,335,334
Change in Net Position $1,503,932 -$1,819,618 $176,021
Prior Period Adjustment per
Implementation of GASB 68 $10,455,626
Beginning of Year after
Restatement - Net Position $98,222,286 $89,270,592 $91,090,210
End of Year Net Position $99,726,218 $91,090,210 $91,266,231
Expenses
In 2016, T-TSA expended $17 million to run the wastewater operation and this was the highest
level of expenditure obtained within the five-year study period as shown In Tables 16-6 and 16-
7, above. This increase was due to the increases in expense categories called Operations &
Maintenance and Administrative & General. Overall, District funds are expended to support
the Agency’s service operations & maintenance, administrative & general expenses, interest
expense, and depreciation costs.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 16, Tahoe Truckee Sanitation Agency 5-17
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
A comparison of
annual total revenue
to total expenses, as
provided in Figure 16-
5 below, shows that
annual expenses
exceeded revenues in
$14,000,000
only of the two of the
five years studied $12,000,000
(i.e. 10/11 and
$10,000,000
11/12). Expenses
$8,000,000
associated with
capital improvement $6,000,000
projects contributed
$4,000,000
to the expenditure
$2,000,000
totals during these
years and $0
contributions from 10/11 11/12 13/14 14/15 15/16
the capital fund,
dedicated connection fees and other funds were used to offset the difference. Capital
improvement projects are described on page 16-23. Having sufficient reserve funds is important
to T-TSA to help it fund capital improvement projects and to help it weather the economically
lean years. Per connection expenditures amounted to $611 per sewer connection, on average,
in 2016. Per acre expenditures averaged to $297 per acre in 2016. Table 16-8 below shows the
summary scores revenues, expenditures, and net position.
Table 16-8: Summary of Indicators Revenues, Expenditures, and Net Position
Indicator Score Notes
Revenues exceed expenditures ∆ Total revenue was more than the operating
in 50% of studied fiscal years expenditures in three of the five study years. Capital
contributions were used to offset the difference. It is
recognized that capital improvement projects are
expensive and necessary. Many wastewater districts in
California are in a similar situation.
Increases or decreases in net ∆ Changes to the Net Position are shown in Tables 16-6
position and 16-7 above, to be highly variable. However, the
decline in Net Position of -$1.8 million in FY2015 was
predominately due to Period Adjustment per
Implementation of GASB 68 as described21 in the Notes
of T-TSA’s AFS 2016. This situation is typical of many
wastewater districts in California.
Key to score:
√= Above average (compared to similar sewer districts)
∆= Average
0= Below average
21 GASB 68 requires all public agencies to identify their unfunded pension liabilities. See also page 5-16
for additional information on GASB.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 16, Tahoe Truckee Sanitation Agency 5-18
$
SU
Figure 16- 5 : Comparison of Revenue to
Expenditure
s
$20,000,000
$18,000,000
$16,000,000
Total Revenue
Total Operating
Expenses
Fiscal Year
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
Agency/District Assets and Liabilities
Table 16-9 summarizes activities leading to a decrease of net assets by one percent. The 12
percent increase for the category “Restricted for State Loan” in FY 11/12 was the result of
compliance with the State Water Resources Control Board loan agreement, which required T-
TSA to increase the balance in the State Revolving Fund Wastewater Capital Reserve account
annually by 0.5 percent of the original $53,154,954 loan amount (Damore, Hamric & Schneider,
Inc., 2012, p. 6).
Table 16-9: Statement of Net Assets, FY 11/12 and 10/11
Fiscal Year Ending Percent
Assets and Liabilities June 30, 2012 June 30, 2011 change
Assets
Current Assets $ 17,820,382 $17,140,997 4%
Restricted Assets 28,164,354 29,378,973 -4%
Capital Assets 95,608,761 97,774,417 -2%
Total Assets $141,593,497 $144,294,387 -2%
Liabilities
Current Liabilities -4%
Unrestricted $1,488,215 $1,557,403
Current Liabilities Restricted 2,887,888 2,864,715 1%
Long Term Liabilities 39,914,287 42,068,016 -5%
Total Liabilities $44,290,390 $46,490,134 -5%
Net Assets
Investment in Capital Assets $53,540,745 $53,607,250 0%
Restricted for Wastewater -6%
Capital Reserve $24,830,372 $26,288,557
Restricted for State Loan 2,599,823 2,324,852 12%
Unrestricted 16,332,167 15,583,594 5%
Total Net Assets $97,303,107 $97,804,253 -1%
Source: T-TSA Independent Auditor’s Report, June 30, 2012 and 2011; pg. 6.
T-TSA ended the 2016 fiscal year with $91 million in total net assets as shown in Table 16-10,
below. This is a decrease of approximately $6 million in net assets from fiscal year 2012.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 16, Tahoe Truckee Sanitation Agency 5-19
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
Table 16-10: Statement of Net Assets, FY 15/16 and 14/15
Fiscal Year Ending
Assets and Liabilities Percent
6/30/2016 6/30/2015 Change
Assets
Current Assets $25,196,248 $22,479,430 12%
Restricted Assets $24,827,832 $25,780,294 -4%
Net Capital Assets $88,472,281 $90,744,098 -3%
Deferred Pension Outflows
(Note 7) $587,605 $599,448 -2%
Total Assets $139,083,966 $139,603,270 0%
Liabilities
Current Liabilities
Unrestricted $1,464,477 $1,542,693 -5%
Current Liabilities Restricted $2,985,583 $2,941,244 2%
Long Term Liabilities $41,402,669 $41,283,029 0%
Deferred Pension Inflows
(Note 7) $1,965,006 $2,746,094 -28%
Total Liabilities $47,817,735 $48,513,060 -1%
Net Assets
Net Investment in Capital
Assets $55,361,024 $55,306,716 0%
Restricted for Wastewater
Capital Reserve $21,330,508 $21,746,415 -2%
Restricted for State Loan $2,898,346 $3,418,760 -15%
Unrestricted $11,676,353 $10,618,319 10%
Total Net Assets $91,266,231 $91,090,210 0%
Long Term Debt and Investments
The T-TSA entered into a State Revolving Fund (SRF) loan with the California State Water
Resources Control Board on February 24, 2004 to provide financing for the plant capacity
expansion. Over the course of the project, the Agency borrowed $50.1 million, which it will
repay over 20 years at an annual payment of approximately $3.2 million (Damore, Hamric &
Schneider, Inc., 2012, p. 5). The SRF loan the Agency received has a fixed 2.6 percent rate,
which consists of 1.6 percent in interest and a 1 percent service charge (Damore, Hamric &
Schneider, Inc., 2012, p. 8). The Agency had debt of $33,111,257 and $35,437,382 as of June
30, 2016 and 2015 respectively. The current (2016) portion of this long-term debt ($3 million)
is listed correctly as a liability (T-TSA, 2017).
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 16, Tahoe Truckee Sanitation Agency 5-20
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
Capital Improvement Plan, Asset Maintenance and Replacement
The T-TSA reviews capital improvement needs annually and it projects improvements needed
over a 5-year time frame. In 2012, the Agency’s Upgrade and Rehab Fund identified a total of
$9,210,917 in maintenance and update projects. For FY 2013/2014, the Agency proposed
improvements and repairs in the amount of $1,822,755 for rehabilitation projects and
$2,915,257 in capital outlay projects (T-TSA, 2013b). As of 2016, the Agency had $21 million
in its restricted waste water capital reserve fund with which to make capital improvements (T-
TSA, 2017a).
Rate Restructuring
The Independent Auditors Report determined that the T-TSA sets adequate levels of rates and
charges which have resulted in the Agency’s ability to operate and maintain the plant and to
service the debt requirements of the State of California State Revolving Fund Loan for the
portions of the Expansion Project, which benefit current users (Damore, Hamric & Schneider,
Inc., 2012, p. 8) and (T-TSA, 2017a). At their January 2018 meeting, the T-TSA Board agree to
fund a connection fee study to assess current fees and connection classifications. The study
will be prepared by HDR Engineering Consultants at a cost of $19,975.
Table 16-11: Summary of Rate Indicators
TSD Rate Indicator Score Notes
Rates were adopted by the Board of 0 Insufficient Data
Directors
Rates are consistent with requirements of 0 Insufficient Data
the State Water Resources Control Board
and the process for adopting rates are
consistent with Proposition 218
Rates are readily available to constituents 0 Insufficient Data
Key to score:
√= Above average (compared to similar sewer districts)
∆= Average
0= Below average
Cost Avoidance
The T-TSA routinely seeks ways in which to reduce overhead and operational costs. T-TSA has
reduced staffing through reorganization of duties as employees have retired and some vacancies
have not been filled. Plant operations have been automated through use of Programmable
Logic Controllers (PLCs) and SCADA programming. Additionally, some plant processes have been
changed to lower the demand for purchase of chemicals. T-TSA also takes advantage of pooled
insurance as a cost savings measure and is a member of the California Sanitation Risk
Management Authority for insurance and workers’ compensation coverage (T-TSA, 2013a, pp.
4, 12).
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 16, Tahoe Truckee Sanitation Agency 5-21
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
Contract Services
The T-TSA utilizes a competitive bid process for projects.
Technology/Management
T-TSA utilizes industry standard technologies and constantly evaluates technological
advancements and operation improvements available in the industry (T-TSA, 2013a, p. 11).
16.6: OPPORTUNITIES FOR SHARED FACILITIES
Shared Facilities & Regional Cooperation
LAFCos describe shared facilities and regional cooperation in municipal service reviews because
it is thought that a local government agency’s ability to partner with another entity, public or
private, in order to accomplish the same level of public service, while splitting the costs to
deliver the service will provide an efficiency of service. Ideally, a sharing or cooperative
arrangement would yield the same public service at less cost, and with less resources required
from a community to pay for those results. Another aim of LAFCo is to avoid the duplication of
service. T-TSA’s activities related to shared facilities and regional cooperation are described in
the following paragraphs.
The relationship between T-TSA and its five-member agencies (plus Northstar CSD) represents
a high level of regional cooperation. This functioning relationship demonstrates T-TSA’s ability
to partner with its member agencies in order to accomplish a high level of public service, while
splitting the costs to deliver the wastewater treatment and disposal service. The partnership
yields efficiency of service, providing public service on a regional basis at less cost, compared
to what would be needed if each of the five-member agencies operated their own separate
treatment plant. The existing agreements avoid a duplication of service.
The 2013 Sphere of Influence Update for the Truckee Sanitary District acknowledged that
opportunities to share wastewater infrastructure between TSD and T-TSA are limited due to
the distinct functions of the District and the Agency. However, it recommended that the T-
TSA and its member agencies explore opportunities to share personnel, facilities, and other
cost-sharing arrangements including sharing corporation yards, specialized equipment, and
office space. This recommendation from the 2013 SOI Update remains relevant.
T-TSA participates in the Tahoe Truckee Area Emergency Contingency Plan, which provides a
framework for assistance to all public utility, improvement and county water districts within
the Tahoe-Truckee area in times of emergency or natural disasters affecting the services
provided (T-TSA, 2013a, p. 4).
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 16, Tahoe Truckee Sanitation Agency 5-22
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
T-TSA along with several of its member agencies have formed a Joint Powers Authority through
a Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement, which is known as the California Sanitation Risk
Management Authority. The Authority is organized under Government Code Section 6500 as a
separate and distinct public entity and is governed by a Board comprised of one member
appointed by the governing body of each party to the agreement. The governing board appoints
its own management and approves its own budget (T-TSA, 2017). This authority helps
participants to share the cost of risk management.
Effective January 1, 2017, Government Code §6503.6 and §6503.8 require LAFCo to be a
repository for all Joint Powers Authority Agreements (JPA) within a county for the purpose of
providing municipal services.
16.7: WASTEWATER SERVICES
Service Overview
T-TSA provides regional wastewater conveyance, treatment and disposal services within its
service area. Approximately 20 percent of the Agency’s services are to commercial customers;
there are currently no industrial customers. Over 2,000 residences located within the service
area are believed to not be currently connected to TTSA facilities (DWR, 2016).
T-TSA’s WRP is subject to permits issued by the Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board
(Lahontan RWQCB). A Waste Discharge Requirements (WDR) Order No. R6T-2002-0030, signed
April 9, 2002, allows the effluent from the plant to be disposed of in a subsurface effluent
disposal field.
The Lahontan RWQCB specifies waste discharge requirements and regulates the waste
discharged into the leach field and the Truckee River. The Lahontan RWQCB also has effluent
requirements for the plant.
Conveyance
T-TSA provides regional conveyance of wastewater in the Tahoe region and owns and maintains
the Truckee River Interceptor (TRI), a main trunk line for raw sewage conveyance (Figure 16-
6, TRI Map). The 19-mile long TRI pipeline runs along the Truckee River corridor between Tahoe
City and the Water Reclamation Plan (WRP) in Truckee. The interceptor flows exclusively by
gravity and varies in size from 24-42 inches in diameter. The TRI conveys all of the untreated,
raw sewage collected from the northern and western shores of Lake Tahoe, as well as from the
communities at Alpine Meadows and Squaw Valley. Collection within the member districts is
handled by the respective districts. Additionally, as previously described, NCSD is also served
by the T-TSA via conveyance (?) agreement between the NSCD and TSD (Placer County, 2013,
pp. 14-18).
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 16, Tahoe Truckee Sanitation Agency 5-23
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
The T-TSA’s 2009/2013. Sewer System Management Plan details the Agency’s maintenance and
inspection protocols for its conveyance infrastructure, including the TRI. Close-circuit
television (CCTV) or digital scanning inspection work is performed on each reach of the TRI at
a frequency of at least every four years. Findings from CCTV or digital scanning inspection work
may indicate that root intrusion, sediment accumulation, corrosion, or other defects have
occurred on a particular reach. Additionally, annual field inspections at manhole sites occur in
the spring and fall of each year. For the spring inspections, the goal is to determine whether
the sites are accessible and whether erosion or landslides are potentially affecting the integrity
of the pipeline (T-TSA, 2009/2013, pp. 4-2).
In general, the TRI is considered to be in relatively good condition based on findings from
inspections and its age. CCTV or digital scanning inspection activities performed to date have
revealed that, overall, the system has had very few problems. In addition, compared to many
other systems throughout the country, the TRI is considered a relatively young sewage system,
with the bulk of the piping installed in the late 1970s (T-TSA, 2009/2013, pp. 4-3). The most
significant project after the initial construction activities was the installation of a parallel TRI
pipeline from the emergency storage ponds to the treatment facility (T-TSA, 2009/2013, pp. 5-
1).
Treatment System
The WRP provides tertiary level treatment, which consists of influent screening, grit removal,
primary sedimentation, pure oxygen activated sludge, biological phosphorus removal, chemical
treatment, mixed media filtration, biological nutrient removal, ion exchange ammonia
removal, and final chlorination. Organic sludge is digested anaerobically, dewatered and
transported to a landfill or used as a solid amendment. The T-TSA completed its wastewater
treatment facility expansion in 2008, which increased capacity sufficiently to serve the region
through 2025 (Nevada LAFCo, 2013, p. 4). The resultant expansion project was designed to
increase overall plant capacity to 9.6 MGD. The primary and secondary treatment processes
were expanded and a biological nitrogen removal (BNR) system was constructed to replace an
existing physical-chemical process. In addition, a new method of dewatering biosolids was
implemented. The facility was formally commissioned in 2008 at a total program cost of nearly
$75 million, with a constructed value of $54 million.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 16, Tahoe Truckee Sanitation Agency 5-24
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
Waste activated sludge is pumped to
an organic sludge thickener for
thickening before being fed to the
anaerobic digesters. The digesters
serve to stabilize the material for
dewatering and disposal. Methane
gas, a byproduct of the digester
process, is drawn off and stored to
supply a series of boilers which
furnish facility and process heat.
Once stabilized, the sludge is put
through centrifuges for dewatering.
The dewatered solids are then
discharged to a conveyor system for
Aerial photo of T-TSA Wastewater Reclamation Plant
transfer to storage hoppers. Both
inorganic and organic sludges are generated at the water reclamation plant. Inorganic sludges
are hauled to the Lockwood Landfill, east of Reno/Sparks. Organic sludges are hauled to
agricultural operations in Nevada for use as a soil amendment (T-TSA, pp. 18-19).
The daily average treatment plant influent flow for October 2017 was 3.18 MG. The maximum
instantaneous flow rate was 5.49 MG (T-TSA, 2017b). Although the plant expansion was
originally sized to meet demand through 2015, due to the slower than expected rate of
population growth, those projections have been extended to 2020 or 2025 depending on actual
growth. The Agency indicated that the plant capacity available is expected to meet the needs
of its members, including any annexations to the member districts and T-TSA during that
timeframe.
Disposal
Effluent is disposed of in a subsurface effluent disposal field; solids are hauled to the Lockwood
Facility and Bently Farm in Nevada (T-TSA, 2013a, p. 6). The Agency utilizes a soil aquifer
treatment system, with an underground disposal system which allows plant effluent to
percolate into the permeable glacial outwash soil in Martis Valley (T-TSA Brochure, p. 6). The
discharge field is located about 1/3 mi. southwest of the wastewater treatment facilities. This
disposal practice departs from the typical practice of discharging plant effluents directly into
receiving water bodies. Instead, the facility discharges to the Martis Valley Groundwater Basin,
which eventually migrates toward the Truckee River and Martis Creek, both of which are within
a half mile of the disposal site (Lahontan RWQCB, 2002, p. 4). High rate subsurface effluent
disposal is possible because of the highly permeable glacial outwash materials that overlay the
older, much less permeable materials of the Truckee Formation. The disposal system consists
of 78,000 feet of underground perforated piping (T-TSA, p. 3).
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 16, Tahoe Truckee Sanitation Agency 5-25
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
Wastewater that is applied to land within the Martis Valley does contribute to groundwater
recharge of the Martis Valley basin, up to 9.6 million gallons per day (mgd) 7-day average (Quad
Knopf, Inc. 2003). The disposal system includes approximately 78,000 feet of underground
perforated piping (T-TSA webpage, 2018).
Capacity
T-TSA served approximately 28,361 connections in 2014- 2015. This increased to 28,655
connections in the year 2016. The plant has a treatment capacity of 9.6 million gallons per day
(mgd) for a maximum of a week, or 8.3 mgd for a maximum of a month. The average annual
flow volume is 4.0 mgd22. Peak instantaneous flow capacity is 15.4 mgd (T-TSA 2012 Brochure,
p. 7). The Agency anticipates that future demand for services will increase at a rate of
approximately one percent per year (T-TSA, 2013a, p. 7).
Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies
Future improvement needs have been identified to address future capacity deficiencies along
the TRI, which runs directly adjacent to the environmentally-sensitive Truckee River. These
improvements were identified in the planning and environmental review phases of the most
recent plant expansion project, but were characterized as Phase II work to be completed in the
future. The proposed improvements would reduce the likelihood of accidental releases of raw
sewage into the Truckee River during extreme flow events, floods, environmental catastrophes,
and other types of emergencies. Additional information is provided in the Capital Improvement
Plan section of this MSR.
22 Peak flow in 2012 was 8.67 mgd (T-TSA, 2013a).
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 16, Tahoe Truckee Sanitation Agency 5-26
Source:NevadaCounty,QuadKnopf,Inc2003.
Figure 16-6
Wastewater Collection NevadaCountyLAFCo
EasternCounty
WastewaterMSR
Drw.By:M.H. PlotDate:7/01/2003 JobNo.:02524
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
Water Quality Database Reports
Overview
This section provides the results of database searches on water quality for the T-TSA.
Compliance of wastewater agencies with water quality regulations promulgated by the State
Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) and the Lahontan Regional Water Quality
Control Board (Regional Water Board) is important to LAFCo. Although T-TSA applies the treated
wastewater to dry land, the watershed is dynamic and there is a remote possibility that
constituents could reach underground or above ground aquatic systems; hence the need for a
permit.
California Integrated Water Quality System Project
The California Integrated Water Quality System23 (CIWQS) is a relational database used by the
State and Regional Water Boards to track information about permit violations and enforcement
activities. T-TSA has permits from the Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board and is
therefore classified as a “Permittee.” Permittees are allowed to self-report their own permit
violations to the CIWQS. A four-year term from January 1, 2013 to December 31, 2017, was
queried in the CIWQS database. The results of the database query show that T-TSA had one
recorded regular water quality violation/enforcement actions during this timeframe. The
minor violation occurred in October 2017 when the pH level in groundwater near T-TSA’s
disposal field had a low pH. Specifically, the groundwater in monitoring well #31 on October
25, 2017 had a pH of 6.4 and the requirement is to have a pH between a range of 6.5-8.5. The
discharge from the plant was in the acceptable range. Corrective measures were immediately
taken and this situation is now resolved (WRCB, 2017a).
Sanitary Sewer Overflow Database
The State Water Board maintains a database of Sanitary Sewer Overflows (SSO) from
public/permitted systems and private lateral sewage discharges. This database is a specific
module in the CIWQS. The State Water Board formalized the Statewide General Waste
Discharge Requirements for Sanitary Sewer Systems, Water Quality Order No. 2006-0003 (SSS
WDRs), on May 2, 2006. All public agencies that own or operate a sanitary sewer system that is
comprised of more than one mile of sewer pipes which convey wastewater to a publicly owned
treatment facility must be covered under the SSS Waste Discharge Requirements. The SSS Waste
Discharge Requirements requires enrollees, among other things, to maintain compliance with
the Monitoring and Reporting Program. A four-year term from January 1, 2013 to December 31,
2017, was queried in the CIWQS-SSO database. The results of the database queries regarding T-
TSA show that no sanitary overflow events were reported. The database also shows that the
state conducts annual inspections of T-TSA facilities. T-TSA passed each inspection; however,
one inspection did require a follow-up in 2007 (WRCB, 2017b).
23 CIWQS website is at: https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/ciwqs/
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 16, Tahoe Truckee Sanitation Agency 5-28
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
16.8: CHALLENGES
No challenges were identified by the T-TSA during the preparation of the 2018 Placer LAFCo
MSR for Lake Tahoe and the Martis Valley. However, in general wastewater dischargers are
challenged by continuously restrictive discharge requirements imposed by the State RWQCB to
protect water quality. Because the T-TSA WRP was recently upgraded, it is current with its
discharge permit requirements.
16.9: SERVICE ADEQUACY
The Agency provides excellent public service to its member districts. The Agency has received
two honors in recent years: the California Water Environment Association Sierra Section Plant
of the Year Award for 5-20 mgd Plant and the California Sanitation Risk Management Authority
Workers’ Compensation Excellence Award in the Large Agency Category for 2010-2011 and 2011-
2012 (T-TSA, 2013a).
16.10: Determinations
Based on the information included in this report, the following written determinations make
statements involving the service factors the Commission must consider as part of a municipal
service review. The Commission’s final MSR determinations will be part of a Resolution which
the Commission formally adopts during a public meeting.
Population and Growth
1. The Tahoe Truckee Sanitation Agency (T-TSA) served a permanent residential population
of 32,616 persons as of 2014-2015. The estimated peak population served was 95,472
persons (this includes the 32,616 permanent residents plus a visitor population of 62,811
persons.)
2. The growth rate within the Agency service area is approximately two percent in the
Truckee and Squaw Valley areas and less than one percent in the North Tahoe special
district areas.
3. While there is planned growth that has been a part of the various planning programs for
many years, there are no projections, projects or plan updates on the horizon that would
suggest that growth will exceed those levels reflected in the respective lead agency
planning documents.
Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities
4. Within the Agency’s Placer County service area (NTPUD and TCPUD), the communities
of Kings Beach, Carnelian Bay, and some neighborhoods within Tahoe City meet the
states standard for DUCs of 80 percent of the state median family income based on data
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 16, Tahoe Truckee Sanitation Agency 5-29
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
from the US Census. All DUC areas receive adequate water, wastewater, and fire
protection services. No public health and safety issues have been identified.
Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities
5. The wastewater treatment plant has a treatment capacity of 9.6 million gallons per day
(mgd) for a maximum of a week, or 8.3 mgd for a maximum of a month. The average
annual flow volume is 4.0 mgd. Peak instantaneous flow capacity is 15.4 mgd (T-TSA
2012 Brochure, p. 7). The Agency anticipates that future demand for services will
increase at a rate of approximately one percent per year.
6. According to current projections, the T-TSA has adequate capacity to serve its member
districts. Analysis for pending development projects will assess the need for additional
facility and infrastructure that may be required to support added demand.
Financial Ability of Agency/District to Provide Services
7. The Agency has sufficient financing mechanisms in place to ensure short- and long-term
provision of services within its current service area.
8. T-TSA’s s annual AFS and budget clearly and transparently presents financial
information. T-TSA’s policy on Board-Designated Net Position describes its reserve
policy. T-TSA identifies 21 accounting policies in its 2016 AFS.
9. Compensation reports and financial transaction reports should be posted T-TSA’s
website so they can be readily accessible by the general public.
10. The Agency’s total revenue was more than the operating expenditures in two of the five
study years (FYE 2011 and FYE 2012). The difference between revenues and
expenditures can be attributed to capital contributions used for projects. It is
recognized that capital improvement projects are expensive and necessary. Many
wastewater districts in California are in a similar situation.
11. Over the past several years, changes to the District’s Net Position have been highly
variable. The decline in Net Position of -$1.8 million in FY2015 was predominately due
to Period Adjustment per Implementation of GASB 68 as described in the Notes of T-
TSA’s AFS 2016. This situation is typical of many wastewater districts in California.
Status and Opportunities for Shared Facilities
12. The T-TSA is a shared regional facility that transmits and treats raw sewage from special
districts within the North Tahoe and Truckee region.
13. The 2013 Sphere of Influence Update for the Truckee Sanitary District acknowledged
that opportunities to share wastewater infrastructure between TSD and T-TSA are
limited due to the distinct functions of the District and the Agency. However, it
recommended that the T-TSA and its member agencies explore opportunities to share
personnel, facilities, and other cost-sharing arrangements including sharing corporation
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 16, Tahoe Truckee Sanitation Agency 5-30
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
yards, specialized equipment, and office space. This recommendation from the 2013
SOI Update remains relevant.
14. T-TSA along with several of its member agencies have formed a Joint Powers Authority
through a Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement, which is known as the California
Sanitation Risk Management Authority. The Authority is organized under Government
Code Section 6500 as a separate and distinct public entity and is governed by a Board
comprised of one member appointed by the governing body of each party to the
agreement. The governing board appoints its own management and approves its own
budget (T-TSA, 2017). This authority helps participants to share the cost of risk
management.
15. No other opportunities for shared facilities were identified by the Agency or during the
preparation of this MSR.
Accountability for Community Service Needs, Including
Governmental Structure and Operation Efficiencies.
16. An appointed five-member Board oversees the management of the Agency’s resources.
T-TSA meets its statutory financial reporting requirements that ensure its operations
are conducted in an open and transparent manner. T-TSA meets its fiscal accountability
requirement to its customers through budgetary and financial reporting. The Agency
provides public notice of meetings, and posts agendas online as well as by email upon
request.
17. A General Manager oversees the Agency administration and operations under the
direction of the appointed Board. The Board and management work together in the
identification of goals and issues and assignment of staff as appropriate for each type
of service provided.
18. No formal sphere of influence (SOI) for the T-TSA has ever been adopted by Placer
LAFCO, which is the principal county LAFCO. However, the Agency noted that Placer
LAFCO has deemed its SOI is the combination of the spheres of its member entities.
Placer LAFCO should consider formally adopting an SOI for the Agency or periodically
review its informal SOI for adequacy.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 16, Tahoe Truckee Sanitation Agency 5-31
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
16.11: References
California Department of Water Resources (DWR). 2016. Annual Inventory of Water Use Lake
Tahoe & Truckee River Basins Calendar Year 2016. 62-pages. Retrieved from
<http://troa.net/reports/troa_annual_reports/2016/reports/California%202016%20An
nual%20Inventory%20of%20Water%20Use%20-%20Tahoe-Truckee%20Basins.pdf >.
California Department of Water Resources (DWR). 2018. Web page entitled Disadvantage
Communities Mapping Tool. Retrieved from <https://gis.water.ca.gov/app/dacs/> on
January 15, 2018.
California, State of. Water Resources Control Board (WRCB). Facility At-A-Glance Report from
the California Integrated Water Quality System. Database downloaded on December
20, 2017. Available on-line at:
<https://ciwqs.waterboards.ca.gov/ciwqs/readOnly/CiwqsReportServlet?inCommand=
drilldown&reportName=facilityAtAGlance&placeID=262840&reportID=2930471 >.
California, State of. Water Resources Control Board (WRCB). Operational Report from the
California Integrated Water Quality System - SSO module. Database downloaded on
December 10, 2017. Available on-line at:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/ciwqs/chc_sso.shtml .
Damore, Hamric & Schneider, Inc. 2012. T-TSA Independent Auditor's Report FY 2011/2012 and
2010/2011.
Dean Runyan Associates, 2009. Placer County Travel Industry Assessment and Detailed
Economic Impact Estimates, 2002-2008. March 2009.
Lahontan RWQCB. 2002. Revised Waste Discharge Requirements Board Order No. R6T-2002-
0030.
Nevada County. 1996. Nevada County General Plan 1995. Approved in 1996, updated in 2008,
2010, and 2014. Retrieved April 2, 2015, from Nevada County
<https://www.mynevadacounty.com/nc/cda/planning/Pages/Nevada-County-General-
Plan.aspx>.
Nevada LAFCo. November 26, 2003. Final Eastern Nevada County Wastewater Municipal Service
Review . Prepared by Quad Knopff. Retrieved March 17, 2014, from Nevada County
LAFCo: <https://secure.mynevadacounty.com/nc/lafco/docs
/LAFCo%20Municipal%20Service%20Reviews/Completed%20MSRs/2003%20Eastern%20Ne
vada%20County%20Wastewater%20MSR.pdf>.
Nevada LAFCo. March 21, 2013a. Sphere of Influence Update Truckee Sanitary District.
Prepared by Michael Brandman and Associates. Retrieved January 21, 2014, from
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 16, Tahoe Truckee Sanitation Agency 5-32
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
Nevada County LAFCo: <http://www.mynevadacounty.com/nc/lafco/
docs/LAFCo%20Sphere%20Plans%20and%20Related%20Materials/DRAFT%20SPHERE%20P
LAN%20UPDATES/TSD-Material%20for%20Website/TSD-Final%20Documents/TSD
%20SOI%20Adopted%20May%202013.pdf>.
Nevada LAFCo. 2013b, February. Sphere of Influence Update Truckee Sanitary District Draft
EIR. Prepared by PMC. Retrieved January 18, 2014, from Nevada LAFCo:
<http://www.mynevadacounty.com/nc/lafco/docs/LAFCo%20Sphere%20Plans%20and%
20Related%20Materials/DRAFT%20SPHERE%20PLAN%20UPDATES/TSD-
Material%20for%20Website/CEQA%20Documents/Draft%20EIR%20for%20TSD%20SOI%20U
pdate.pdf>.
Placer County. 1968. Alpine Meadows General Plan. Prepared by Raymond M. Smith, A.I.P.
Retrieved December 8, 2014, from Placer County: <http://www.placer.ca.gov
/~/media/ cdr/Planning/CommPlans/NTahoeCPs/AlpineMeadowsGeneralPlan.pdf>.
_____. 1994. Placer County General Plan 1994. Adopted August 16, 1994, updated May 21,
2013.
_____. December 16, 2003. Martis Valley Community Plan. Prepared with assistance from
Pacific Municipal Consultants, LSC Associates, and Placer County Water Agency.
Auburn, CA. 146 pages. Retrieved January 8, 2014, from Placer County:
<http://www.placer.ca.gov/~/media/cdr/Planning/CommPlans/MartisValley/
MartisValleyCommPlanDec2003.pdf>.
_____. November 2013. Northstar Mountain Master Plan Draft EIR. Retrieved January 8, 2014,
from Placer County: <http://www.placer.ca.gov/
Departments/CommunityDevelopment/EnvCoordSvcs/EIR/NorthstarMMP.aspx>.
_____. 1983. Squaw Valley General Plan and Land Use Ordinance. 70 pages. Auburn, Ca.
Retrieved Village at Squaw Valley Specific Plan. 29 pages. Retrieved April 2, 2015 from
Placer County: <http://www.placer.ca.gov/~/media/cdr/Planning
/CommPlans/NTahoeCPs/SquawValleyGP/SquawValleyGenPlan1stPart.pdf>. Squaw
Valley Real Estate, LLC , et. al. (2014, October).
_____. April 2, 2015 from Placer County: < http://www.placer.ca.gov/~/media/cdr/Planning
/SpecificPlans/VillageAtSquawValley/Draft%20Specific%20Plan%20Oct%202014/Introdu
ction.pdf>
Placer LAFCO. 2004. Municipal Services Review Area 3 Services. Auburn: Placer LAFCO.
Tahoe Regional Planning Agency. 2012. Lake Tahoe Regional Plan. Retrieved June 1, 2015
<http://www.trpa.org/regional-plan/>.
T-TSA. 1998. Technical Memorandum, T-TSA Report for Expansion of the Regional Waste
Water Reclamation Plant. Prepared by CH2MHill. August, 8, 1998
_____. 2009/2013. Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP).
_____. 2013a, October 25. Agency Response to Placer LAFCO RFI.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 16, Tahoe Truckee Sanitation Agency 5-33
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
_____. 2013b. Upgrade Rehab Fun Budget 2013-2014.
_____. (n.d.). T-TSA Water Reclamation Plant Brochure.
_____. February 15, 2017a. Financial Statements with Supplementary Information and
Independent Auditor’s Report for the Fiscal Years Ended June 30, 2016 and 2015.
Contributions from Damore, Hamric & Schneider, Inc. Certified Public Accountants.
47-pages.
_____. November 2017b. Board meeting packet. Memorandum from Operations Manager
Regarding Operations in October 2017.
U.S. Census Bureau. 2012-2016 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates. Retrieved
from < https://factfinder.census.gov> on January 15, 2018.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 16, Tahoe Truckee Sanitation Agency 5-34
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
C 17
HAPTER
Talmont Resort Improvement District
The Talmont Resort Improvement District was formed in 1964 and it now provides drinking
water and snow removal services.
Table of Contents
17.1: Agency Profile ....................................................................................17-2
17.2 Overview of Agency ...............................................................................17-3
17.3: Formation and Boundary ........................................................................17-4
17.4: Accountability and Governance ...............................................................17-6
17.5: Management Efficiencies and Staffing ........................................................17-6
17.6: Population and Growth .........................................................................17-7
17.7: District Services ..................................................................................17-8
17.8: Infrastructure and Facilities ................................................................. 17-10
17.9: Financing ........................................................................................ 17-11
17.10: Challenges ..................................................................................... 17-21
17.11: Service Adequacy ............................................................................ 17-21
17.12: Determinations ............................................................................... 17-22
17.13: References .................................................................................... 17-25
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 17, Talmont RID 17-1
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
17.1: AGENCY PROFILE
Talmont Resort Improvement District
Type of District: Resort Improvement District
Enabling Legislation: Special Districts Act of 1963: Public Resources Code §§ 13000-13233
Functions/Services: Water distribution and snow removal
Main Office: None
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 1294, Tahoe City, CA 96145
Equipment Garage: 2010 Silver Tip Drive, Tahoe City, CA 96145
Phone No.: 530-583-8743
Fax No.: 530-583-0709
Web Site: https://www.sites.google.com/site/talmontdistrict/meet-directors-staff
Email: None
Administrative Supervisor: Libby Gregg
Email: libbygregg4@aol.com
Phone: 530-583-1889
Governing Body: Elected Board of Directors
Name Role Terms Ends
Howard Perry President November 2018
James Henderson Director November 2018
Larry Anderson Director November 2020
Kym Pipkin Director November 2020
Leigh Ann Cullen Director November 2020
Meeting Schedule: Second Monday of every other even month at 4:00 p.m.
Meeting Location: District garage, 2010 Silvertip Drive, Tahoe City, CA
Date of Formation: 1964
Principal County: Placer County
Other: Powers restricted by Public Resources Code § 13075
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 17, Talmont RID 17-2
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
17.2 OVERVIEW OF AGENCY
SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING SERVICES
The Talmont Resort Improvement District (TRID/District) provides domestic water delivery
and snow removal services within its service area. This is the first complete Municipal Service
Review for the District since Talmont RID did not provide data for Placer LAFCo’s 2004 MSR.
TYPE AND EXTENT OF SERVICES
The District provides water delivery and snow removal services. Primary activities for the
District’s water delivery system include repairs and maintenance of infrastructure (e.g.,
wells, tanks, pipeline, and meters), water metering, water testing, preparation of an annual
report for the California Department of Health, and State permitting. Snow removal services
involve removal and storage of snow at road dead-ends within the service area, and repairs of
the maintenance building and equipment.
TRID is a public corporation organized in 1963 under
the authority of Placer County and Public Resources
Code §§ 13000-13233 for the primary purpose of
CONTACT INFORMATION: providing water to largely seasonal residences in the
Talmont Estates and Twin Peak Estates subdivisions in
PHONE NO.: (530) 583-8743
Placer County. These subdivisions contain
FAX: (530) 583-0709
MAILING ADDRESS: approximately 380 lots, 30 of which are Tahoe
P.O. BOX 1294, TAHOE CITY, CA
Conservancy lots. The District served 340 of these lots
96145
as of 2014, with the potential to serve the remaining
ten undeveloped lots. The District’s total budget is
$350,800 annually, of which $208,163 is for water
system expenses, $87,387 for snow removal expenses,
and $55,250 for general expenses such as insurance, metering, and administration.
LOCATION AND SIZE
The District is located in the Ward
Creek watershed, in an unincorporated
area of northeastern Placer County
approximately two miles southwest of
the community of Tahoe City. Lands to
the north, south, and west are
primarily zoned for recreation and
conservation uses, while higher density
residential development is situated to
the eastern side of the service area
before it meets the western shore of
Lake Tahoe. The service area
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 17, Talmont RID 17-3
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
encompasses approximately three square miles (1,920 acres). The community of Tahoe City is
the closest socioeconomic center to the Talmont area. See Figure 17.1 for a District map.
17.3: FORMATION AND BOUNDARY
The District was formed in 1964 as a resort improvement district with the goal of providing a
host of services to the residents of the Talmont Estates and Twin Peak Estates subdivisions,
including water for domestic use, irrigation, sanitation, industrial use, fire protection, and
recreation; the collection, treatment, and disposal of sewage, waste water, and storm water;
fire protection; garbage collection; public recreation; and street lighting. Snow removal was
added to the District’s functions in the late 1960s. To the knowledge of District staff,
however, since that time only domestic water provision and snow removal have been offered
to customers. The District boundaries have not changed since its inception in the early 1960s,
and the District is limited in its future growth potential by changes in State law. The District
was created to serve residents in the Talmont area, and no annexation proposals have been
brought before Placer LAFCo since the initial formation of the District. TRID’s boundaries do
overlap with those of Tahoe City PUD.
BOUNDARY HISTORY
The District boundaries were originally established in November 1963 as part of Board
Resolution 63-330 and subsequently affirmed by voters in a special election in 1964. There
have been no changes to the District boundaries since that time.
SPHERE OF INFLUENCE
The District’s Sphere of Influence (SOI) is not described in detail in LAFCO’s files because the
District was formed more than 50 years ago in 1964. However, based upon conversation with
LAFCO’s Executive Officer, the District’s SOI is assumed to be concurrent with its existing
boundaries. The District has no plans for expansion of its service area and has not considered
a larger SOI than the current boundaries.
EXTRA-TERRITORIAL SERVICES
Service is not provided to areas outside the service boundary.
AREAS OF INTEREST
No specific areas outside the TRID boundaries have been identified that require services from
the District.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 17, Talmont RID 17-4
Silver Tip
Drive
Ward
Creek Blvd.
Ward Creek
d.
v
Bl
e
k
a
L
W.
89
Lake Tahoe
District Boundary
Parcels
Local Roads
0 500 1,000
Feet
Parcel, Roads and District Boundary from Placer County GIS.
Figure 17-1 TALMONT RESORT IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
17.4: ACCOUNTABILITY AND GOVERNANCE
The District is small with a range of services limited by its enabling legislation and changes to
State law restricting its operational authority. The District is governed by a five-member
Board of Directors elected by voters registered within the District boundaries. Regularly
scheduled meetings are held on the second Monday of every other even month (February,
April, June, etc.) at 4:00 p.m. Meetings are located at the District garage at 2010 Silvertip
Drive, Tahoe City, CA.
The current Board members and Manager are as follows:
Name Role Term
Howard Perry President 4 years
James Henderson Director 4 years
Larry Anderson Director 4 years
Kym Pipkin Director 2 years
Leigh Ann Cullen Director 2 years
All meetings are publicly posted at least one week prior to Board meetings. Meeting notices
are posted at the equipment garage at 2010 Silvertip Drive, Tahoe City, CA; on the District’s
website at https://sites.google.com/site/talmontdistrict; and sent via U.S. mail to all
addresses within the service area.
The State of California considers Recreation Improvement Districts to be archaic. In 1961, the
California Legislature passed the Resort Improvement District Law (Public Resources Code
§13000, et seq.; SB 384, Cameron, 1961). In 1965, the California State Assembly held
hearings and banned new resort improvement districts (Public Resources Code §13003). As a
result, only seven RID’s remain operational in the state. In 2010, the Governor approved
Senate Bill 1023 (Wiggins) to create an expedited procedure for converting resort
improvement districts and municipal improvement districts that operate under archaic
statutes into community services districts, without substantive changes to their powers,
duties, finances, or service areas. It is recommended that Talmont RID work with LAFCo to
consider a process to convert the RID to a Community Service District.
17.5: MANAGEMENT EFFICIENCIES AND STAFFING
Day-to-day operations for the water delivery system are managed by the Administrative
Supervisor and Water Manager, both subcontractors for the District. The District employs one
part-time staff person for snow removal.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 17, Talmont RID 17-6
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
17.6: POPULATION AND GROWTH
POPULATION
The 2010 US Census reported a population of 1,557 in the Sunnyside-Tahoe City area, with a
population density of 460.6 people per square mile. This population figure represents a
decrease of about 200 people from the 2000 US Census, which reported a population of 1,761.
However, the District boundaries are much smaller than the Sunnyside-Tahoe City area, and
the 2010 US Census does not provide statistics for the service area alone.
The District indicates that they currently have 340 residential connections and have the
potential for 350 total connections. With only ten more residential lots to be developed
within the service area, the population will likely plateau in the near future. However, many
of the 340 residences are vacation homes with a seasonal visitor population. It is estimated
that the year-round (permanent) population of the District is 300 persons1.
The service area has historically been limited by the boundaries of the Talmont Estate and
Twin Peak Estate subdivisions, and without any requests for additional service outside the
boundaries or requests for boundary changes, the service area will remain bounded by these
subdivisions in the foreseeable future. Nearly all large surrounding parcels are zoned for
conservation or recreation uses. Other residential subdivisions in the area are serviced by
other public entities or are privately serviced, making requests for additional service from
TRID unlikely.
The 2009 Placer County Housing Element Background Report indicates that the average
household size is 2.56 persons per residence in unincorporated Placer County. Thus, the total
resident and visitor population in the service area during the peak summer season can be
estimated at 870. When the total buildout of 350 residences is assumed, the maximum
resident and visitor population is estimated at 896 during the peak summer season.
PROJECTED GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT
The Placer County General Plan serves as the County’s vision for long-term land use
development and conservation. Placer County’s General Plan adopted on August 16, 1994,
and updated May 21, 2013, provides a series of goals, policies, standards, and implementation
programs to guide the land use, development, and environmental quality of the County.
Table 17.1: Population Projections for Talmont RID
2014 Permanent 2014 Visitor (only) 2020 Permanent 2020 Visitor
Population Population during Population Population during
summer peak season (projected) summer peak season
300 570 309 587
1 So. Lake Tahoe PUD. July 2014, Appendix 2.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 17, Talmont RID 17-7
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
The population projections in Table 17.1, above assumes that the 10 vacant parcels will be
developed by the year 2020. Using the District’s average of 0.88 permanent residents per
household, the projected population in 2020 will be 309 permanent residents. Using the
District’s average of 1.67 visitor population per household, the additional 10 units yields a
peak visitor population of 587 persons. This brings the total projected max population
(permanent resident plus visitor) to a total of 896 persons. Since our calculations assume
build-out by the year 2020, the 2020 projections will also be valid for the years 2025, 2030,
and 2035. In other words, the District’s projected population is predicted to be a flat value
for the years 2020 through 2035.
DISADVANTAGED UNINCORPORATED COMMUNITY
As described in Chapter 3, LAFCo is required to consider the provision of public services to
disadvantaged unincorporated communities (DUCs). Relevant data were reviewed for the
Talmont RID area. No DUCs have been identified within Talmont RID boundaries, its SOI, or
adjacent areas. The U.S. Census 2010 found the median household income (MHI) in the 96145
zip code was $66,628.2 This is higher than the DUC threshold MHI of less than $48,706 (80
percent of the statewide MHI). The DWR mapping tool for locating disadvantage
communities was also queried and DWR does not classify the Talmont RID area as
disadvantaged. Additionally, this area does receive adequate water, wastewater,
and fire protection services as detailed in this MSR. Please see Chapter 3, Section
3.6 of this MSR for more information on disadvantaged unincorporated communities.
17.7: DISTRICT SERVICES
SERVICE OVERVIEW
The District provides snow removal and the distribution of water within the service area.
Snow removal occurs during the winter and spring months as needed. There are
approximately 10 miles of roadways within the RID boundaries that receive seasonal snow
removal services. Although the roads are owned and maintained by Placer County, Talmont
RID provides snow removal service consistent with the specifications of its contract with the
County.
Water is provided to residents year-round. However peak water use occurs predominantly
during the summer months because the service area encompasses a seasonal, resort-style
development that is occupied year-round by only 20 percent of the service area home owners.
The District monitors its two wells, one a primary working well and the other a back-up well,
on an hourly basis. The water system is on an alarm that notifies workers if the water service
fails. As part of the permitting process, the data is sent to the California Department of
Health along with an annual report. The District is also responsible for repairs and
2 2010 census via American Fact Finder website at:
<http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=CF>.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 17, Talmont RID 17-8
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
maintenance of its infrastructure (wells and pumps, tanks, pipeline, hydrants, and meters),
upkeep of its maintenance facility, water metering, and State permitting. Water is minimally
treated and consistently meets State water quality standards.
SUPPLY/DEMAND
SNOW REMOVAL
Snow removal demands are affected not by population growth but by the number of paved
roads requiring snow removal and the amount of snowfall accumulated. There is no
anticipated expansion in the number of road miles. Continued operation of the snow removal
service within the District can continue given the existing management structure of the
District and available funding and infrastructure. No change in the provision of this service,
either in extent of provision or type of service provided, is necessary for the long-term
continued operation of the District. Under current State law, the District cannot add new
services and could not restart this service if it was stopped. The limited ability to change
District operations is a constraint on potential government structure revisions, and there do
not appear to be viable alternatives
COURTESY OF WWW.GOOGLE.COM/MAPS
available for other districts to provide
this snow removal service in this area.
WATER
The District utilizes groundwater as its
primary water supply. Groundwater in
the region is generally of good
quality3. Water wells pump water to
the surface where it is treated and
then distributed to customers.
Demand for municipal water is typically impacted by development. Population growth or
additional service connections increase the water demand and the need for additional
infrastructure. Minimal development is anticipated in the remainder of the District. The
District’s boundaries encompass a subdivision that has only ten remaining undeveloped lots.
Approximately 23% of the land in the Talmont area is owned by public agencies4, leaving little
remaining area to be developed. Furthermore, 80 percent of the homes in the service area
are only seasonally occupied during the summer months of June through September.
Water use in the summer of 2014 declined by 10% compared to the summer of 2013 indicating
that residents are conserving water during the drought5. The District has adopted a drought
3 So. Lake Tahoe PUD. July 2014. Page ES-5
4 USDA. 2000. Page 654.
http://gis.fs.fed.us/psw/publications/documents/psw_gtr175/psw_gtr175_ch6.pdf
5 Minutes of the Talmont Resort Improvement District. October 15, 2014. Available at:
https://www.sites.google.com/site/talmontdistrict/minutes/july-13-2011
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 17, Talmont RID 17-9
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
plan (Resolution 2014-2)6 as mandated by the State Water Resources Board. The drought plan
includes conservation measures such as limiting outdoor irrigation to hours between 9am-9pm
and washing of vehicles with a shutoff nozzle on hose only.
17.8: INFRASTRUCTURE AND FACILITIES
The District maintains a Capital Improvement List to inventory and identify future repair and
replacement needs of the District’s infrastructure and facilities, and has estimated that
between 2011 and 2016, $160,000 will be needed to repair and replace equipment needed for
snow removal, and $637,000 will be needed to repair and replace water service equipment.
These items were taken into account in the 2013-14 budget and will be considered in future
budgets as well. The District uses the Capital Improvement List to budget for future needs
and ensure that replacement of infrastructure and facilities will be feasible when necessary.
All items on the Capital Improvement List are funded from the annual capital improvement
assessment that is part of property taxes for lots within the service area.
SNOW REMOVAL
The District provides snow removal services on approximately ten miles of roadways within its
District boundaries. All roadways are owned by Placer County, and services are provided
according to specifications of a contract with the County. The County maintains the general
condition of the roadways and sands the roads during the winter and early spring seasons,
while the District provides snow removal services and maintains its own equipment and
storage facilities to provide snow removal. The District is responsible for repairs and
maintenance of its snow removal equipment, a CAT 966 loader and two graders, as well as a
maintenance building for storage of equipment and vehicles. Given the age of equipment, it
is likely that significant repairs or replacement will be necessary within the next three years.
WATER
The District owns and operates two wells on Washoe Way, one duty well and one back-up
well, both approximately 250 feet deep. Water is pumped into three water tanks, one of
which holds 60,000 gallons and two of which hold 200,000 gallons. The water is untreated and
consistently meets all the State water quality standards for drinking water. The District is
responsible for repairs and maintenance of its wells and pumps, tanks, pipeline, hydrants, and
water meters.
OPPORTUNITIES TO SHARE FACILITIES
The District holds its meetings in a building that also serves as the District garage for snow
removal equipment. The Administrative Supervisor and Water Manager work from private
offices, while the Snow Removal Manager works from the equipment garage.
6 Resolution 2014-2 is available at: < http://apps.tahoedailytribune.com/utils/c2/app/v2/
index.php?do=adDetail&adId=10474839#.VOvszy7QDW8>.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 17, Talmont RID 17-10
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
DISTRIBUTION AND TRANSMISSION
The District’s water distribution system begins at the two wells, only one of which is active at
any given time, and proceeds to three holding tanks from which the water is conveyed
through a series of underground pipelines to residential and commercial connections.
17.9: FINANCING
Talmont RID has an adopted management and budget policy addressing budget preparation,
accrual basis of accounting, investment of funds, and expense authorization. Budgets are
adopted in public meetings on an annual basis. The budget has sufficient organization and
content to account for the major expenses to the District. The fiscal year begins on July 1
and ends on June 30.
The District’s website contains recent budget data and rate information. Audited financial
statements are available upon request from the District. Limited financial data for Talmont
RID is also available at the CA Controller’s website at:
https://bythenumbers.sco.ca.gov/finance-explorer/view-by-special-district . Please note
that the data available at the CA Controller’s website is unaudited data that Talmont RID
supplied to the Controller’s Office. Neither the Controller’s Office nor the MSR consultants
has verified the accuracy of this data. Although the data provided on the Controller’s Office
website differs somewhat from the Audited Financial Statement from McClintock Accountancy
Corp, perhaps the difference could be attributed to the difference between audited and
unaudited information. The data from the Controller’s Office is utilized herein only as
supplemental information and this MSR analysis relies primarily upon the audited financial
statement prepared by McClintock Accountancy Corp.
Disclaimer: The financial information provided in this MSR section was accurate as of its
writing in 2014. However, the District updates its financial information on an annual basis.
Therefore, the financial information in this MSR has been superseded and readers are
encouraged to read the newer financial statements and budgets published by the District on
their website at: https://www.sites.google.com/site/talmontdistrict/ .
This MSR section was written in 2014 and at that time, the most recent independent auditor’s
report was prepared for FY11/12 and dated December 5, 2012, and was attached to the
District’s Financial Statements. The audit found that there were no issues of noncompliance
with financial regulations that could have an effect on the financial statement7.
7 McClintock Accountancy Corporation. Financial Statements and Independent Auditor's Report For the
Year Ended June 30, 2012.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 17, Talmont RID 17-11
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
REVENUES
This section describes sources of revenues for Talmont RID. The District operates under one
Enterprise Fund that covers both snow removal and water service8. The District receives
revenue from several sources including user fees, property tax, grants, investments, and
other sources. An enterprise fund is intended to ensure the fees collected as customers pay
their bills can be accounted for separately. Property tax assessments of properties within the
District’s boundaries are the revenue mechanism funding snow removal service. Revenues for
the FY 11/12 are detailed in Figure 17.2, below:
Figure 17.2: FY 11/12 Revenues
Water service
19%
Snow removal
service
11%
Other revenue
59%
Interest income
0%
Special
assessment
10%
Source: McClintock Acc
Late charges
Corp. Audited Finacial Statement 1%
Sources of revenue in the FY 11/12 included fees for water service at $189,406, snow removal
service property tax at $114,433, special assessment at $101,475, late charges at $3,781 and
interest income at $1,317. The RID’s largest source of revenue, classified as “Other Revenue”
represents 59% of the District’s total revenue at $599,4539. Total operating revenue in FY
11/12 was $307,620 and total non-operating revenue was $699,525 which calculates to a total
revenue of slightly over $1 million.
In 2011 the TRID received a $7,000 grant from the Placer County Water Agency for their water
meter program, the major goal of which was to install water meters at all residential and
commercial addresses in the service area for water conservation purposes. In May 2014, the
8 McClintock Accountancy Corporation. Financial Statements and Independent Auditor's Report For the
Year Ended June 30, 2012.
9 McClintock Accountancy Corp. Audited Financial Statement.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 17, Talmont RID 17-12
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
Placer County Water Agency Board of Directors granted $5,000 to the Talmont Resort
Improvement District for a project to rebuild a district pump station10.
In June 2018, the MSR authors reviewed Talmont RID’s budget for FY 16/17 and 17/18 and the
budget indicated District revenues totaled $352,552 as shown in Table 17-2, below.
Table 17-2 TRID Budget Revenues 16/17 and 17/18
Budget Data for FY 16/17 and 17/18 (unaudited)
Revenues FY 16/17 FY 17/18
501-00 Water Service $258,279 $258,279
502-00 Snow Removal $94,273 $94,273
·
504-00 Miscellaneous Income $0 $0
·
505-00 Late Charges & Shut off $0 $0
Fees ·
·
506-00 Interest Income $0 $0
512-00 Transfer Fee $0 $0
·
Total Revenue $352,552 $352,552
·
EXPENSES
Expenses for the enterprise fund include administrative expenses such as insurance,
depreciation of capital assets, and the costs of providing water treatment and distribution,
and snow removal services as shown in Figure 17.3 below. In FY 11/12 the RID paid $47,391 in
utility bills, which averages to about $3,950 per month. Utility bills are one area in which the
District may wish to consider implementing projects to improve energy efficiency and thus
lower utility bills. Electricity to power the wells to pump groundwater is likely the RID’s
largest energy use.
10 Additional information about the grant is available here:
http://www.rocklintoday.com/news/templates/community_news.asp?articleid=12969&zoneid=4
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 17, Talmont RID 17-13
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
Figure 17.3: Expenses FY 11/12
Salaries,
wages
13%
Depreciation
27%
Repairs,
maintenance
25%
Utilities
17%
General, admin
17%
Interest
1%
Comparing revenues to expenses provides an analysis of the overall fiscal health of the
enterprise fund and serves to assess the financial ability of the District to continue its
provision of water and snow removal services. In recent years revenues exceeded expenses
and this indicates that under current levels of maintenance and capital improvements, the
customer service fees and taxes cover existing costs. As shown in Figure 17.4 below total
revenues exceeded $1 million in FY 11/12, far outpacing total expenses of $280,71611.
However, the large revenue in FY 11/12 appears to be an anomaly, perhaps related to
payment for a capital expense. In most years, the RID’s total revenue is approximately
$300,000 per year and expenses average approximately $187,000 per year12. Revenue that is
in excess of expenses is held in reserves for use during emergencies13. It is recommended
that the RID provide more information about its reserve accounts and provide audited
financial statements for a minimum of three fiscal years to LAFCo, when LAFCo prepares the
next MSR, in approximately five years.
In June 2018, the MSR authors reviewed Talmont RID’s budget for FY 16/17 and 17/18 and the
budget indicated District expenditures are expected to total $365,662 in FY 17/18 as shown
in Table 17-3, below.
11 McClintock Accountancy Corp. Audited Financial Statement. 2012.
12 CA Controller’s Office website at: <https://bythenumbers.sco.ca.gov/finance-explorer/view-by-
special-district>.
13 Talmont RID’s response to LAFCo’s Request for Information for MSR. Sept. 2013.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 17, Talmont RID 17-14
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
Table 17-3: Expenditures TRID FY 16/17 and 17/18
Budget Data for FY 16/17 and 17/18 (unaudited)
Expenditures FY 16/17 FY 17/18
Meter Reading Expense $3,500 $3,500
6560 · Payroll Expenses $40,000 $42,000
707-00 · Gas & Oil $6,250 $7,250
712-00 · Depreciation-Ws $92,593 $92,593
713-00 · Depreciation-Sr $25,113 $25,113
760-00 · Electricity $37,000 $37,000
765-00 · Utilities-Maintenance Bldg $4,000 $4,000
766-00 · Repairs & Maint-Building $2,000 $2,000
791-00 · Insurance $9,300 $9,300
792-00 · Workers Comp Insurance $2,000 $2,000
794-00 · Water Testing $2,000 $2,000
802-00 · Accounting $12,000 $12,000
803-01 · Secrtrl/Admin/Misc. Costs $25,000 $25,500
807-00 · Miscellaneous $1,000 $1,000
810-00 · Office Supplies & Expense $5,000 $5,000
812-00 · State Water Fee&Csda $7,100 $7,100
826-00 · Repairs & Maint-Ws/Labor $37,450 $40,000
828-00 · Contract Maintenance $27,996 $28,556
830-00 · Repairs & Maint-Sr $3,750 $4,750
855-00 · Telephone & Signal Lines $9,500 $15,000
Interest expense $0 $0
Total Expenditures $352,552 $365,662
Diff/Income from expenses $0 -$13,110
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 17, Talmont RID 17-15
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
$1,200,000
$1,000,000
$800,000
$600,000
$400,000
$200,000
$0
2011 2012 2013
Although Figure 17- above indicates that revenues generally exceed expenditures, for FY
17/18 the TRID budget indicates that expenses will exceed revenues by $13,110.
Additionally, data is necessary prior to determining whether this is a significant financial
trend.
ASSET MAINTENANCE AND REPLACEMENT
The District's net assets were $1,542,906 at June 30, 2011 and $2,272,054 at June 30, 2012.
The increase in FY 11/12 was due to the water meter project not yet completed, a special
assessment that was collected, and interest income received. Capital assets the district owns
and maintains includes cash, cash equivalents, accounts receivable, interest receivable, land,
land improvements, a building, water plant, equipment and meters, depreciable assets, and
construction in progress. It should be noted that the RID’s water meter installation is part of
a water conservation effort and will likely yield long-term benefits by contributing towards
increased cost effectiveness.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 17, Talmont RID 17-16
$
SU
Figure 17.4: Revenues and Expenses -
Talmont RID
Revenue
Expense
Source: 2012 data from Audited Financial Statements by McClintock Acc Corp
2011 and 2013 data from CA Controller's website.
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
$2,500,000
$2,000,000
$1,500,000
$1,000,000
$500,000
$0
2011 2012 2013
Part of the assets the RID maintains is cash and investments. The audited financial statement
for FY 11/12 reports that cash and investments held by the District at June 30, 2012 are as
follows: Cash on deposit at banks $ 190,301; investments held by LAIF $485,080; cash held by
LAIF-restricted $38,701. LAIF is the State of California Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) a
governmental investment pool managed and directed by the California State Treasurer and is
not registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission. An oversight committee
comprised of California State officials and various participants provide oversight to the
management of the fund. The daily operations and responsibilities of LAIF fall under the
auspices of the State Treasurer's office. The District is a voluntary participant in the
investment pool.
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
The Talmont RID has a simple list of capital improvement projects. A sample of the near
term water projects and two snow removal projects are listed as shown below14.
Water
1. Tank Interior/exterior painting, service.
2. Pump replacement Wells 1 and 2
3. Hydrants- 10-12 will be replaced
4. Upgrades to Telemetry
5. Snow Removal Equipment needs
6. Silver Tip Pump Station Project
14 Talmont RID. Minutes of Meeting. 2014-2015 Budget Planning Meeting. March 7, 2014 2:00 PM.
<https://sites.google.com/site/talmontdistrict/minutes/january-13-2011>.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 17, Talmont RID 17-17
$
SU
Net Assets - Talmont RID
Source: 2011 and 2012 data from Audited Financial
Statements by McClintock Acc Corp. 2013 data from CA
Controller's website.
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
Snow removal15
1. Cat 966 Loader, $90,000 estimated cost
2. Transmission Repair, $12,000 estimated cost
Capital expenditure financing is provided by “capital improvement assessments” of properties
within the District boundaries. All maintenance and operations financing is provided by
monthly rates and fees as shown above under “Rate Restructuring.”
LONG-TERM LIABILITIES AND DEBTS
As of June 30, 2012, Talmont RID had $81,686 in total liabilities. These liabilities include a
lease and accounts payable16. In 2010, the District entered into a capital lease to purchase a
loader. The terms of the lease are 60 payments of $1,827 and the payments are scheduled to
end off in 2016.
$400,000
$350,000
$300,000
$250,000
$200,000
$150,000
$100,000
$50,000
$0
2011 2012 2013
RATE RESTRUCTURING
The District’s rates were amended as of July 1, 2013 (Ordinance2013-01), in order to fully
fund the FY 2013-2014 budget and to provide for increased conservation due to the new
consumption-based rate structure. At the same time, snow removal rates decreased from to
$72.60 per quarter due to operational efficiencies. Water rates were modified from a flat fee
system to a tiered billing system based on water use, which is now metered. The base
allowance is up to 24,000 gallons per quarter. The District states that 98 percent of their
customers use this amount or less in the winter quarter, and 85 percent use this amount or
less in the fall and spring quarters. However, approximately 35 percent of customers use in
15 Capital Improvement Schedule available at: <https://sites.google.com/site/talmontdistrict/capital-
improvement-schedule>.
16 Audited Financial Statement. McClintock Accountancy Corp.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 17, Talmont RID 17-18
$
SU
Total Liabilities
Source: 2012 data from Audited Financial Statements by McClintock
Acc Corp.
2011 and 2013 data from CA Controller's website.
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
excess of this amount in the summer months, placing them in the higher tiers of the new rate
schedule. The new rates therefore provide an incentive for customers to conserve water when
it is scarcer. Reliable water meter data is now available and could potentially be utilized to
improve efficiency at the RID. Water rates are shown below.
Table 17-4: TRID Water Rates 2012
Tiers Gallons Used per Residential Quarterly Commercial Quarterly
Quarter Water Rates Water Rates
Tier I (Base 0 - 24,000 $175.50 $352.20
rate)
Tier II 24,001 - 42,000 base rate + $49.50 base rate + $49.50
Tier III 42,001- 96,000 base rate + $94.50 base rate + $94.50
Tier IV 96,001 - base rate + 184.50 base rate + 184.50
150,000
Tier V 150,001 + $360 + $2 per 1,000 $360 + $2 per 1,000 gallons
gallons over 150,001 over 150,001 gallons
gallons
Special Assessment $75 per quarter, ending $75 per quarter, ending
12-31-2013 12/31/2013
System Replacement Fee $75 per quarter, $75 per quarter, effective
effective 01-01-2014, 01/01/2014, regardless of
regardless of usage usage
Table 17.5: Schedule B – Water and Snow Fees - Ordinance 2011-01 of the Talmont RID
Residential: New Construction or Remodel
Description Fee Notes
Locate Service Line $75 Per visit
Shut off & reconnection fee - $75 Per visit, min plus actual cost
Temporary
Shut off & reconnection fee - $250 Per visit, min plus actual cost
Emergency
Connection inspection, plan check $50 Per visit
fee
Meter installation $2000 If paid in full by June 30, 2011
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 17, Talmont RID 17-19
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
Meter installation $2500 If paid between July 1, 2011 and
April 2013
New Service Extension, Service $2100 deposit Billed actual cost
tap
Late fee, administration charge $25
Monthly payment administration $10
charge
Returned check fee $30
Tax lien administration fee $150
Tax lien sales fee $150
Process refund of fees, excluded $25
overpayment
Finance Charge 1.50 % Per month on unpaid amounts
Ownership transfer fee $50
Ordinance Violation disconnect $500 Plus any additional costs for
and reconnect (including non- administrative, field investigation,
payment) and legal expenses.
Unauthorized connections, $500 Plus any additional costs for
discharges, fire hydrant use administrative, field investigation,
legal expenses, and consumption
rates.
As shown in Table 17.5 above, in addition to monthly fees, the TRID charges a water meter
installation charge of $2,000, to be collected at the time a residential Property is sold (i.e.
before Close of Escrow or change of title)17. Other fees include an emergency shut-off fee of
$50, a returned check fee of $30, an ownership transfer fee of $50 and several other fees.
COST AVOIDANCE
This section highlights cost avoidance practices given necessary service requirements and
expectations. Ideally, proposed methods to reduce costs would not adversely affect service
levels. In general, water systems have a fixed cost associated with operations and
maintenance and has a variable cost related to flows. As the RID staff continues to provide
water services to residents, they must deal with regulatory and physical constraints which
may limit their ability to pursue cost avoidance practices. Given these constraints, the
District pursues an array of cost avoidance techniques that each contributes incrementally
towards keeping costs at a reasonable level.
District meetings are held in the District-owned equipment garage. TRID employs one part-
maintenance worker to provide snow removal services, and two subcontractors who work
from private offices. The Board of Directors is not compensated. Expenditures are largely a
17 Installation charge is described here: < http://www.tahoemls.com/blog/wp-
content/uploads/2013/09/Tahoe-Truckee-Regional-Area-Advisory-10-1-13.pdf>.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 17, Talmont RID 17-20
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
result of maintenance and operations of the water system and snow removal equipment, with
these services accounting for 84 percent of the annual operating expenses. Review of the
annual budget for snow removal shows little expenditure beyond maintenance, salary,
insurance, and taxes. With limited budget and minimal expenditures, there do not appear to
be any opportunities for cost avoidance related to the provision of snow removal. Talmont
RID’s budgeting processes serves as one means to avoid unnecessary costs since budget line
items are carefully thought out well in advance. Additionally, the District’s purchasing
policies provide a review of significant purchases and competitive bidding to ensure purchases
are made efficiently. Talmont RID conducts regular maintenance on water lines. Snow
removal is sub-contracted out. The District has not identified areas currently served that
might be served more efficiently by another agency. However, water system utility expenses
account for 17 percent of the expenditures for water delivery. The District should investigate
efficiencies in its electricity use, as well as the possibility of capturing renewable energy as a
cost-reduction strategy.
17.10: CHALLENGES
The District’s rates and fees provide the financing for the provision of domestic water and
snow removal services. The budget for fiscal year 2013-14 results in $2,907.20 surplus and
includes depreciation for equipment that will need to be replaced and maintained over the
next several years. No other issues have been identified by TRID.
17.11: SERVICE ADEQUACY
District facilities are sized to adequately serve the existing and anticipated connections
within the service area. The District also has adequate water supply to serve existing and
anticipated future customers. In 2012 the District pumped 205 gallons per minute (gpm) from
its primary well, with the ability to pump 165 acre-feet (af) annually. Supply from the second
well exceeded that amount at 290 gpm and 233 af. Water demand for 2012 was 60 af,
significantly less than the supply. As previously noted, minimal development is expected to
occur within the District due to the fact that only ten lots are undeveloped in the District.
Operations and maintenance needs are accommodated by service charges and tax
assessments, resulting in adequate long-term water provision.
Snow removal is currently adequate as well, and continued operation of the snow removal
service within the District can continue given the existing management structure of the
District and available funding and infrastructure. No change in the provision of this service,
either in extent of provision or type of service provided, is necessary for the long-term
continued operation of the District.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 17, Talmont RID 17-21
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
17.12: DETERMINATIONS
GROWTH AND POPULATION PROJECTIONS
1. The current number of residential connections in the District was 340 as of 2014. With
an average household size of 2.56 in Placer County, the estimated maximum
population during the peak summer season is 870 people.
2. Given the limited number of residential lots in the service area (that do not have the
ability to be subdivided under current zoning), the ultimate potential number of
service connections is 350, with a possible ultimate peak summer season population
estimated at 896.
3. Population in the service area is not likely to increase beyond 896 unless the service
area is expanded, household size increases, the number of second units increase, or
the zoning is changed to allow for subdivision of the existing lots.
4. There are no plans for expansion of the service area, and nearly all large surrounding
parcels are zoned for conservation or recreation uses, or are already constructed with
existing residential subdivisions
5. The population served by the District is predominantly seasonal, with 80 percent of
residents occupying their homes only during the peak visitation months.
6. The District has the ability to provide water for year-round residents and seasonal
residents.
DISADVANTAGED UNINCORPORATED COMMUNITIES
7. No areas within the District qualify as a disadvantaged unincorporated community
because the median family income exceeds 80% of the state median family income.
PRESENT AND PLANNED CAPACITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES
8. The District was established in 1964 to provide a range of public services, including
water delivery, to the Talmont Estates and Twin Peak Estates subdivisions. The
district has never activated any of the services that were part of the original
formation, including sewage and storm water collection and treatment, fire
protection, garbage collection, public recreation, and street lighting.
9. Snow removal was added to the District’s functions in the late 1960s and is provided
under direction of the District’s Board of Directors.
10. The District is limited in future growth potential and no annexation proposals have
been brought before Placer LAFCo since the inception of the District.
11. Repairs and replacements will be necessary on an ongoing basis for both snow removal
equipment and water delivery infrastructure.
12. The Capital Improvement List allows the District to accurately budget for future needs
and ensures that infrastructure and facilities can be replaced and repaired when
necessary. The annual budgets consider these items and fund them with the annual
capital improvement assessment that is part of property taxes for lots within the
service area.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 17, Talmont RID 17-22
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
13. The District’s Capital Improvement List identified the need for $160,000 in repairs and
replacements for snow removal equipment from 2011 to 2016, and $637,000 in repairs
and replacements for water service infrastructure.
14. The capital improvement assessment, along with any surpluses provided by the
standard fees and rates, pays for any necessary capital improvements to the water
system. Infrastructure needs and deficiencies are thus addressed by the ongoing
assessment and budget process.
15. Water is pumped from one active well, while another well is used only on a backup
basis.
16. Water supply regularly exceeds the amount needed for the service area, and the
District has recently taken measures to support customer water conservation by
installing water meters at each service address.
17. Because only ten additional residences remain to be built in the service area, both
water supply and delivery appears to be adequate in the foreseeable future.
FINANCIAL ABILITY OF AGENCY TO PROVIDE SERVICES
17. On an annual basis, the Talmont RID adopts a comprehensive budget and receives an
audited financial statement. The FY 2013-2014 budget demonstrates adequate
finances for the continued ability of the District to provide services, with a surplus of
$2,907.
18. The District is funded through service charges, fees, and taxes.
19. The annual tax assessment collected from customers is used to fund capital
improvements. Within the next several years, the District plans to implement several
modest and specific capital improvements to maintain and support its infrastructure.
It is recommended that any capital improvements be considered in light of available
revenues and other potential funding sources to ensure that the scope of the proposed
projects is congruent with funding availability.
20. Rates should continue to be reviewed and adjusted as necessary to fund District costs
and provide for capital improvements as needed.
21. The Enterprise Fund is managed efficiently. In most years, the RID’s total revenue is
approximately $300,000 per year and expenses average approximately $187,000 per
year18. Revenue that is in excess of expenses is held in reserves for use during
emergencies19. It is recommended that the RID provide more information about its
reserve accounts and provide audited financial statements for a minimum of three
fiscal years to LAFCo, when LAFCo prepares the next MSR, in approximately five years.
22. Utility bills comprise 17% of the RID’s monthly expenditures and they are one area in
which the District may wish to consider implementing projects to improve energy
efficiency and thus lower utility bills. Electricity to power the wells to pump
groundwater is likely the RID’s largest energy use. Within the next ten years, it is
18 CA Controller’s Office website at: < https://bythenumbers.sco.ca.gov/finance-explorer/view-by-
special-district>.
19 Talmont RID’s response to LAFCo’s Request for Information for MSR. Sept. 2013.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 17, Talmont RID 17-23
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
suggested that the RID develop a plan to utilize green technology, energy efficient
pumps, or other mechanism to lower utility bills.
23. The District practices cost reduction through careful purchasing, bidding processes,
and other mechanisms.
24. In the short-term, no additional cost-avoidance opportunities have been identified at
this time.
STATUS OF, AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR, SHARED FACILITIES
25. The District uses its equipment garage for snow removal equipment and as a meeting
facility for the District Board of Directors.
26. No other opportunities for facility sharing have been identified.
ACCOUNTABILITY FOR COMMUNITY SERVICE NEEDS, INCLUDING
GOVERNMENTAL STRUCTURE AND OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCIES
27. The District demonstrated accountability through its prompt disclosure of information
requested by LAFCo for preparation of this MSR.
28. Board meetings are publicly noticed and comply with the Brown Act, California’s open
meeting law. They are held every other month.
29. No boundary changes are pending or proposed at this time.
30. The District follows standard accounting procedures.
31. All Board members have access to District data, records and information.
32. The District has adequate public outreach, with a public website featuring meeting
minutes, meter readings, information, rates, reports and the capital improvement
schedule.
33. The District does not currently have a strategic plan that outlines its mission
statement, vision statement, and goals and objectives. Such a strategic plan could
help the District could improve upon 1) planning efforts, 2) accountability and
transparency.
34. In 2010, the Governor approved Senate Bill 1023 (Wiggins) to create an expedited
procedure for converting resort improvement districts and municipal improvement
districts that operate under archaic statutes into community services districts, without
substantive changes to their powers, duties, finances, or service areas. It is
recommended that Talmont RID work with LAFCo to consider a process to convert the
RID to a Community Service District.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 17, Talmont RID 17-24
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
17.13: REFERENCES
Gregg, Libby. Administrative Supervisor, Talmont Resort Improvement District. Placer Local
Agency Formation Commission: 2013 Municipal Service Review Update:
Districts/Agencies in North Tahoe & Martis Valley: Information Request. August 2013.
Gregg, Libby. Administrative Supervisor, Talmont Resort Improvement District. Email
correspondence. 5, 7, 8 October 2013.
McClintock Accountancy Corporation. Talmont Resort Improvement District, Tahoe City:
Financial Statements and Independent Auditor’s Report: For the Year Ended June 30,
2012.
Placer County Grand Jury. 2009 – 2010 Grand Jury Responses. December 22, 2010. 96 pages.
Available on-line at: <http://www.placer.courts.ca.gov/grandjury/2009-
2010/Final_Response_2009-2010.pdf >. Accessed 23February 2015.
South Tahoe Public Utility District. Tahoe-Sierra Integrated Regional Water Management
Plan. July 2014. Prepared by Kennedy/Jenks Consultants. 1138 pages. Available on
line at <http://tahoesierrairwm.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/T-S-IRWMP_July-
2014_lo-res.pdf>. Accessed February 23, 2015.
Talmont Resort Improvement District. Annual Budget: 1 July 2013 – 30 June 21014. 31
Talmont Resort Improvement District. Compiled Financial Statements. 31 March 2013.
Talmont Resort Improvement District. Compiled Financial Statements. 31 December 2012.
Talmont Resort Improvement District. Compiled Financial Statements. 30 September 2012.
Talmont Resort Improvement District. Comprehensive Depreciation: GAAP: For the Period July
1, 2012 to June 30, 2013.
Talmont Resort Improvement District. Hydrant Replacement Priority. June 2010.
Talmont Resort Improvement District. Ordinance No. 2011-01 of the Talmont Resort
Improvement District Establishing Rules, Regulations, Rates and Charges Governing
Use, Operation, and Management of the District Water System Facilities and Snow
Removal Services; and Revoking all Previous Water Ordinances and Resolutions, to the
Extent that They Are Inconsistent with this Ordinance. 15 March 2011.
<https://www.sites.google.com/site/talmontdistrict/information-history>. Accessed
3 October 2013.
Talmont Resort Improvement District. Talmont District: Capital Improvement Schedule. 24
July 2011. https://www.sites.google.com/site/talmontdistrict/capital-improvement-
schedule. Accessed 5 October 2013.
Talmont Resort Improvement District. Talmont District: Changes to Ordinance 2011-01-
Effective 7/1/2013, including Schedule A: Water and Snow Rates and Schedule B:
Water and Snow Fees. Accessed 5 October 2013.
Talmont Resort Improvement District. Talmont District: History.
<https://www.sites.google.com/site/ talmontdistrict/information-history.> Accessed
3 October 2013.
Talmont Resort Improvement District. Water Distribution Plan. 20 May 1974.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 17, Talmont RID 17-25
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
Talmont Resort Improvement District. Annual Water Quality Consumer Confidence Report
2012. <https://www.sites.google.com/site/talmontdistrict/consumer-confidence-
report>. Accessed 30 October 2013.
USDA. U.S. Forest Service. Lake Tahoe Watershed Assessment. Volume 1. 2000. Dennis D.
Murhy and Christopher M. Knopp, Editors. Chapter Six: Social, Economic, and
Institutional Assessment. Mark Nechodom, Rowan Rowntree, Nick Dennis, Hank
Robison, and Jamie Goldstein. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-176. Albany, CA: Pacific
Southwest Research Station, Forest Service, US Department of Agriculture; 753 p.
Available on line at: <http://gis.fs.fed.us/psw/publications/documents/
psw_gtr175/psw_gtr175_ch6.pdf>. Accessed 23February, 2015.
US Department of Commerce. www.census.gov. Accessed 15 October 2013.
Wikipedia. Sunnyside-Tahoe City, California. <http://en.wikipedia.org/
wiki/Tahoe_City,_CA>. Accessed 15 October 2013.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 17, Talmont RID 17-26
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
C 18
HAPTER
TRUCKEE TAHOE AIRPORT DISTRICT
Photo courtesy of www.google.com/maps (street view)
Table of Contents
18.1: Agency Profile ....................................................................................18-2
18.2 Overview of Agency .............................................................................18-2
18.3: Accountability and Governance ...............................................................18-5
18.4: Management Efficiencies and Staffing ........................................................18-6
18.5: Population and Growth .........................................................................18-8
18.6: District Services ................................................................................ 18-14
18.7: Infrastructure and Facilities ................................................................. 18-17
18.8: Financing ........................................................................................ 18-20
18.9: Challenges ...................................................................................... 18-25
18.10: Service Adequacy ............................................................................ 18-26
18.11: Determinations ............................................................................... 18-27
18.12: References .................................................................................... 18-29
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 18, Truckee Tahoe Airport District 18-1
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
18.1: AGENCY PROFILE
TRUCKEE TAHOE AIRPORT DISTRICT
Type of District: Airport District
Enabling Legislation: California Airport District Act: Public Utilities Code Sections 22001 –et seq.
Functions/Services: Airport operations
Main Office: 10356 Truckee Airport Road, Truckee, CA 96161
Mailing Address: Same
PHONE NO.: 530-587-4119
Fax No.: 530-587-2984
WEB SITE: WWW.TRUCKEETAHOEAIRPORT.COM
EMAIL: INFO@TRUCKEETAHOEAIRPORT.COM
General Manager: Kevin Smith Email: kevin.smith@truckeetahoeairport.com
Phone: 530-587-4119 Ext 105
Governing Body: Board of Directors Term Expires
John B. Jones, Jr., President December 2018
James Morrison, Vice President December 2018
Teresa O’Detter, Board Member December 2020
Rick Stephens, President December 2020
Lisa Wallace, Board Member December 2020
Meeting Schedule: 4th Wednesday of each month
Meeting Location: Airport Administrative Building, Community Room, 10356 Truckee Airport Road,
Truckee, CA at 4:30 PM.
Date of Formation: May 12,1958
Other: Multi-county district serving Placer County and Nevada County
Principal County: Placer County
18.2 OVERVIEW OF AGENCY
SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING SERVICES
The Truckee Tahoe Airport District (TTAD or District) provides airport services to eastern
Placer and Nevada counties, and beyond. This is the second Municipal Service Review (MSR)
for the District.
TYPE AND EXTENT OF SERVICES
TTAD is a California special district, created in 1958 in accordance with the California Airport
District Act. The District was formed to provide aeronautic services to residents in Placer and
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 18, Truckee Tahoe Airport District 18-2
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
Nevada counties, including operation of the Truckee Tahoe Airport and related facilities and
infrastructure. TTAD operates under permits granted by a variety of local, State, and federal
departments. These include Placer County Department of Environmental Health, California
Department of Transportation (Aeronautics Division), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
and the Federal Aviation Administration. District staff indicates that operation under the laws
applicable to special districts are conducive to quality provision of airport services and allows
the District to meet public and user needs efficiently and effectively. See Figure 18-1 for the
district boundary and the currently adopted Sphere of Influence.
LOCATION AND SIZE
The District boundaries encompass 485 square miles of unincorporated territory in eastern
Placer County and eastern Nevada County. GIS data indicates that within TTAD’s boundaries,
there are 25,825 parcels within Placer County and 18,128 parcels within Nevada County. The
Truckee-Tahoe Airport lies in the center of Martis Valley adjacent to the Town of
Truckee. The Airport property consists of 1.88 sq. miles (1,200 acres) and it is situated at
an elevation of 5,900 ft. above mean sea level. Although the community of Truckee is the
socioeconomic center of the District area, the airport serves a wide region including Tahoe
City, Incline Village, Kings Beach, Tahoma, and Donner Summit.
FORMATION
This District was created by a resolution of the Placer County Board of Supervisors (Resolution
58-63), following a vote of residents in the affected area in 1958, to oversee the Truckee
Tahoe Airport and its operations. The state enabling legislation (Principal Act) that authorized
the formation and operation of the District is the California Airport District Act: Public
Utilities Code Sections 22001 – 22909.
BOUNDARY HISTORY
The District was initially formed in 1958. Since then, there have been no other changes to the
District boundaries. The boundaries include portions of both Placer County and Nevada
County. Placer County has the majority of assessed value of land, and is therefore, the
Principal County, and under Placer LAFCo jurisdiction.
SPHERE OF INFLUENCE
The District’s Sphere of Influence (SOI) was approved by LAFCO on April 1, 1986 and it is
contiguous with the District’s boundary. District staff noted that the Sphere of Influence
boundary is adequate for projected future needs of the District (TTAD, 2013).
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 18, Truckee Tahoe Airport District 18-3
NEVADA CO. UV
89
er
v
Ri
e
§¨¦ cke
80
Tru
South
Yuba
River Donner Lake
UV
267
T
r
u
c
k
e
A
mericanRiver e
R
iv
e
r
UV
28
NorthFork
UV
89
PLACER CO.
UV
89
French Meadows Reservoir
River
Lake Tahoe
n
a
c
eri
m
A
k Hell Hole Reservoir
or
F
dle
Mid
R
u
b
ico
n
± R
iv
e
River r
SouthForkRubicon
EL DORADO CO.
Truckee Tahoe Airport District Boundary
and Sphere of Influence 0 1 2 Placer Co. District Boundary from Placer County GIS.
Miles Nevada Co. District Boundary from Nevada County GIS.
Figure 18-1 TRUCKEE TAHOE AIRPORT DISTRICT
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
EXTRA-TERRITORIAL SERVICES
The airport’s physical infrastructure is limited to property that the District owns within its
service area boundaries. The District provides airport and related services to residents and
businesses located both within and outside the District’s boundaries.
AREAS OF INTEREST
No specific areas outside the District boundaries have been identified that require services
from the District.
18.3: ACCOUNTABILITY AND GOVERNANCE
The District is governed by a five member Board of Directors, who are elected to four-year
terms by registered voters within the District boundaries. The current Board members are as
follows:
Board of Directors Term Expires
John B. Jones, Jr., President December 2018
James Morrison, Vice President December 2018
Teresa O’Detter, Board Member December 2020
Rick Stephens, President December 2020
Lisa Wallace, Board Member December 2020
Directors receive $100 in compensation per Board meeting – not to exceed four meetings in
any one month. Additionally, Directors are eligible to receive miscellaneous travel expenses
and health insurance premiums, subject to review by the full Board. The most recent
contested election was in the Presidential Election of November 2012, in which four
candidates vied for three Board positions. Election turnout District-wide was 59.5%. Two seats
were filled by appointment of the Placer County Board of Supervisors in lieu of election in
November 2014.
Regularly scheduled public meetings of the Board are held on the 4th Wednesday of each
month. The meetings are held at the Airport Administrative Building, Community Room,
10356 Truckee Airport Road, Truckee, CA at 4:30 PM. All meetings are publicly posted at the
District Administrative Building at least three days prior to Board meetings. The meetings are
streamed live over the internet and are broadcast on the local access television station. The
District’s Attorney attends each meeting to ensure compliance with the Brown Act. There is
an open public comment time at the beginning of each meeting for items not on the agenda
and public comment is allowed during the meeting for each agenda item. The District’s
website (http://www.truckeetahoeairport.com) contains meeting agendas, meeting minutes,
and other applicable information. The District also sends Board agendas to a mailing list of
people and organizations who have requested to be on the mailing list (TTAD, 2013).
It is important for local government agencies such as TTAD to be trustworthy, transparent,
and to act in the public’s interest rather than in self-interest. Transparency is particularly
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 18, Truckee Tahoe Airport District 18-5
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
important to TTAD and in early 2015, TTAD received a “District Transparency Certificate of
Excellence” from the Special District Leadership Foundation1. In summary, TTAD and its
activities undergo a variety of public review procedures, including review by the California
Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Division of Aeronautics and financial review by
independent auditors. There are sufficient mechanisms in place to ensure that actions and
operating procedures of the District are open and accessible to the public.
The Board of Directors is supported by its staff and by the Airport Community Advisory Team,
which is comprised of community volunteers. The Airport Community Advisory Team
formulates recommendations which are presented to the Board of Directors.
18.4: MANAGEMENT EFFICIENCIES AND STAFFING
The TTAD operates under the leadership of an elected Board of Directors (described above),
with a General Manager providing daily oversight and management of staff and resources.
There are currently 20 FTE and 2 Seasonal
employees of the District as shown in the
Organization Chart, Figure 18-2, below.
This is a slight increase from the 19 CONTACT INFORMATION:
employees the District had in 2003 (TTAD,
2013).
KEVIN SMITH
GENERAL MANAGER
The General Manager is responsible for the 530-587-4119 EXT 105
day-to-day operations and financial kevin.smith@truckeetahoeairport.com
accountability for the District. The
General Manager directs, coordinates, and
reviews all aircraft operations,
maintenance of the airfield and buildings,
community relations, and financial matters of the airport. The District’s General Manager
received the Excellence in Government Award from the Truckee Donner Chamber of
Commerce in October of 2012 (TTAD, 2013).
For the ten highest paid employees of the District, the average annual salary2 is $84,550.
When adding in employee benefits such as sick time and health insurance costs, the average
cost per employee (for the ten highest paid) is $118,314.
1 Special District Leadership Foundation is at:<http://www.sdlf.org/#!current-certificates-and-recognitions/ck30>
2 As reported to: <http://transparentcalifornia.com >
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 18, Truckee Tahoe Airport District 18-6
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
Figure 18-2: TTAD Organization Chart
Board of
Directors (5)
Airport
General Manager
Community
(1)
Advisory Team
Director Of Director Of
Director Of
Aviation & Finance &
Operations &
Community Administration
Maintenance (1)
Services (1) (1)
Aviation & Aviation &
Operations &
Community Community Safety Accounting Clerk
Maintenance District Clerk (1)
Services Manager Services Program Coordinator (1) (1)
Supervisor (2)
(1) Coordinator (1)
Ops & Ops &
Seasonal Workers
Maintenance Maintenance
(2)
Techs (8) Clerk (1)
In addition to the formal employees of the District, TTAD also has several contractual
positions including Technical Aviation Consultant, Geographic Information Systems (GIS)
Support Consultant, Multilateration (MLAT) Support Consultant, Information Technology (IT)
Support Consultant, District Engineer, and District Counsel. Since these services are provided
via contract, the District is not responsible for providing retirement, health and other
standard benefits.
TTAD’s overall management and staff structure appear to be operating efficiently. The
District is fiscally solvent, stable, and carries no long-term debt. All required permits for
operation and provision of services are up-to-date. Management is considered efficient at
providing aeronautic services to residents of Placer and Nevada counties. The current staff
organization appears to effectively serve the basic functions of the District and no
recommendations for alteration are proposed herein.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 18, Truckee Tahoe Airport District 18-7
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
Community Relations
A large part of management’s responsibilities is maintaining positive community relationships.
Part of community relationships is handling complaints. The District does have established
procedures for accepting complaints. Aviation customers may send complaints regarding
general issues to the District Clerk; however these types of complaints are not common.
Staff submits a quarterly report to the Board that logs and analyzes the number and type of
complaints. This report entitled “Community Comments & Operations Report” is available on
the District’s website as part of Board meeting packets. TTAD received 61 noise/annoyance
complaints in 2012 (TTAD, 2013) and received 272 complaints regarding aircraft in the year
2014 (TTAD, 2015). Noise and annoyance complaints are directed to the Aviation and
Community Services Director who aims to ensure best management practices are utilized to
reduce noise and other annoyances, consistent with the 2004 Truckee Airport Jet Noise Limits
Resolution. The Airport maintains a voluntary, but strongly requested flying curfew between
10pm and 7am as part of its good neighbor policy. In addition, the District initiated ‘Fly
Quiet’ procedures in 2001 in order to reduce flight-related noise.
The airport also supports a variety of community services that are aviation related or that
serve as an adjunct to management of the airport as listed below.
• Truckee Tahoe Air Show & Family Festival (see http://truckeetahoeairshow.com/)
provides a family friendly event and a portion of revenues generated support local
non-profit youth organizations. The Air Show typically occurs during the summer and
features aerial performances, vendor booths, and static aircraft displays.
• A webcam (or web camera) uses a computer to send live images of the airport to
internet users across the world. Many people utilize the Airport webcam to check
snow conditions and other weather situations. The webcam runs 24/7 (see
https://truckeetahoeairport.com/webcam).
• Waddle Ranch is owned by the District and jointly managed with the Truckee Donner
Land Trust. This ranch property serves to secure open areas around the Airport to
remove potential future impacts that the Airport may have on developments.
• Ponderosa Golf Course is owned by TTAD and is leased to Truckee Donner Recreation
and Park District. The golf course serves to secure open areas around the Airport to
remove potential future impacts that the Airport may have on developments.
18.5: POPULATION AND GROWTH
The existing population and projected future growth are analyzed in MSRs because they are
directly related to existing and future demand for most public services.
POPULATION
The size of the existing population throughout the Truckee-Tahoe Airport District boundary
area is substantially affected by seasonal variations, distinct user groups, and the abundance
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 18, Truckee Tahoe Airport District 18-8
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
of second homes. It is beyond the scope of this MSR to project seasonal populations; although
rough estimates are provided based upon studies that describe and characterize some of the
seasonal population dynamics along with the visitor accommodations are referenced herein.
TTAD’s boundaries encompass several distinct sub-regions including:
1. Tahoe City
2. North Tahoe
3. Squaw Valley
4. Alpine Springs
5. Northstar
6. Truckee
7. Donner Summit/Sierra Lakes
The population in these sub-regions, with the exception of Truckee, is described within this
MSR in other chapters. Adding the population in these sub-regions together yields the
population residing within TTAD’s boundaries, as shown in Table 18-1, below.
Table 18.1: Existing Population in Six Sub-Regions of TTAD’s Boundary
Sub-Regions in TTAD’s Existing Permanent Estimated
Boundary Population Current Peak
Visitor
Population3
Tahoe City 8,524 4 17,307
North Tahoe 5,486 11,1385
Squaw Valley 950 3,5006
Alpine Springs 191 1,5467
Northstar Community 136 12,000
Services District
Truckee 17,8978 21,4739
Donner Summit/Serene 298 2502
Lakes
Total in TTAD 33,482 69,466
Based on the data shown in the above table, it is estimated that TTAD’s boundaries
encompass an existing permanent population of 33,482 persons. The overnight visitor
3 This column shows the # overnight visitors. (Day-use only visitors are not included.)
4 See Chapter 14 for details.
5 Calculated from total population of 14691 (=5523*2.55 persons per household). Subtracted 5507 = 9184.
6 1315 housing units from absentee owners (i.e. visitors) x 2.55 persons per household. Please note that several
thousand move visitors could be accommodated in hotel rooms located within the District.
7 Overnight visitor population for ASCWD calculated from 653 units x 2.55 persons per household and 89% absentee
owner unit rate.
8 Calculated from 16211 persons in Town of Truckee per DOF data on website:
http://www.townoftruckee.com/departments/planning-division/growth-and-development/truckee-population-
and-housing-estimates plus 1686 persons in Martis Valley per 2010 census.
9 Calculated from 6692 vacation homes in Truckee plus 1729 vacation homes (not permanently occupied) in Martis
Valley * 2.55 persons per household.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 18, Truckee Tahoe Airport District 18-9
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
population during peak season is estimated at 69,466 persons as of the year 2015. The Town
of Truckee represents 54% of the permanent population and 31% of the visitor population.
PROJECTED GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT
Land Use Planning Documents
Projections for future development and hence increased service demands within the Martis
Valley, North Lake Tahoe, and the Highway 89 Corridor areas comprising TTAD’s boundary
area are based on information provided in the 1994 Placer County General Plan and related
area plans, the 1995 Nevada County General Plan, the 2003 Martis Valley Community Plan,
the 2025 Town of Truckee General Plan, the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency documents and
other sources. At the time when the Placer County portion of Martis Valley Community Plan
was completed in 2003, and the Truckee 2025 General Plan was updated in 2006 (and updated
again in 2009), the area was in a phase of rapid growth and development, the recent
economic downturn was unforeseen and, as a result, both plans have overestimated growth.
It is important to note, however, that planned capacity for growth still remains. See
discussion below under Town of Truckee General Plan.
Future population growth within the North Tahoe and Martis Valley region is dependent upon
zoning and general plan policies and land-use designations in the region. Regional population
and zoning/general plans are described in detail in the Introduction (Chapter 3) of this MSR.
The three local land use jurisdictions that have authority to grant entitlements to new
development within TTAD’s boundaries include Nevada County, Placer County, and the Town
of Truckee. Additionally, there are several federally managed properties located near the
airport including the Martis Creek Lake National Recreation Area (U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers) and the Tahoe National Forest (U.S. Forest Service).
The Placer County General Plan which is largely applicable to the North Lake Tahoe Basin and
Highway 89 corridor area was adopted in 1994. Each of the major communities in the Lake
Tahoe area is also covered by area or community plans, which are being incorporated into the
Proposed/Review Draft Tahoe Basin Area Plan, June 2015. The Placer County General Plan
serves as an umbrella plan for the five sub-plans (which are listed Table 18-2) including: 2003
Martis Valley Community Plan; Proposed/Review Draft Tahoe Basin Area Plan; 1983 Squaw
Valley General Plan and Land Use Ordinance; Proposed Draft Village at Squaw Valley Specific
Plan; and the Alpine Meadows General Plan. For the most part (not including Alpine Meadows
and Squaw Valley planning area), the Tahoe Basin is under the oversight planning control of
the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRAPA). The following table provides an overview of
the various land use planning documents applicable to the TTAD boundary area and relevant
to projections of future growth in the area.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 18, Truckee Tahoe Airport District 18-10
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
Table 18-2: Planning Documents
Planning Document Jurisdiction Citation Year Adopted
2025 Truckee General Town of Truckee (Truckee, 2006
Plan 2006).10
Nevada County General Nevada County (Nevada County, 1996. Updated
Plan (1996 with 2014 1996)11 2014)
Land Use Element and
Housing Element, 5th
Revision)
1994 Placer County Placer County (Placer County, 1994 (Updated
General Plan (as updated 1994)12 2013)
May 21, 2013)
• 2003 Martis Valley Placer County (Placer County, December 16, 2003
Community Plan13 2003)14
• Proposed/Review Placer County (Placer County, Not yet Adopted.
Draft Tahoe Basin 2015)15 Revised Draft on
Area Plan April 2016.
• 1983 Squaw Valley Placer County (Placer County, 1983
General Plan and Land 1983)
Use Ordinance
• Proposed Draft Village Placer County (Squaw Valley Not yet Adopted.
at Squaw Valley Real Estate, Draft on October
Specific Plan LLC, 2014) 2014
• Alpine Meadows Placer County (Placer County, 1968
General Plan 1968)16
2012 Lake Tahoe Regional TRPA (TRPA, 2012)17 2012
Plan
In addition to the planning documents listed in the Table above, the Airport and nearby
neighborhoods are subject to the Truckee Tahoe Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan,
10 Truckee General Plan: http://laserfiche.townoftruckee.com/Weblink/PDF/
uloj2y45db1nasz14f00di45/19/ Town%20of%20Truckee%202025%20General%20Plan.pdf
11 Nevada County General Plan at: https://www.mynevadacounty.com/nc/cda/planning/Pages/Nevada-County-
General-Plan.aspx
12 General Plan on County website at:
<http://www.placer.ca.gov/~/media/cdr/Planning/CommPlans/PCGP/PCGP2013.pdf>
13 The urban core of Martis Valley is the Town of Truckee. Outlying areas will continue to support and be supported
by the services found within the Town. The Nevada County portion of the 1975 plan area has not been updated,
although the 2025 Town of Truckee General Plan covers their portion of the Martis Valley.
14 Martis Valley Comm Plan at: <http://www.placer.ca.gov/~/media/cdr/Planning/CommPlans/MartisValley/
MartisValleyCommPlanDec2003.pdf>.
15 <http://www.placer.ca.gov/departments/communitydevelopment/planning/tahoebasinareaplan>
16 Alpine Meadows GP at: <http://www.placer.ca.gov/~/media/cdr/Planning/CommPlans/NTahoeCPs
/AlpineMeadowsGeneralPlan.pdf >
17 LT Regional Plan, 2012 at: <http://www.trpa.org/regional-plan/>
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 18, Truckee Tahoe Airport District 18-11
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
approved in December 2004, by the Foothill Airport Land Use Commission. This Compatibility
Plan promotes compatibility between the airport and surrounding land uses by establishing
compatibility criteria applicable to the review and approval of the design of new
development. The Airport District is working with NCTC to update this plan in 2016/2017.
Projected Population Numbers
Future population growth within the boundaries of TTAD is only one indicator of future
service demand at the airport. However it is important to analyze this indicator since it is
part of the equation. The 2004 MSR estimated the population growth rate within TTAD’s
boundary area at 2% annually. This projected growth rate never materialized, in part due to
the national recession that started in 2008 and partly due to other factors. For planning
purposes TTAD uses the population growth estimated provided in its 2014 Appropriations Limit
Calculation which was calculated using the Annual Percent Change in Population (minus
exclusions) provided by the California State Department of Finance. The rates of population
growth were a negative 0.35% for Nevada County and a positive 0.56%, for Placer County.
For this MSR, a new analysis was conducted using equivalent dwelling units (EDUS) as a metric
to relate to population growth. The projected EDU’s shown in in Table 18-3, below, for the
years 2017 to 2032 are based upon anticipated future population growth from the total
growth in the 6 sub-regions. The economic downturn from 2009 to present may have resulted
in pent up demand for development. For example, projected planned growth associated with
the 2025 Town of Truckee General Plan has not occurred on pace with expectations. The
same can be said for Northstar-at-Tahoe. Northstar-at-Tahoe will experience growth that
should approach buildout by 2034 (See Northstar CSD MSR). Other resort communities (Tahoe
City, Kings Beach, etc.) in the Lake Tahoe Basin are not expected to achieve a high level of
growth. The projections in Table 18-3 reflect a more modest and conservative increasing
growth curve through 2032.
TABLE 18.3: EDU PROJECTIONS WITHIN TTAD BOUNDARY AREA
Projections
2003 2008 2012 2017 2022 2027 2032
EDUs 35,374 39,150 40,572 42,557 44,857 48,195 51,792
Percent change -- 11% 4% 5% 5% 7% 7%
Percent change per
-- 2% 0.90% 1% 1% 1.50% 1.50%
year
Total (i.e. permanent
plus visitor) Population
108,520 114,385 122,897 132,069
Calculated from
EDU’s18
Data Source: 1) Table 16.3, T-TSA EDU Projections, 2) EDU data from Chapter 7, Donner Summit
Public Utility District, and 3) EDU data from Chapter 11, Sierra Lakes County Water District.
18 2.55 persons per household is the metric used to convert EDUs into population, based on data from
2010 census and more recent data from CA Dept. of Finance.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 18, Truckee Tahoe Airport District 18-12
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
In the year 2032, the area is expected to have a total population of 132,069. It is assumed
that 65% of the dwelling units are owned by absentee owners.
DISADVANTAGED UNINCORPORATED COMMUNITIES
As described in Chapter 3, LAFCo is required to consider the provision of public services to
disadvantaged unincorporated communities (DUCs). Senate Bill (SB) 244 requires LAFCo to
identify and consider disadvantaged unincorporated communities (DUCs) when preparing MSRs
and Sphere updates for cities and special districts that provide sewer, water, or structural
fire protection services. Although TTAD does not provide critical services such as sewer,
water, or structural fire protection, information regarding DUCs within TTAD’s boundaries is
provided herein to portray socio-economic information. A DUC is defined by the Water Code
as one in which the median annual household income (MHI) is 80 percent of the statewide
average. In 2010, the
statewide MHI was $60,883;
80 percent of that is $48,706.
Severely disadvantaged
communities are defined as
areas with a median income
of less than 60% of the State's
median household income.
Relevant data were reviewed
for the TTAD boundary area.
Figure 18-3: DUCs Per DWR
Two DUCs have been
identified within the TTAD
boundary, its SOI, and/or
adjacent areas. The
California Department of
Water Resources (DWR) has
developed a methodology to
determine the location of DUCs using the census-designated places19 (CDPs). DUC status is
determined based on the DUC definition provided in DWR's Proposition 84 and 1E Integrated
Regional Water Management Guidelines, dated August, 2010. DWR has developed a mapping
tool to help determine which communities in an Integrated Regional Water Management
(IRWM) region meet the DUC median household income (MHI) definition for grants20. The
maps and geographic information system files are derived from the US Census Bureau's
American Community Survey and are compiled for the five-year period 2006-2010. DWR has
included, in the maps, a calculated field which indicates the DUC status for different census
19 The U.S. Census Bureau identifies “census designated place” as the statistical counterpart of a city
in that it is a named place with a concentration of residents, housing, and commercial activity, but is
located in a county’s unincorporated territory.
20 Department of Water Resources IRWM Grant Program, Disadvantaged Communities (DAC) Mapping
Tool. <www.water.ca.gov/irwm/grants/resourceslinks.cfm>.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 18, Truckee Tahoe Airport District 18-13
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
geographies (Place, Tract, and Block Group).
Within TTAD’s boundaries two areas, Soda
Springs and Kings Beach are recognized by the
Department of Water Resources as DUCs as
shown in Figure 18-3. The median household
income as of July 1, 2015 for the Kings Beach
Census Designated Place was $40,621 and for
the Soda Springs21 CDP was $44,621.
Additionally, data from the California
Department of Finance22 has mapped areas of Figure 18-4: High Income Areas Per Ca Dept. Of Finance
Low unemployment / low poverty in order to
exclude these designated areas from the New
Employment Credit program. The areas shown
in the map below have incomes which are higher than average.
Another indicator of income is determining whether a census tract is eligible for special home
financing by California Home Financing Agency. There are no neighborhoods in the North
Tahoe/Martis Valley region that area eligible23 for this type of home financing because
median incomes are too high to qualify.
18.6: DISTRICT SERVICES
SERVICE OVERVIEW
The District provides aviation services at the Truckee Tahoe Airport. Although the airport is
primarily utilized for general aviation, there are also a few semi-commercial small private jet
companies. The airport is attended seven days a week, 7am - 9pm. The Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) lists the Truckee Tahoe Airport as a general aviation facility and it is
NPIAS (National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems) airport number 02366-A (TTAD, 2013) and
its FAA assigned identification code is KTRK. Being listed as a NPIAS airport allows TTAD to be
included in the Federal Airport Improvement Program (AIP), and therefore eligible for grant
funding for airport improvements.
The District serves several types of customers including:
• itinerant (nomadic) pilots;
• home-based pilots (primarily regional customers);
• constituents (members of the public that utilize airport facilities) (TTAD, 2013); and
• Surf Air, a private membership commuter airline which operates a Pilatus single-
engine turboprop aircraft out of the Truckee airport. Surf Air connects Truckee to
Oakland, San Carlos, and Burbank airports.
21 Data Source: http://california.hometownlocator.com/ca/nevada/soda-springs.cfm
22 Data source: http://maps.gis.ca.gov/gobiz/dga/default.aspx
23 Data source: http://qct.huduser.org/tables/1statetable.odb?statefp=6.0&DDAYEAR=2013
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 18, Truckee Tahoe Airport District 18-14
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
The Airport houses aircraft in220 hangars and 150 temporary or visitor aircraft tie-down
spaces available (TTAD, 2013). However, the hangars and tie-downs are not fully occupied.
Occupancy varies seasonally. The airport is home to 135 permanent aircraft and 67 visiting
aircraft (TTAD, 2014). Ancillary services provided at the airport include:
• one repair maintenance facility located at the airport;
• one primary aircraft rental facility;
• flight instruction service provide services to students at the airport;
• hosting of emergency medical aircraft;
• hosting of firefighting aircraft (usually on a seasonal or temporary basis);
• snow removal service on the runways and associated area, but not aircraft de-icing;
• commercial warehouse tenants who provide services in the retail and wholesale
marketplace; and
• other aviation related services at the airport such as aviation fuel, courtesy
transportation, restrooms, catering, car-rental and crew services (TTAD, 2013).
The Truckee Fire Protection District and Cal Fire provide on-site fire suppression support. On-
site emergency medical support is provided by the Truckee Fire Protection District.
The airport is home to one commercial business called fixed-base operators (FBO) who
is granted the right by the airport to operate and provide aeronautical services such as
fueling, aircraft rental, aircraft maintenance, flight instruction, aerial tours/sightseeing, and
aircraft sales available for corporate and individual clients. Pre-heating services and aircraft
maintenance are offered by this local FBO. The District grants a lease to the FBO business.
Three rental car companies also operate at the airport: Hertz, Enterprise and Avis.
In addition to its traditional customers, the District also has stakeholders that include nearby
property owners and residents.
SUPPLY/DEMAND
LAFCo’s 2004 MSR noted that “While population projections within the service area are useful
for estimating certain functions, the overall ability of the District to provide services will be
better estimated by the projected number of aircraft utilizing the airport.” KTRK has about
23,000annual operations24 (an operation is a takeoff or landing). Historical trends suggest
that airport operations have slowly decreased over the thirty year period. Recent operational
numbers for the past five years however shows stabilized growth within a certain type of
aircraft. A decreasing number of piston powered aircraft is becoming apparent. An increase in
operations from turboprop and turbine aircraft continues to drive slow growth for KTRK. A
majority (97%) of the aircraft operations at the airport are general aviation planes, 3% are air
taxis, and less than 1% are military related. There are 202 aircraft that park at the airport on
a permanent and/or temporary basis (TTAD, 2014).
24 Personal communication Kevin Smith, General Manager, Sept. 23, 2015
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 18, Truckee Tahoe Airport District 18-15
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
Another factor that contributes to demand for aviation services is the amount of disposable
income that visitors and residents have available to spend on high ticket items such as
aviation (TTAD, 2014). As described in Chapter 3 of this MSR, median income for the North
Tahoe /Martis Valley region is higher than the state average. The data presented in Table
18.4 indicates that service demand declined significantly during the first year of the recession
in 2008. Since then, demand has risen steadily but has not yet reached the past peak demand
levels (i.e. pre-recession levels). This indicates that the airport has some underutilized
capacity and the physical ability to accommodate projected future growth.
Table 18-4: Trends in Service Demands at Airport
Service # Customers in # Customers # Customers in # Customers in
2003 in 2008 2012 2014
Airport1 26,733 11,031 20,082 22,764
1 The number of customers is measured by the number of aircraft counted on
airport cameras. Each number represents one operation, which is either a
departure or an arrival (TTAD, 2013).
In 2014, there were average of 62 operations per day; however it is recognized that daily
traffic is highly variable with peak aircraft traffic occurring in July and over holiday
weekends. Of the 22,764 aircraft operations in 2014, 35% were conducted by piston-single
engine, 5% Piston-Twin engine, 17% Turbo Prop, 16% Jet, 5% Helicopter and 22% Glider and
ultralight (TTAD, 2015).
In addition to the demand for direct use of the runway by aircraft, the supply and demand for
aircraft parking is also considered. Parking for specific aircraft is provided through the use of
tie-downs and hangars. The FAA forecasts modest growth in the domestic aviation market
nationally. This growth will be in the turboprop and the turbo jet type aircraft. Significant
changes to the fleet mix are expected for Tahoe Truckee airport over the next 30 years
(TTAD, 2013 and TTAD, 2014).
The June 2014 Draft Airport Master Plan (DAMP) presents aircraft-demand forecasts for the
airport, based on historical rates at the airport, national (FAA) data, and anticipated changes
in small aircraft operation and usage. The following table presents the projected growth
demand for operations at airport.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 18, Truckee Tahoe Airport District 18-16
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
Table 18-5 Forecast Summary of Total Operations
Year 2015 2020 2025
Number of Aircraft Operations 27,464 29,229 31,139
Source of data: TTAD, 2014
Based on data presented in the above table, the growth forecast between the years 2015 and
2025, is that aircraft operations will increase by 13 percent. Operational forecasts for the
Truckee Tahoe Airport indicate that it has operational capacity (including sufficient facility
size) to meet the needs of its customers now and over the next 15 years (TTAD, 2013).
These projections appear to be based on all relevant data available, and indicate a realistic
projection of future demand for airport services. Based on aviation demand forecasts made
in the DAMP, infrastructure demands for future needs will focus on sufficient resources for
airplane storage.
The Airport Capital Improvements Program (ACIP) has been developed to provide for
infrastructure and facility expansion based on current and projected demand. The District’s
process to develop the
ACIP and its future
updates appear
sufficient to allow for
expansion of facilities
and infrastructure
necessary to meet the
demands of future
growth.
18.7: INFRASTRUCTURE AND FACILITIES
This section describes existing infrastructure and reviews planned infrastructure to assess the
District’s ability to provide high levels of service called for in District plans. As part of this
assessment, several documents were reviewed including the 2009 Airport Capital
Improvements Program25 (ACIP) and the 2014 Draft Airport Master Plan. Airport infrastructure
is generally classified into two broad categories: airside and landside facilities. Airside
facilities relate directly to the operation of aircraft and include all infrastructure, capital
facilities, and equipment. Landside facilities are part of the transition between air
transportation to surface transportation and also include support facilities for operation of
FBOs. The Truckee Tahoe Airport Master Plan (AMP) was originally adopted in 1980 and
updated in 2000, and is now being updated a second time with the 2014 Draft Plan available
25 ACIP is available on-line at:
https://truckeetahoeairport.com/board_meetings/73/view_file?file=TAB+13c+-+ACIP+2009.PDF
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 18, Truckee Tahoe Airport District 18-17
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
for review on the District’s website. The AMP contains a list of all infrastructure and facilities
associated with the airport.
The airport is unique in that it straddles the county line between Nevada County and Placer
County. While Placer County contains the greater portion of the assessed value of taxable
properties within the District’s overall boundaries, most of the airport facilities are located in
Nevada County. However, the southern ends of Runways 2/20 and 11/29, and approximately
33% of the contiguous airport property lie within Placer County. Two-hundred acres of land
was originally acquired for the airport in the early 1960s. The airport opened in 1964 with one
5,000-foot runway oriented to the northwest/ southeast.
Today, the 926 acre Airport property includes two runways; however runways have separate
identification numbers for each direction of approach. Therefore, a total of four runways may
sometimes be referenced in other documents. In this MSR we use a “/” to denote one runway
that has two numbers to reflect the two directions of approach. Runway 11/29 is 7,000 feet
in length by 100 feet wide, and is oriented from northwest to southeast. Runway 2/20 is
4,650 feet in length and 75 feet wide, and is oriented from northeast to southwest. All
runways are paved asphaltic concrete (hard) surface and all runways have parallel taxiways.
The elevation of the runways is approximately 5,900 feet above sea level (TTAD, 2013). The
2014 Draft AMP describes all runways as being in good condition. Other Airside infrastructure
includes taxiways, lighting systems, navigational aides, and above-ground tanks that contain
fuel.
Landside infrastructure and facilities includes aircraft hangars, apron space, the
administration building, warehouse and storage facilities, and other structures and
equipment. A total of 219 aircraft can be parked in hangar storage and an additional
192 aircraft can be parked in apron space. In 2012, a new terminal building was constructed
to include a pilot lounge, a pilot kitchen, a flight planning room, a customer service/UNICOM
desk, public meeting rooms, and a restaurant. A children's playground and park are adjacent
to this terminal building. The meeting rooms within this terminal are made available to non-
profit groups such as American Youth Soccer, Girl Scouts, Toastmasters and the
Chamber of Commerce. Emergency helipad sites are proposed in the future (TTAD, 2014).
All facilities have been assessed in the AMP as in either good or excellent condition.
Of the airport’s 926 acres, 328 acres is developed with aviation facilities and other assorted
facilities, or is held open for aeronautical purposes. An additional 598 acres has the potential
to be further developed at some point in the future. An example of the type of potential
future development is the District’s agreement with Clear Capital for office space. Other
non-aviation uses might also be proposed for future development on District owned property
and the District has formed a “Non-Aeronautical Land Use Plan Ad Hoc Committee” to address
this issue. The impacts of any future development will likely be evaluated on a project
specific basis, consistent with CEQA and consistent with the Airport Master Plan which is
currently being updated (2014 Draft Plan is available for public review). In addition to
the 926 acre Airport property, TTAD has acquired interest in an additional
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 18, Truckee Tahoe Airport District 18-18
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
±1,717 acres, which includes Waddle Ranch and the Ponderosa Golf Course. The purpose of
these properties is to preserve land uses that are compatible with airport operations and to
facilitate other aviation-related services, such as emergency heli-pads,
in other parts of the District.
The 2014 Draft Airport Master Plan is based upon previous master plans completed in 1980
and 2000. The 2000 Airport Master Plan suggested construction of two additional runways at
some time in the future. One new runway could be parallel to the primary runway (11/29) to
provide better separation between business jets and propeller aircraft. It could also be
utilized for flight training. The second proposed runway could be used by sailplanes and
constructed of turf. Enhanced instrument approach capabilities and land acquisition for
additional hangar facilities were also proposed in the 2000 plan. These proposals from the
2000 Plan are being reevaluated in the 2014 Draft Plan.
INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS
Infrastructure needs or deficiencies are described in capital facilities maintenance plans for:
Structures, Pavement, and Forest Management. Additionally, the Draft 2014 Master Plan is
evaluating long-term needs for construction of additional runways, improved instrument
approach capabilities and additional hangar facilities. In the short-term, TTAD does have an
adopted five-year Airport Capital Improvement Plan26 (ACIP). For 2015, the ACIP calls for the
following improvements:
• Runway 2/20 & Taxiway G – Saw and Seal New Joints
• South Jet Apron
Reconstruction
• Hangar
Taxilanes West
G and GH
Reconstruction
• Remove Taxiway
E and widen
Apron A1 and
A@
• Taxiway A Reconstruction.
OPPORTUNITIES TO SHARE FACILITIES, SERVICES & STAFF
MSRs analyze how local agencies share facilities, services, and staff because sharing is an
indicator for government efficiency and collaboration. Part of the efficiency equation is cost
savings, since it is cheaper to share facilities as compared to building new facilities. Although
TTAD does not share facilities, services, or staff with other regional airports, they are actively
26 ACIP is available on line at:
https://truckeetahoeairport.com/board_meetings/73/view_file?file=TAB+13c+-+ACIP+2009.PDF
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 18, Truckee Tahoe Airport District 18-19
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
engaged in sharing and collaboration with neighboring districts and local agencies including
the Truckee Donner Recreation and Park District, Truckee Fire Protection District, and Tahoe
City Public Utility District (PUD). Given the Airport’s proximity to the Town of Truckee, these
two entities often discuss and work to resolve issues of mutual interest.
TTAD owns the Ponderosa Golf Course, which is adjacent to the District’s boundary. The
District leases the land to the Truckee Donner Recreation and Park District for $166,000 per
year; however the rent is waived on an annual basis if the Recreation and Park District meets
certain conditions set forth in the Lease Document (TTAD, 2013).
TTAD maintains a mutual aid agreement with Truckee Fire Protection District to provide on-
site fire, emergency medical support, and rescue response in the event of an aircraft incident
at the Truckee Tahoe Airport. TTAD also has joint access to firefighting equipment
specifically designed to combat aircraft incident fires. Cal Fire may also contribute towards
on-site fire suppression support (TTAD, 2013).
TTAD contributed approximately 8% of the cost towards acquisition of the Tahoe City Golf
Course, in exchange for the opportunity to construct a heli-pad for use during an emergency.
This golf course is jointly owned by Tahoe City PUD, Placer County, the North Lake Tahoe
Resort Association, and TTAD and the course is operated consistent with a March 2012
memorandum of understanding27.
18.8: FINANCING
This section evaluates the factors affecting the financing of services, operations and capital
improvements for TTAD. TTAD operates as an Enterprise Fund, meaning that charges for
services are intended to pay for the costs of providing such services. The District also relies
on property taxes to support its operations, and utilizes Federal grant funds for capital
improvement projects.
Disclaimer: The financial information provided in this MSR section was accurate as of its
writing in 2014. However, the District updates its financial information on an annual basis.
Therefore, the financial information in this MSR has been superseded and readers are
encouraged to read the newer financial statements and budgets published by the District on
their website at: https://truckeetahoeairport.com/ .
District Revenues and Expenditures for Fiscal Year (FY) 2011-2012, FY 2012-2013, and FY
2013-2014 are summarized in Table 18-6. The District’s Fiscal Year runs from October 1st
through September 30th. District Audits are prepared by James Marta and Company. Refer to
the District website for the actual audit reports. TTAD follows the General Accounting
Standard Board Statement No. 34 (GASB 34) accounting standards (TTAD, 2013).
2727 MOU is on-line at: http://www.tahoecitypud.com/download/general/tcgcmou.pdf
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 18, Truckee Tahoe Airport District 18-20
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
18-6 Summary of Revenues and Expenditures for Fiscal Years 2011-2012, 2012-
2013 and 2013-2014
Fiscal Year Ending
2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014
Revenues
Operating
$2,261,985 35.0% $2,571,464 31.8% $2,702,074 37.6%
Revenue
Non-Operating
Revenue
Property Taxes 4,312,620 66.8% 4,530,360 56.0% 4,604,584 64.1%
Interest Income 56,009 0.9% 54,407 0.7% 62,273 0.9%
Other
Government 59,703 0.9% 962,252 11.9% 119,370 1.7%
Funds
Miscellaneous
(234,912) (3.6%) (33,598) (0.4%) (308,443) (4.3%)
Revenue (Loss)
Total Revenues $6,455,405 100% $8,084,885 100% $7,179,858 100%
Expenditures
Operating Expenses
Salaries & Wages 1,237,501 20.3% $1,300,540 17.0% $1,315,239 19.6%
Employee Benefits 736,820 12.1% 638,881 8.4% 698,365 10.4%
General &
1,438,913 23.6% 1,929,729 25.3% 1,897,816 28.3%
Administrative
Repairs &
1,099,794 18.0% 1,911,738 25.0% 896,464 13.4%
Maintenance
Depreciation
1,595,551 26.1% 1,853,450 24.3% 1,891,878 28.2%
& Amortization
Total
$6,108,579 100% $7,634,338 100% $6,699,762 100%
Expenditures
Net Income (or
$346,826 $450,457 $480,096
Loss)
Change in Net
$3,290,705 $884,292 $1,610,436
Assets
Beginning Net
$44,121,032 $47,411,737 $48,296,029
Assets
Ending Net Assets $47,411,737 $48,296,029 $49,906,465
Source: TTAD Independent Auditor’s Reports - FY 2011-2012, FY 2012-2013, and FY 2013-2014
REVENUES
While total District revenues have fluctuated over the three fiscal years, the general trend is
upward, with the stabilization of property taxes after two years of decline in 2010 and 2011,
and an increase in fuel sales.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 18, Truckee Tahoe Airport District 18-21
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
District revenue is divided into two main categories: Operating Revenue; and Non-Operating
Revenue. Operating Revenue (and their respective percentage) is derived from landing fees
(4%), aircraft storage fees (37%), fuel flowage fees (44%), concessions (2%), rents and leases
(11%), and miscellaneous revenues (2%). Non-Operating Revenue (and their respective
percentage) is derived from property taxes (96%), interest income (1%), and governmental
funds (grants) (3%). Property taxes comprise around 60% of total District revenue, with an
incremental increase each year (refer to Table 18-6). Placer County generates about two-
thirds of the property tax revenue, with one-third coming from Nevada County.
Since the Airport provides services to the general public, including individuals that live and/or
work outside the District boundaries, fees for service are a significant revenue source, and
contribute around 35% of the overall revenue of the District.
The TTAD’s 2011 Strategic Plan requires that property tax revenue be allocated in the
following manner:
• Operations 20%
• TTAD Portion of Grants 10%
• Annoyance Reduction and Outreach Projects 25%
• Other Capital Projects 15%
• Land Purchase and Management 30%
Additionally, funding for capital improvement projects has come from the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA).28 For 2014, the District received funding through the FAA Airport
Improvement Program (AIP), including $1.1 million to complete pavement rehabilitation and
airfield infrastructure projects.
EXPENDITURES
District Expenditures are divided into two main categories: Operating Expenses; and Non-
Operating Expenses. Operating Expenses (and their respective percentage) include
administration (including salaries, wages and employee benefits) (26%), and maintenance and
operation (including landing areas (20%), terminal building and other buildings (5%), general
shop and equipment (6%), cost of sales and services (21%), and depreciation and amortization
(22%). As shown in Table 18-6, the District has shown a net positive income over the past
three fiscal years, and has increased its ending net assets in each of these years.
In February 2015, the District Directors approved a construction and lease agreement with
Clear Capital, a real estate data firm, and the Directors allocated $1.61 million to start work
on a 12,640-square-foot building intended to house Clear Capital offices and other uses. The
$1.61 million in cost will be used for design and permitting of the building and was
accommodated by transferring funds from the District’s reserve budget. The remaining
28 Details on 2015 capital improvements are on-line at: https://truckeetahoeairport.com/news/51-
proposed-airport-improvement-projects
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 18, Truckee Tahoe Airport District 18-22
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
project cost, $2.48 million for construction, is projected to come from reserve funds and is
budgeted for the District’s 2015-16 fiscal year. Grading and preliminary construction was
planned to start on October 15, 2015.
RATE RESTRUCTURING
As an enterprise district, TTAD charges fees for services, as specified under a Master Fee
Schedule. Current fuel prices are around $4.60 per gallon for both Jet A fuel and 100 LL fuel.
Fuel sales comprise a significant revenue source for the District. Other fees include aircraft
services (towing, lavatory service and aircraft jump start service). Auto parking fees range
from $7.00 per night to $350 annually. Facility use fees for the Community Rooms range from
$100 to $200 per hour for for-profit entities, and No Charge for non-profit entities. Long-
term hangar space is based on a ‘per square foot’ basis between $0.346 and $0.409.
Overnight tie-downs vary from $311 to $7,128 per year, depending on the type of aircraft.
The Master Fee Schedule, adopted in May of 2013, is available for review on the District
website. Many of the fees in the Master Fee Schedule are adjusted frequently based on cost
of goods sold, consistent with TTAD’s Rates and Fees policy. Staff is currently working with
consultants to revise the Primary Management and Compliance documents which will provide
a review and update of the Master Fee Schedule.
ASSETS AND LIABILITIES
As reflected in Table 18-7, the District’s total net assets have increased slightly in each of the
past three fiscal years. More significantly, the District’s Unrestricted Assets (in effect, the
District’s Reserve Fund) has increased by over 10% per year. These funds have been
designated by the Board of Directors as follows: $3.6 million for future capital projects;
$2.75 million for land acquisition; $2.65 million for operating funds, and $500,000 exclusively
for pavement maintenance. A total of $1.5 million has been ear-marked to address the not
yet adopted Accounting Standard No. 68, which will require the District to show its net
pension liability.
TTAD has no outstanding debt (TTAD, 2013). TTAD does maintain insurance for professional
activities (TTAD, 2013).
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 18, Truckee Tahoe Airport District 18-23
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
Table 18-7 Summary of Assets and Liabilities as of September 30, 2014
Fiscal Year Percent
Fiscal Year Ending Ending Change
Sept 30, Sept 30, 2013 Percent Sept 30, 2014
Assets and Liabilities 2012 Change
Assets
Current Assets $10,206,727 $12,268,557 17% $13,421,813 9%
Restricted Assets 250,000 1,000,000
750,000
(Investments)
Noncurrent 522,500 20,000
25,000
Receivable
Capital Assets 36,687,710 37,336,450 2% 37,386,324 0%
Total Assets $46,669,437 $50,377,507 7% $51,828,127 3%
Liabilities
Current Liabilities
$2,160,761 $1,998,795 -8% $1,840,355 -8%
Unrestricted
Current Liabilities %
Restricted
Long Term Liabilities 96,939 82,683 -15% 81,317 -2%
Total Liabilities $2,257,700 $2,081,478 -8% $1,921,672 -8%
Net Assets
Investment in Capital
$38,687,710 $37,336,450 -4% 37,386,324 0%
Assets
Restricted 16,468 16,648 0% 16,648 0%
Unrestricted 8,707,559 10,943,111 10% 12,503,673 12%
Total Net Assets $47,411,737 $48,296,029 1% $49,906,465 3%
Source: TTAD Independent Auditor’s Report - FY 2013-2014
COST AVOIDANCE
MSRs describe measures that districts take to avoid unnecessary costs because it is important
for the public sector to avoid waste and to be financially efficient. TTAD actively works to
avoid costs through the following measures:
• Utilizes its own property/building (i.e. Airport Administrative Building) to conduct
District meetings space, thereby saving rental costs.
• Participates in the SDRMA, a Joint Powers Authority formed for the purpose of
providing risk management services to local government agencies. TTAD secures its
Workers’ Comp insurance through SDRMA (TTAD, 2013).
• Added a second tier to the employee pension program. The District has revised the
employee insurance benefit to self-insure for a portion of the risk – savings in the first
year approximated $100,000(TTAD, 2013).
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 18, Truckee Tahoe Airport District 18-24
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
18.9: CHALLENGES
TTAD faces challenges that are similar to those faced by every small airport including safety,
climate change, resolving litigation, and real estate management.
Although flying today is extremely safe, the Truckee Tahoe Airport does present unique
geographic and climate issues that make safety awareness paramount. Between the years
2008 to 2012, nine crashes occurred at or near the Airport; although only one was fatal
(MacMillan, 2012). Safety issues associated with the airport include: mountainous terrain;
density altitude (in which the aircraft performs at an equivalent altitude based on the airport
elevation and temperature – for KTRK, this can exceed 9,000 feet in the Summer); wind
gusts/wind shear (terrain can cause shifting winds); glider plane activity in the airport
proximity; fuel mixture (lean for higher elevation performance); and wildlife on the runway.
In addition, at the present time, TTAD does not provide de-icing services.
Climate change is another challenge that faces all airports. Currently, aircraft burn carbon-
based fuels which directly contribute greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. Fuel efficiency,
sustainable biofuels, and other aviation technology might provide solutions to the carbon
problem. Related to this is Vehicle Miles Traveled that pilots and passengers expend driving
to and from the airport, which also contribute to greenhouse gas emissions. Energy efficient
cars and electric cars are becoming more common and TTAD may wish to consider facilities to
support these future vehicular trends. The alternative to driving to the airport is bus service.
Rail service to the Airport is not feasible at this time.
TTAD has historically been involved with very few lawsuits. The only current outstanding
litigation is a suit brought on behalf of TTAD against an entity that failed to comply with the
terms of a contract. There is currently a settlement negotiated that will not impact the
District’s finances in a negative manner (TTAD, 2013).
TTAD’s Airport property does have some development potential and while this presents an
opportunity to the District, it also present some challenges. There is revenue potential for
developing this real estate for its highest and best use. Balancing the aviation uses with the
non-aviation businesses that are located on District property will be an on-going challenge.
Managing noise issues even while allowing for future development and expansion of the
Airport will be an on-going challenge. The Airport currently has in place Noise Abatement
Procedures, and while voluntary, are designed to reduce noise effects over residential areas
and during night time hours.
There are a variety of potential future states for the Airport and TTAD’s process for updating
the Master Plan may address several of the possibilities. It will be important for TTAD to
continue to work cooperatively with the Town of Truckee and other unincorporated
communities near the Airport to resolve issues of mutual interest.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 18, Truckee Tahoe Airport District 18-25
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
18.10: SERVICE ADEQUACY
Service adequacy is an area of analysis focused on consideration of the overall ability of the
TTAD to effectively provide airport services and on the appropriateness of physical boundaries
of the District. Effectiveness of service can be indicated by the condition of infrastructure
and permit (FAA and other) violations. TTAD’s infrastructure is reported to be in good shape.
No permit or FAA violations have been noted.
Determining the appropriateness of physical boundaries relates to the opportunities for
merger or consolidation with other nearby districts. Eight airports are located within 30
nautical miles of Truckee Tahoe Airport:
• Reno/Stead Airport, Reno, NV
• Reno/Tahoe International Airport, Reno, NV
• Dayton Valley Airpark, Carson City, NV
• Carson Airport, Carson City, NV
• Sierraville Dearwater Airport, Sierra County, CA
• Minden-Tahoe Airport, Minden, NV
• Lake Tahoe Airport, South Lake Tahoe, CA
• Blue Canyon-Nyack Airport, Emigrant Gap, CA
Consolidations of the TTAD with other nearby airports was briefly considered in the 2004 MSR
for the District and found to be unnecessary at that time. Conditions have not changed since
then, and merging TTAD with one of the above listed airports is not likely to be feasible.
The physical boundaries of the District are appropriate for the service provided and for the
established location of the airport. There are no identified opportunities for improvement of
services by alteration of the physical boundaries of the District. The Airport was last
inspected by Caltrans, Division of Aeronautics on April 29, 2015; no violations were identified.
According to the inspection report, the conditions of the runway and markings on the runway
are adequate.
TTAD actively manages a wide range of tasks including safety and security, noise control,
community relations, financial management, oversight of contracts and leases, facility
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 18, Truckee Tahoe Airport District 18-26
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
maintenance, compliance with federal grant conditions, and capital improvements. TTAD
operates efficiently and is fiscally sound.
18.11: DETERMINATIONS
GROWTH AND POPULATION PROJECTIONS
1. The current permanent population residing with TTAD boundaries is estimated to be
33,482 persons. The overnight visitor population during peak season is estimated at
69,466 persons as of the year 2015.
2. The growth rate of the Agency service area is approximately two percent in the
Truckee and Squaw Valley areas and less than one percent in the North Tahoe special
district areas.
3. While there is planned growth that has been a part of the various planning programs
for many years, there are no projections, projects or plan updates on the horizon that
would suggest that growth will exceed those levels reflected in the respective lead
agency planning documents.
DISADVANTAGED UNINCORPORATED COMMUNITIES
4. Within the TTAD’s boundary area, the communities of Kings Beach, Carnelian Bay,
some neighborhoods within Tahoe City, and Soda Springs meet the states standard for
DUCs of 80 percent of the state median family income.
5. This MSR describes how the core services water, sewer, and structural fire protection
services are adequately provided to disadvantaged communities within eastern Placer
County. TTAD is not responsible for assuring that these services are adequately
provided to disadvantaged communities.
6. TTAD is reviewing the feasibility of providing EMS Heliports in the Kings Beach Tahoe
Vista area which will provide additional services to DUCs.
7. The District currently has an education partnership with the Boys and Girls Club in
Kings Beach to provide education programs centered on Aviation STEM initiatives.
PRESENT AND PLANNED CAPACITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES
8. The Truckee Tahoe Airport District is responsible for the safe operation of the Truckee
Tahoe Airport. TTAD actively manages wide range of tasks including administration,
safety and security, noise control, community relations, financial management,
oversight of contracts and leases, facility maintenance, compliance with federal grant
conditions, and capital improvements. TTAD operates efficiently.
9. The Airport Capital Improvements Program (ACIP) is sufficient to allow for expansion
of facilities and infrastructure necessary to meet the demands of future growth.
10. The Truckee Tahoe Airport District has adopted an Airport Master Plan in 2000 which
presents a reasonable projection of likely service demands. This Master Plan is
currently being updated and a June 2014 Draft Master Plan is available on the
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 18, Truckee Tahoe Airport District 18-27
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
District’s website. Current plans and financing mechanisms appear sufficient to
ensure that the District will be able to accommodate projected service demands.
11. Each Year TTAD updates in 5 year Airport Capital Improvement Plan (ACIP). The
current FAA approved 2015 to 2020 ACIP clearly lists the projects needed to maintain
the Airport.
FINANCIAL ABILITY OF AGENCY TO PROVIDE SERVICES
12. The Truckee Tahoe Airport District has sufficient financing mechanisms in place to
ensure short- and long-term provision of services within its current boundaries. The
District maintains no long-term debt, and has financial reserves and assets sufficient
to ensure financial stability. The District does not need to find additional sources of
revenue to meet projected service demands.
STATUS OF, AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR, SHARED FACILITIES
13. TTAD is actively engaged in sharing and collaboration with neighboring districts and
local agencies including the Truckee Donner Recreation and Park District, Truckee Fire
Protection District, and Tahoe City PUD.
14. TTAD often meets with representatives of the Town of Truckee to discuss and resolve
issues of mutual interest.
ACCOUNTABILITY FOR COMMUNITY SERVICE NEEDS, INCLUDING
GOVERNMENTAL STRUCTURE AND OPERATION EFFICIENCIES
15. An appointed five-member Board oversees the management of the TTAD’s resources.
TTAD meets its statutory financial reporting requirements that ensure its operations
are conducted in an open and transparent manner. TTAD meets its fiscal
accountability requirement to its customers through budgetary and financial reporting
using its website as a communication channel. The Agency provides public notice of
meetings, and posts agendas online as well as by email upon request.
16. The Airport Community Advisory Team, which is comprised of community volunteers,
formulates recommendations which are presented to the Board of Directors.
17. A General Manager oversees the District administration and operations under the
direction of the appointed Board. The Board and management work together in the
identification of goals and issues and assignment of staff as appropriate for each type
of service provided.
18. TTAD’s sphere of influence is congruent with its boundaries. TTAD has indicated that
its SOI is sufficient.
19. The District maintains a website where current information about District activities,
documents and updates is made readily available to the public.
20. The District demonstrated accountability in its cooperation with Placer LAFCo
information requests.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 18, Truckee Tahoe Airport District 18-28
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
18.12: REFERENCES
California State Controller’s Office. Government Compensation in California Database. 2013.
Accessed in July 2015. Available on-line at: < http://publicpay.ca.gov/>.
Dean Runyan Associates, 2009. Placer County Travel Industry Assessment and Detailed
Economic Impact Estimates, 2002-2008. March 2009.
Placer County. General Plan Update. General Plan Background Report, Technical Appendices,
Appendix A: Large Water Systems. September 25, 1992. Contributing authors include
Crawford Multari & Starr, DKS Associates, Psomas and Associates, et. al. 382 pages.
Placer LAFCo. Municipal Service Review for North Lake Tahoe and Martis Valley. 2004.
Auburn, CA. Available on-line: <http://www.mynevadacounty.com/nc/lafco/docs/
Placer%20LAFCo%20MSRs/Area%20III,%20Public%20Review%20Draft/3.0%20Service%20D
emand%20Projections.pdf>.
MacMillan, Kevin. “Thursday plane crash is ninth in past four years at Truckee airport”.
August 2, 2012. Tahoe Daily Tribune. Available on-line at:
<http://www.tahoedailytribune.com/article/20120802/ARCHIVES01/120809961>.
Accessed 7August2015.
Tahoe Truckee Airport District (TTAD). Draft Report Airport Master Plan. Chapter 1 Inventory
of Existing Conditions and Chapter 2 Aviation Forecasts. June 2014. Prepared by Mead
& Hunt, Consultants. Available on-line at: <http://www.ttadmasterplan.org/draft-
plan-docs/>.
Tahoe Truckee Airport District (TTAD). Response to LAFCo’s Request for Information in
Preparation of the MSR. October 2013. 21-pages.
Tahoe Truckee Airport District (TTAD). Blog post “TTAD - History & Stats, Jun 20, 2015”.
Available on-line at: <https://truckeetahoeairport.com/news/48-truckee-tahoe-
airport-history-and-stats >. Accessed on 7August2015.
Tahoe Truckee Airport District (TTAD). January 28, 2015. Memorandum from Michael Cooke,
Manager of Aviation & Community Services, To: Community Members, Board of
Directors, ACAT and Staff, Subject: Community Comments & Operations Report- 4th
Quarter 2014. Available on-line at: https://truckeetahoeairport.com/board_
meetings/90/view_file?file=TAB+5a+-+Operations+and+Comment+Report+Q4+2014.
pdf>.
U.S. Department of Commerce (USDC), United States Census Bureau. 2010 Demographic
Profile. American Fact Finder Website. Accessed on 5July2015. Available on-line at:
<http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/community_facts.xhtml>.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 18, Truckee Tahoe Airport District 18-29
North Lake Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
Chapter 19
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This Municipal Service Review Update has been prepared in accordance with Section 56430 of
the California Government Code. LAFCO’s municipal service review process is a means to
improve the quality and consistency of data. By providing, analyzing, and sharing data,
LAFCO supports collaborative planning and policy efforts. Ideally, service reviews provide a
context for understanding the relationship between service options and regional issues, goals
and policies. Regional planning initiatives present an opportunity for LAFCO to collaborate
with service providers and planning agencies and to encourage alignment of goals and
policies.
This regional MSR focuses on the North Lake Tahoe/Martis Valley area of eastern Placer
County and analyzes thirteen service providers including Alpine Springs County Water District,
Donner Summit Public Utility District, Mckinney Water District, North Tahoe Fire Protection
District, North Tahoe Public Utility District, Sierra Lakes County Water District, Squaw Valley
Public Services District, Tahoe City Cemetery District, Tahoe Forest Hospital District, Tahoe
City Public Utility District, Tahoe Truckee Sanitation Agency, Talmont Resort Improvement
District, and the Truckee Tahoe Airport District. A fourteenth service provider, Northstar
Community Services District was described in a separate 2014 MSR on file with Placer LAFCO.
The previous MSR for these thirteen agencies in the North Tahoe and Martis Valley Area was
approved by the Commission in 2004. This document presents an update to the 2004 MSR.
SIZE OF AGENCIES/DISTRICTS
Population
Population size among the thirteen districts is highly variable. Of the thirteen districts
studied in this MSR, the least populated district is the Donner Summit Public Utility District
with a permanent population of 93 persons, as shown in Figure 19-1, below. The most
populated district studied is the Tahoe Forest Hospital District with a permanent population
of 53,878 within the District’s proper boundary including portions of eastern Placer County
and Nevada County. Although Figure 19.2 shows that the Truckee Tahoe Airport District and
the Tahoe Forest Hospital District have the same population size, in actuality, the Hospital
District has a larger population. This is due to the Hospital District’s service to residents of
the State of Nevada, who are not included in the population counts for this MSR. Tourism is
the factor that has the biggest influence on the number of people agencies/districts are
expected to serve.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 19, Conclusions 19-1
North Lake Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
4500
4000
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
DSPUD MWD ASCWD SLCWD TRID SVPSD
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 19, Conclusions 19-2
noitalupoP
Small Sized Districts - Existing
Population (2015)
Visitor
Population
Permanent
Population
120000
100000
80000
60000
40000
20000
0
noitalupoP
Larger Sized Districts - Existing Population
(2015)
Visitor
Population
Permanent
Population
North Lake Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
Geographic Size of Agencies/Districts
The geographic size of the thirteen districts included in this MSR varies widely. The smallest
sized district is McKinney Water District at 266 acres (0.42 sq. mi.) as shown in Figure 19.3,
below. The largest sized district is Tahoe Forest Hospital District at 390,585 acres (610 sq.
mi.), as shown in Figure 19.4 (next page). In both Figures 19.3 and 19.4, the boundary area
includes only the existing direct service area of each district and is depicted on the bottom of
each bar (blue). The acreage of the sphere of influence for each district is shown on the top
of each bar (yellow).
70,000
60,000
50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
0
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 19, Conclusions 19-3
egaercA
Figure 19.3: Acreage of Smaller-
Sized Districts
SOI
Boundary
North Lake Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
700,000
600,000
500,000
400,000
300,000
200,000
100,000
0
TCCD TTAD TFHD
(Note: TTAD’s Sphere of Influence is contiguous with its boundary.)
As shown in Figure 19.4, above, the geographic size of the Tahoe Forest Hospital District is
quite large compared to most independent districts in the state. To put its size into
perspective, we can compare it to the size of Placer County, at a total of 961,800 acres1. The
Hospital District’s boundary area plus its SOI area yields 586,620 acres, approximately 60% of
the size of Placer County.
Several of the Districts span multiple counties. The Tahoe Truckee Sanitation Agency spans
three counties, Placer County, El Dorado County and Nevada County. The McKinney Water
District and Tahoe City Public Utility District encompasses portions of both Placer County and
El Dorado County. Districts that encompass portions of both Placer County and Nevada
County include Donner Summit Public Utility District, Tahoe Forest Hospital District, and the
Truckee Tahoe Airport District.
SERVICE PROVISION
The agencies/districts in eastern Placer County have variety in both the type and the number
of public services they provide. Five of the districts are single service providers, including
McKinney Water District, Tahoe City Cemetery District, Tahoe Forest Hospital District, Tahoe
Truckee Sanitation Agency, and the Truckee Tahoe Airport District. Three districts provide
two public services with the Donner Summit Public Utility District and Sierra Lakes County
Water District providing both water and wastewater services, and the Talmont Resort
1 Data source: http://www.dof.ca.gov/html/FS_DATA/STAT-ABS/documents/A1.pdf
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 19, Conclusions 19-4
egaercA
Figure 19-4: Acreage of 3 Large
Sized Districts
Sphere of
Influence
Boundary
Area
North Lake Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
Improvement District providing water service and snow removal. Three of the districts
provide three public services with the North Tahoe Fire Protection District providing
ambulance, emergency medical, and fire protection. The North Tahoe Public Utility District
and the Tahoe City Public Utility District each provide the same services: parks, water and
wastewater services. Alpine Springs County Water District and Squaw Valley Public Services
District provide six public services to their customers. They each provide emergency medical,
fire protection, solid waste collection, wastewater, and water services. Additionally, Alpine
Springs County Water District provides park services and Squaw Valley Public Services District
provides rescue services. In eastern Placer County, the Northstar Community Services District
provides the most (11) types of public service to its customers. Northstar CSD was evaluated
in a 2014 MSR which is available on LAFCO’s website.
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
PUBLIC PROCESS
Preparation of this MSR involved outreach to agency/district staff and to the larger
community. The Commission held its first public meeting on the Preliminary Draft MSR/SOI
Update on May 11, 2016. The Commission and the public were encouraged to provide
comments for staff to review and possibly incorporate into the final document. Two email
messages or other public comments on the Draft MSR/SOI Update were received during the
public comment period. A public staff workshop was held in Truckee on August 29, 2017 and
the public notice for these workshops is in Appendix 6 and several verbal comments were
offered at that time. A second public meeting was held by the Commission on August 8,
2018.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 19, Conclusions 19-5
secivreS
fo
rebmuN
Figure 19.5: Number of Services
Provided by Agencies/Districts
North Lake Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
This MSR Update was prepared to ensure current information for analysis. The major issues
that arose during the analysis are summarized in the Executive Summary and are discussed in
detail in the associated service provider review chapters.
SPHERE OF INFLUENCE
A sphere of influence is defined by Government code Section 56425 as “a plan for the
probable physical boundary and service area of a local agency or municipality.” This MSR
study does not include an analysis of the sphere of influence for each agency/district.
Rather, the intent is to provide sufficient information about each service provider to allow
LAFCO to determine whether or not an update to the SOI may be needed in the future and to
support various options for updating the SOIs by providing data that can be utilized to
document service and facility capacity.
The Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 requires that
LAFCo review and update the Sphere of Influence (SOI or Sphere) for each of the special
districts and cities within the county. In determining the Sphere of Influence for an agency,
LAFCo must consider and prepare written determinations with respect to four factors
[Government Code §56425(e)]. These factors relate to the present and planned land uses
including agricultural and open-space lands, the present and probable need for public
facilities and services, the present capacity of public facilities and adequacy of public
services, and the existence of any social or economic communities of interest in the area.
Future Sphere of Influence Options
The intent of an SOI is to identify the most appropriate areas for an agency’s service area in
the probable future. Most LAFCos in the state tend to discourages inclusion of land in an
agency’s Sphere if a need for services provided by that agency cannot be demonstrated.
Conceptually, territory included in an agency’s Sphere is an indication that the probable need
for service has been established, and that the subject agency has been determined by LAFCo
to be the most logical service provider for the area.
There are a number of ways to consider Spheres of Influence. One option is to consider
growth and development and the need for municipal services over time. A second option is to
determine an agency’s ability to provide municipal services beyond its current boundary. For
a District that does not plan to provide municipal services beyond its present boundary, a
Sphere boundary that is the same as the agency boundary is called a Coterminous Sphere of
Influence. A third option is related to reducing the current Sphere of Influence of an agency
by adopting a Minus Sphere of Influence (or Reduced Sphere of Influence) by excluding
territory currently within an agency’s Sphere. A fourth option relates to Sphere areas for
which municipal services are not intended to be provided; that is, areas within a Sphere
which will remain undeveloped (such as open space or ‘protected lands’). Such an area is a
special case, and requires the agency to demonstrate why an area should be included within a
Sphere for which no municipal services will be provided.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 19, Conclusions 19-6
North Lake Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
LAFCo also has the ability to determine a Zero Sphere of Influence for a District, which
sometimes indicates that the District does not have the wherewithal, governance capability,
financial means, and/or operational capability to provide the municipal services for which it
was formed, and should be dissolved or its function(s) reallocated to another agency. In
eastern Placer County, a few districts may have a zero sphere of influence such as the
McKinney Water District; however this is likely due to historical low resolution mapping rather
than specific intent about capabilities.
RECOMMENDATIONS
A number of determinations are provided for each service provider in Chapters 6 to 18 of this
MSR. These determinations cover seven topic areas as codified in the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg
Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 (Government Code Section 56000 et seq.).
These areas of analysis contain the essential operational and management aspects of each
service provider, and together constitute a review of the ability of the providers to meet the
service demands of the residents within their boundaries. The seven topic areas covered in
the determinations include the following factors:
Growth and population projections for the affected area
Disadvantaged unincorporated communities
Present and planned capacity of public facilities
Financial ability of the agency to provide services
Opportunities for shared facilities
Accountability for government service needs
Any other matter relative to service delivery as required by Commission Policy
The areas of analysis contain the essential operational and management aspects of each
service provider and together constitute a review of the ability of the providers to meet the
service demands of the residents within their boundaries. Two types of determinations are
presented in Chapters 6 to 18: 1) statements of fact and 2) recommendations.
General Recommendations for LAFCO and the Next MSR
Consistent with Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000, this
MSR should be updated in five years (2020). This MSR provides a comprehensive analysis of
each service provider and each service provider is described in a stand-alone chapter. There
will be no need to repeat all of the information contained in this MSR or to repeat the level of
detail provided herein. Rather the next MSR should focus on the following issues for each
agency/district:
• Finances: Audited financial statements provide the best independent assessment of
agencies finances. LAFCO may wish to identify specific financial indicators that can be
used to assess financial health and to compare different districts.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 19, Conclusions 19-7
North Lake Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
• Personnel: Assess and compare any personnel changes that have been made since this
2018 MSR was conducted.
• Programs: Consider any programs that have been added, transferred, consolidated, or
eliminated from an agency’s operations.
• Land-use development: Physical changes in land-use within a district’s boundaries may
be correlated with increases in permanent or visitor population and can influence the
demand for public service. Additionally, Regional, County and City/Town general
plans may affect the districts. Future growth scenarios for the districts can be
updated when the next MSR is prepared in 2023.
• Growth Indicators: The Lake Tahoe and Martis Valley area has a unique set of
historical, political, demographic, and institutional differences as compared to the
western County. One of those differences is the important role that tourism and
vacation homes play in the local economy and in the demand for services from local
agencies. Because of these differences, traditional indicators of economic growth
such as new housing starts, commercial square footage, and building permit counts
may not be the best way to measure or predict the demand for future public services.
Instead, favorable weather conditions, access to Reno and Truckee airports and train
stations, and the economic situation of the SF Bay area may be factors that promote
visitation to Lake Tahoe and therefore increase demand for public services. Before
LAFCO prepares the next MSR for this region in five years (i.e. 2023), it is
recommended that the Commission consider which indicators or metrics it wishes to
use to assess existing and future growth for this unique region.
• Efficiency and cost of utilities: LAFCO may wish to identify indicators of efficiency
that can be implemented via specific programs. North Lake Tahoe and Martis Valley
experience seasonal weather conditions with cold winters and warm summers. Utility
costs are quite high for several of the districts studied because the cold winters do
require extra temperature maintenance etc. Energy efficiency can be compared
across districts. Opportunities for increased energy efficiency can be studied in more
detail.
• Website: Websites are modern tools that serve to facilitate transparency in local
government by making key pieces of information readily available in a timely manner.
Since the promotion of transparency in local government agencies is within LAFCO’s
purview, it is recommended that Placer LAFCO review the best practices guidance
from the Special District Leadership Foundation and from the Institute for Local
Government and establish guidelines for websites for cities and special districts that
can assessed during future MSRs. The next MSR may consider a more detailed analysis
of websites (as compared to the website analysis provided in the Executive Summary
of this document).
• Age of Infrastructure: For those districts that provide water service and/or wastewater
service (Alpine Springs County Water District, Donner Summit Public Utility District,
McKinney Water District, Northstar Community Services District, North Tahoe Public
Utility District, Placer County Water Agency, Zone 4, Sierra Lakes County Water
District, Squaw Valley Public Services District, Tahoe City Public Utility District, and
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 19, Conclusions 19-8
North Lake Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
the Tahoe Truckee Sanitation Agency) the next MSR that LAFCO prepares (in Spring of
2021) should address the age and condition of the collection, treatment, and
distribution/disposal infrastructure. Many of the water and wastewater pipes and
other parts are getting older and replacing this infrastructure is expensive and must be
planned for in advance.
Recommendations for LAFCO regarding SOI Updates
After the Commission approves this MSR, LAFCO may wish to review each of the thirteen
districts studied herein to consider which districts should have their sphere of influence
updated. The dates of the most recent SOI Update for each District is listed in Table 19-1,
below. LAFCO may wish to establish a work schedule and allocate staff resources towards the
SOI Update effort.
Table 19-1: Dates of SOI Documents
Name of District Date of Most Recent SOI Update
Alpine Springs County Water District LAFCO files do not indicate whether a SOI has been
established for the District.
Donner Summit Public Utility District 1998
McKinney Water District No SOI
North Tahoe Fire Protection District 1993
North Tahoe Public Utility District SOI is established and mapped. However, no date in
LAFCo files.
Sierra Lakes County Water District April 12, 2000
Squaw Valley Public Service District SOI is established and mapped. However, no date in
LAFCo files.
Tahoe City Cemetery District Placer LAFCo files do not indicate whether or not a
formal SOI was ever adopted for TCCD.
Tahoe City Public Utility District 1994
Tahoe Forest Hospital District SOI is established and mapped. However, no date in
LAFCo files.
Tahoe Truckee Sanitation Agency No formal sphere of influence (SOI) for the T-TSA has
ever been adopted by either Placer or Nevada LAFCo.
However, the Agency noted that Placer LAFCO has
deemed its SOI is the combination of the spheres of its
member entities.
Talmont Resort Improvement District No date in LAFCo files
Truckee Tahoe Airport District April 1, 1986
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 19, Conclusions 19-9
North Lake Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
Recommendations for LAFCO regarding Mutual Water
Companies
Chapter 4 of this MSR describes mutual water companies in the North Tahoe and Martis Valley
region. It is recommended that LAFCO utilize the information contained in Chapter 4 to
complete the following tasks:
• Contact each mutual water company
• Request that each mutual water company provide LAFCO with a map of its service
area.
• Request additional information as deemed appropriate by LAFCO.
• Encourage each mutual water company to undergo board training required under
AB54.
• Continue to study the compliance of mutual water companies with the Safe Drinking
Water Act and issue a report of findings.
• Post information about mutual water companies on the LAFCO website.
• Establish formal lines of communication with each Mutual Water Company going
forward.
LAFCO may wish to establish a work schedule and allocate staff resources towards this effort.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 19, Conclusions 19-10
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
Chapter 20
COMMENTS RECEIVED AND
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
This Chapter summarizes public comments received on this document during the public
comment period. The Preliminary Draft MSR Update was first considered by the Commission
during a public meeting on May 11, 2016. At that time, the Preliminary Draft MSR Update was
also shared with the thirteen service providers described in this MSR. The public was
encouraged to provide comments for staff to review and possibly incorporate into the final
document. During this time, two comments were received as follows:
Tahoe Forest Hospital District, Ted Owens Email dated August 23, 2017 requesting
correction to list of names for the Board of Directors (Consultants made this
correction).
Squaw Valley Public Service District provided Resolution 2016-20 regarding the
Second Amendment To Water And Sewer Agreement With Squaw Creek Associates, LLC
To Extend Dedication Deadline Of Well 18-3R (Consultants noted this Resolution).
LAFCO staff conducted two public workshops in Truckee on Tuesday, August 29, 2017 and the
workshop notice is shown in Appendix 6. Workshop participants offered several suggestions as
listed in the table below.
Table 20-1: Comments from 2017 Workshop Participants
Comment from Workshop Participant Consultant Response
The North Tahoe PUD and the Tahoe City PUD A determination to this affect has been added
provide similar services and are located in to the MSR chapters covering The North
geographic proximity. The MSR should Tahoe PUD and the Tahoe City PUD.
recommend further study of this issue.
Many districts have a sphere of influence that Table 19-1 on page 19-9 has been added in
was adopted in the 1980’s with hand-drawn response to this comment.
maps. The sphere of influence adoption
dates should be listed in a table
Much of the financial information presented This disclaimer has been added to Chapters 6-
in the MSR is now outdated. Add a disclaimer 18 to respond to this suggestion.
to the MSR to indicate this data was collected
in 2013.
Park and recreation services are provided by Additional information about park and
Placer County, State Parks, the U.S. Forest recreation service providers has been added
Service, and several independent districts. to the MSR Introduction pages 1-3 to 1-4.
There is an overlap in service providers.
The Commission held a public meeting on the Draft Final MSR/SOI Update on August 8, 2018.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 20, Comments Received 20-1
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
Chapter 21
Glossary
Acre-feet (AF): a unit of volume equal to the volume of a sheet of water one acre in area
and one foot in depth; 43,560 cubic feet (1233.5 cu m).
Annexation: The annexation, inclusion, attachment, or addition of territory to a city or
district.
Average base flow (ABF): Flow in the sanitary sewer during dry-weather months, measured
when no appreciable rain is falling. Base flow consists of sanitary flow plus
groundwater infiltration.
Average dry-weather flow (ADWF): The 30-day rolling average wastewater flow from May
through October.
Average wet-weather flow (AWWF): The 30-day rolling average wastewater flow from
November through April.
Bond: An interest-bearing promise to pay a stipulated sum of money, with the principal
amount due on a specific date. Funds raised through the sale of bonds can be used for
various public purposes.
Buildout: The maximum development potential when all lands within an area have been
converted to the maximum density allowed under the General Plan.
Board of Directors: The legislative body or governing board of a district.
Board of Supervisors: The elected board of supervisors of a county.
City: Any charter or general law city.
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA): A State statute that requires state and local
agencies to identify the significant environmental impacts of their actions and to avoid
or mitigate those impacts.
Community Services District (CSD): A geographic subarea of a county used for planning and
delivery of parks, recreation, and other human services based on an assessment of the
service needs of the population in that subarea. A CSD is a taxation district with
independent administration.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 21, Glossary 21-1
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
Consolidation: The uniting or joining of two or more districts into a single new successor
district. In the case of consolidation of special districts, all of those districts shall have
been formed pursuant to the same principal act.
Contiguous: In the case of annexation, territory adjacent to an agency to which annexation is
proposed. Territory is not contiguous if the only contiguity is based upon a strip of
land more than 300 feet long and less than 200 feet wide.
Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 (CKH) : A State law
which establishes procedures for local government changes of organization, including
city incorporations, annexations to a city or special district, and city and special
district consolidations.
Cost avoidance: Actions to eliminate unnecessary costs derived from, but not limited to,
duplication of service efforts, higher than necessary administration/operation cost
ratios, use of outdated or deteriorating infrastructure and equipment, underutilized
equipment or buildings or facilities, overlapping/inefficient service boundaries,
inefficient purchasing or budgeting practices, and lack of economies of scale.
Crown (of the sewer): The upper portion of the sewer pipes.
Cubic Feet Per Second (cfs): is a rate of water flow which will supply 1 cubic foot of water
in one second. 1 cfs is = to 7.48 gallons per second.
Design flow: The selected flow condition for wastewater collection system design,
determined by adding corresponding peak sanitary flow and peak groundwater
infiltration. This is also referred to as peak dry-weather flow.
Detachment: The detachment, deannexation, exclusion, deletion, or removal from a city or
district of any portion of the territory of that city or district.
Development Fee: A fee charged to the developer of a project by a county, or other public
agency as compensation for otherwise-unmitigated impacts the project will produce.
California Government Code Section 66000, et seq., specifies that development fees
shall not exceed the estimated reasonable cost of providing the service for which the
fee is charged. To lawfully impose a development fee, the public agency must verify
its method of calculation and document proper restrictions on use of the fund.
Dissolution: The dissolution, disincorporation, extinguishment, and termination of the
existence of a district and the cessation of all its corporate powers, except for the
purpose of winding up the affairs of the district.
District or special District: An agency of the state, formed pursuant to general law or special
act, for the local performance of governmental or proprietary functions within limited
boundaries. "District" or "special district" includes a county service area.
District of limited Powers: An airport district, community services district, municipal utility
district, public utilities district, fire protection district, harbor district, port district,
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 21, Glossary 21-2
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
recreational harbor district, small craft harbor district, resort improvement district,
library district, local hospital district, local health district, municipal improvement
district formed pursuant to any special act, municipal water district, police protection
district, recreation and park district, garbage disposal district, garbage and refuse
disposal district, sanitary district, or county sanitation district.
Dissolution: The termination of the existence of a district.
Dry-weather flow: Wastewater flow monitored during the dry season, occurring May through
October. Consists of sanitary flow and groundwater infiltration.
Excessive infiltration and inflow: The quantities of infiltration/ inflow that can be
economically eliminated from a wastewater collection system by rehabilitation, as
determined by a cost-effective analysis.
Formation: The formation, incorporation, organization, or creation of a district.
Function: Any power granted by law to a local agency or a county to provide designated
governmental or proprietary services or facilities for the use, benefit, or protection of
all persons or property.
Functional revenues: Revenues generated from direct services or associated with specific
services, such as a grant or statute, and expenditures.
Fiscal year (FY): A period that a company or government uses for accounting purposes and
preparing financial statements and/or for tax purposes. The fiscal year may or may
not be the same as a calendar year.
General plan: A document containing a statement of development policies including a
diagram and text setting forth the objectives of the plan. The general plan must
include certain state mandated elements related to land use, circulation, housing,
conservation, open-space, noise, and safety.
General revenues: Revenues not associated with specific services or retained in an
enterprise fund.
Groundwater: Water under the earth’s surface, often confined to aquifers capable of
supplying wells and springs.
Incorporation: The incorporation, formation, creation, and establishment of a city with
corporate powers. Any area proposed for incorporation as a new city must have at
least 500 registered voters residing within the affected area at the time commission
proceedings are initiated.
Independent Special District: Any special district having a legislative body all of whose
members are elected by registered voters or landowners within the district, or whose
members are appointed to fixed terms, and excludes any special district having a
legislative body consisting, in whole or in part, of ex officio members who are officers
of a county or another local agency or who are appointees of those officers other than
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 21, Glossary 21-3
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
those who are appointed to fixed terms. "Independent special district" does not
include any district excluded from the definition of district contained in §56036.
Infiltration: The water entering a sewer system and service connections from the ground,
through such means as, but not limited to, defective pipes, pipe joints, connections,
or manhole walls. Infiltration does not include, and is distinguished from, inflow.
Infiltration and inflow (I&I): The collective term used to describe the extraneous flow in a
wastewater collection system from both rainfall-dependent infiltration and inflow or
groundwater infiltration.
Infrastructure: Public services and facilities, such as pipes, canals, levees, water-supply
systems, other utility, systems, and roads.
Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (IRWMP): IRWM is the application
of Integrated Water Management (IWM) principles on a regional scale. Details at:
http://www.water.ca.gov/irwm/.
LAFCo: Local Agency Formation Commission.
Local accountability and governance: A style of public agency decision making, operation
and management that includes an accessible staff, elected or appointed decision-
making body and decision making process, advertisement of, and public participation
in, elections, publicly disclosed budgets, programs, and plans, solicited public
participation in the consideration of work and infrastructure plans; and regularly
evaluated or measured outcomes of plans, programs or operations and disclosure of
results to the public.
Local agency: A city, county, or special district or other public entity, which provides public
services.
Management Efficiency: The organized provision of the highest quality public services with
the lowest necessary expenditure of public funds. An efficiently managed entity (1)
promotes and demonstrates implementation of continuous improvement plans and
strategies for budgeting, managing costs, training and utilizing personnel, and
customer service and involvement, (2) has the ability to provide service over the short
and long term, (3) has the resources (fiscal, manpower, equipment, adopted service or
work plans) to provide adequate service, (4) meets or exceeds environmental and
industry service standards, as feasible considering local conditions or circumstances,
(5) and maintains adequate contingency reserves.
Merger: The termination of the existence of a district, and the assumption of the district's
responsibilities by a city.
Million Gallons Per Day (MGD): An expression of water-use data such that 1 million gallons
per day = 3.07 acre feet per day.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 21, Glossary 21-4
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
Municipal services: The full range of services that a public agency provides, or is authorized
to provide, except general county government functions such as courts, special
services and tax collection. As understood under the CKH Act, this includes all services
provided by Special Districts under California law.
Municipal Service Review (MSR): A study designed to determine the adequacy of
governmental services being provided in the region or sub-region. Performing service
reviews for each city and special district within the county may be used by LAFCO,
other governmental agencies, and the public to better understand and improve service
conditions.
Ordinance: A law or regulation set forth and adopted by a governmental authority.
Peak flow: Maximum measured daily flow. Commonly measured in cubic feet per second
(cfs). Typically occurs during wet-weather events and can also be referred to as peak
wet-weather flow.
Peak dry-weather flow (PDWF): Peak daily sanitary flow plus groundwater infiltration.
Peak wet-weather flow (PWWF): Peak daily wet-weather flow plus peak rainfall-dependent
infiltration and inflow from rainfall events.
Peaking Factor: The ratio of peak hourly wet-weather flow to base flow.
Per Capita Water Use: The water produced by or introduced into the system of a water
supplier divided by the total residential population; normally expressed in gallons per
capita per day (gpcd).
pH: A measure of the relative acidity or alkalinity of water. Water with a pH of 7 is neutral;
lower pH levels indicate increasing acidity, while pH levels higher than 7 indicate
increasingly basic solutions.
Plan of reorganization: A plan or program for effecting reorganization and which contains a
description of all changes of organization included in the reorganization and setting
forth all terms, conditions, and matters necessary or incidental to the effectuation of
that reorganization.
Potable Water: Water of a quality suitable for drinking.
Principal act: In the case of a district, the law under which the district was formed and, in
the case of a city, the general laws or a charter, as the case may be.
Principal LAFCO for municipal service review: The LAFCO with the lead responsibility for a
municipal service review. Lead responsibility can be determined pursuant to the CKH
Act definition of a Principal LAFCO as it applies to government organization or
reorganization actions, by negotiation, or by agreement among two or more LAFCOs.
Proceeding: A course of action. Procedures.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 21, Glossary 21-5
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
Public agency: The state or any state agency, board, or commission, any city, county, city
and county, special district, or other political subdivision, or any agency, board, or
commission of the city, county, city and county, special district, or other political
subdivision.
Rainfall-dependent infiltration and inflow (RDI/I): Rainfall runoff from both infiltration and
inflow sources that enter the wastewater collection system during and shortly after a
rain event. RDI/I consists of stormwater inflow and rainfall-dependent infiltration.
Rate restructuring: Rate restructuring does not refer to the setting or development of
specific rates or rate structures. During a municipal service review, LAFCO may
compile and review certain rate related data, and other information that may affect
rates, as that data applies to the intent of the CKH Act (§56000, §56001, §56301),
factors to be considered (§56668), SOI determinations (§56425) and all required
municipal service review determinations (§56430). The objective is to identify
opportunities to positively impact rates without adversely affecting service quality or
other factors to be considered.
Reorganization: Two or more changes of organization initiated in a single proposal.
Responsible LAFCO: The LAFCO of a county other than the Principal County that may be
impacted by recommendations, determinations or subsequent proposals elicited during
a municipal service review being initiated or considered by the Lead LAFCO.
Retained earnings: The accumulated earnings of an enterprise or intragovernmental service
fund which have been retained in the fund and are not reserved for any specific
purpose (debts, planned improvements, and contingency/emergency).
Reserve: (1) For governmental type funds, an account used to earmark a portion of fund
balance, which is legally or contractually restricted for a specific use or not
appropriable for expenditure. (2) For proprietary type/enterprise funds, the portion of
retained earnings set aside for specific purposes. Unnecessary reserves are those set
aside for purposes that are not well defined or adopted or retained earnings that are
not reasonably proportional to annual gross revenues.
RWQCB: Regional Water Quality Control Board.
SCADA: Acronym for Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition; a software application
program used for process control and to gather real time data from remote locations.
The SCADA System consists of hardware and software components. The hardware
collects and feeds data into a computer with SCADA software installed. The function
of SCADA is recording and logging all events in a file that is stored in a hard disk or
sending them to a printer. If conditions become hazardous, SCADA sounds warning
alarm.
Service lateral: A sewer connecting a building or house to the mainline sewer.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 21, Glossary 21-6
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
Service review: A study and evaluation of municipal service(s) by specific area, subregion or
region culminating in written determinations regarding seven specific evaluation
categories.
Sewage: Sewage is the wastewater released by residences, businesses and industries in a
community. It is 99.94 percent water, with only 0.06 percent of the wastewater
dissolved and suspended solid material. The cloudiness of sewage is caused by
suspended particles which in untreated sewage ranges from 100 to 350 mg/l.
Sewer Information Maintenance and Management System (SIMMS): A computer program
that provides a means of tracking and organizing sewer maintenance schedules.
Special Reorganization: A reorganization that includes the detachment of territory from a
city or city and county and the incorporation of that entire detached territory as a
city.
Specific plan: A policy statement and implementation tool that is used to address a single
project or planning problem. Specific plans contain concrete standards and
development criteria that supplement those of the general plan.
Sphere of influence (SOI): A plan for the probable physical boundaries and service area of a
local agency, as determined by the LAFCO.
Sphere of influence determinations: In establishing a sphere of influence, the Commission
must consider and prepare written determinations related to present and planned land
uses, need and capacity of public facilities, and existence of social and economic
communities of interest.
Stormwater runoff: Rainwater which does not infiltrate into the soil and runs off the land.
Subject agency: Each district or city for which a change of organization is proposed or
provided in a reorganization or plan of reorganization.
SWRCB: State Water Resources Control Board.
Total Dissolved Solids (TDS): A quantitative measure of the residual minerals dissolved in
water that remains after evaporation of a solution. Usually expressed in milligrams per
liter.
Treated water: Raw water which has been treated for human consumption through
secondary or tertiary processes at a water treatment plan (WTP).
Watershed: An area of land that drains water, sediment and dissolved materials to a common
receiving body or outlet. The term is not restricted to surface water runoff and
includes interactions with subsurface water. Watersheds vary from the largest river
basins to just acres or less in size. In urban watershed management, a watershed is
seen as all the land which contributes runoff to a particular water body.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 21, Glossary 21-7
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
Zoning: The primary legal instrument for implementing the county general plan. Zoning
divides a community into districts or "zones" that specify the permitted/prohibited
land uses.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 21, Glossary 21-8
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
Chapter 22
Acknowledgements
Assistance and Support
Several people contributed information that was utilized in this Municipal Service Review.
Placer LAFCo and SWALE Inc. wish to acknowledge the support received from the following
individuals and organizations.
LAFCo Staff Kris Berry, Executive Officer
Linda Wilkie - Commission Clerk
Alpine Springs County Water District John M. Collins, P.E
Donner Summit Public Utility District Tom Skjelstad
Mckinney Water District Karla Gunter
North Tahoe Fire Protection District Michael Schwartz
North Tahoe Public Utility District Duane Whitelaw
Sierra Lakes County Water District Bill Quesnel
Squaw Valley Public Services District Mike Geary
Tahoe City Cemetery District Judy Friedman
Tahoe City Public Utility District Cindy Gustafson and TCPUD staff
Tahoe Forest Hospital District Ted Owens
Tahoe Truckee Sanitation Agency Larue Griffin, Marcia Beals, and Agency staff
Talmont Resort Improvement District Libby Gregg
Truckee Tahoe Airport District Kevin Smith
Report Preparers
A team of consultants authored this MSR and provided an independent analysis. The expertise
and contributions provided by this consulting team are greatly appreciated. The names and
roles of the individual experts responsible for writing this MSR are provided below.
Kateri Harrison, Project Manager, Co-Author
Jessica Hankins, Planning Consultant, CoAuthor
SWALE Inc.
Uma Hinman Consulting Uma Hinman, Co-Author, Planner
Judy Stolen Geographic Information System Maps
Baracco & Associates Bruce Baracco, Co-Author, Project Advisor
Tom Parillo Planner, Socio-Economics & Population Growth
Robertson, Bryan Inc. Art O’Brien, Engineer for Water and Wastewater
information.
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 22, Acknowledgements 22-1
North Tahoe and Martis Valley MSR
Stanley Hoffman & Associates Marcine Osbourn, Financial Analyst
Draft Final MSR, August 2018
Chapter 22, Acknowledgements 22-2
Chapter 23
APPENDICES
Table of Contents for Appendices
AP.1: Enhanced Infrastructure Financing Districts
AP.2: Assembly Bill 54 – Mutual Water Companies
AP.3: CA Dept. of Finance. New Population Projections
AP.4: Placer County Water Systems
AP.5: Demographic Report for Placer County
AP.6: LAFCO Staff Workshops in Truckee - 2017 Public Notice
AP.1: ENHANCED INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING
DISTRICTS
This Appendix presents a Fact Sheet on Enhanced Infrastructure Financing Districts prepared
by the California Economic Summit.
AP.2: ASSEMBLY BILL 54
This appendix presents Assembly Bill 54, related to mutual water companies.
Assembly Bill No. 54
CHAPTER 512
An act to amend Section 14300 of, and to add Sections 14300.5, 14301.1,
14301.2, and 14301.3 to, the Corporations Code, to amend Sections 56375
and 56430 of the Government Code, and to add Section 116760.65 to, and
to add Article 12 (commencing with Section 116755) to Chapter 4 of Part
12 of Division 104 of, the Health and Safety Code, relating to drinking
water.
[Approved by Governor October 7, 2011. Filed with
Secretary of State October 7, 2011.]
legislative counsel’ s digest
AB 54, Solorio. Drinking water.
(1) Existing law authorizes any corporation organized for or engaged in
the business of selling, distributing, supplying, or delivering water for
irrigation purposes, and requires any corporation organized for or engaged
in the business of selling, distributing, supplying, or delivering water for
domestic use, to provide in its articles or bylaws that water shall be sold,
distributed, supplied, or delivered only to owners of its shares and that those
shares are appurtenant to certain lands, as specified.
This bill would specify that any corporation organized for or engaged in
the business of selling, distributing, supplying, or delivering water for
irrigation purposes, and any corporation organized for or engaged in the
business of selling, distributing, supplying, or delivering water for domestic
use that provides in its articles or bylaws that the water shall be sold,
distributed, supplied, or delivered only to owners of its shares and that those
shares are appurtenant to certain lands shall be known as a mutual water
company.
The bill would also require each mutual water company that operates a
public water system to, by December 31, 2012, submit a map depicting the
approximate boundaries of the property that the municipal water company
serves to the local agency commission within the county in which the mutual
water company operates. The bill would prohibit a mutual water company
from expanding its boundaries without approval from the appropriate local
agency formation commission. The bill would require a mutual water
company that operates a public water system to supply certain information
to a local agency formation commission upon request, as specified. This
bill would require a mutual water company that operates a public water
system to maintain a financial reserve fund to be used for certain types of
activities.
87
Ch.512 — 2 —
The bill would also require each board member of a mutual water company
that operates a public water system to, within 6 months of taking office,
complete a 2-hour course offered by a qualified trainer, as specified.
(2) Existing law, the California Safe Drinking Water Act, requires the
State Department of Public Health to administer provisions relating to the
regulation of drinking water to protect public health, including, but not
limited to, conducting research, studies, and demonstration programs relating
to the provision of a dependable, safe supply of drinking water, enforcing
the federal Safe Drinking Water Act, adopting enforcement regulations, and
conducting studies and investigations to assess the quality of water in
domestic water supplies.
Existing law establishes the Safe Drinking Water State Revolving Fund,
continuously appropriated to the department for the provision of grants and
revolving fund loans to provide for the design and construction of projects
for public water systems that will enable suppliers to meet safe drinking
water standards. Existing law requires the department to establish criteria
to be met for projects to be eligible for consideration for this funding.
This bill would provide that in considering an application for funding a
project, the department shall not be prejudiced by the applicant initiating
the project prior to the department approving the application for funding.
This bill would also provide that preliminary project costs or construction
costs that are otherwise eligible for funding shall not be ineligible because
the costs were incurred by the applicant during certain time periods.
(3) Existing law, the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government
Reorganization Act of 2000, sets forth the powers and duties of a local
agency formation commission, including, among others, the powers to
review and approve or disapprove with or without amendment, wholly,
partially, or conditionally, proposals for changes of organization or
reorganization, consistent with written policies, procedures, and guidelines
adopted by the commission.
This bill would additionally authorize the commission to approve, with
or without amendment, wholly, partially, or conditionally, or disapprove
the annexation of territory served by a mutual water company that operates
a public water system into the jurisdiction of a city, a public utility, or a
special district, with the consent of the respective public agency or public
utility and mutual water company.
(4) Under the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization
Act of 2000, each local agency formation commission is required to develop
and determine the sphere of influence of each local governmental agency
within the county and enact policies designed to promote the logical and
orderly development of areas within the sphere of influence. In order to
prepare and update spheres of influence, the commission is required to
conduct a service review, including the review of growth and population
projections for the affected area, present and planned capacity of public
facilities and adequacy of public services, financial ability of agencies to
provide services, the status of, and opportunities for, shared facilities,
87
— 3 — Ch.512
accountability for community service needs, and any other matter related
to effective or efficient service delivery, as required by commission policy.
This bill would authorize the commission to include in the service review,
a review of whether the agencies under review comply with safe drinking
water standards. This bill would provide that a public water system may
comply with that review by submitting certain documents.
(5) Existing law provides for the imposition of civil fines in amounts up
to $5,000 or $25,000 for specifi ed violations of the California Safe Drinking
Water Act.
This bill would provide that a mutual water company is liable for any
fines, penalties, costs, expenses, or other amounts that may be imposed upon
the mutual water company under the California Safe Drinking Water Act.
This bill would authorize a mutual water company to levy an assessment
to pay those fines. This bill would provide that if the amount of those fines
exceeds 5% of the annual budget of a mutual water company, then the
mutual water company would be required to levy an assessment to pay those
fines.
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
SECTION 1. The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:
(a) Californians rely on a broad diversity of public and private
organizations to deliver clean and safe drinking water to their home water
taps. Regardless of the form of the organization that operates a public water
system, these organizations provide a public service that remains one of the
core duties of the people’s government.
(b) While the state’s goal is to ensure clean and safe drinking water,
California’s drinking water quality has deteriorated and some public water
systems continue to suffer poor water quality that are inconsistent with safe
drinking water standards.
(c) The state provides funding to public water systems to improve
drinking water quality through the Safe Drinking Water Revolving Fund,
but demand far exceeds the available funding. Based on the United States
Environmental Protection Agency’s Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs
Survey and Assessment, which was performed in 2007, the State Department
of Public Health estimates that the 20-year drinking water infrastructure
need for California is $39 billion. Funding for such projects, however, for
1997–2008 totaled only $1.2 billion.
SEC. 2. Section 14300 of the Corporations Code is amended to read:
14300. (a) Any corporation organized for or engaged in the business
of selling, distributing, supplying, or delivering water for irrigation purposes
may provide, and any corporation organized for or engaged in the business
of selling, distributing, supplying, or delivering water for domestic use shall
provide, in its articles or bylaws that water shall be sold, distributed,
supplied, or delivered only to owners of its shares and that the shares shall
be appurtenant to certain lands when the same are described in the certificate
87
Ch.512 — 4 —
issued therefor; and when the certificate is so issued and a certified copy of
the articles or bylaws recorded in the office of the county recorder in the
county where the lands are situated the shares of stock shall become
appurtenant to the lands and shall only be transferred therewith, except after
sale or forfeiture for delinquent assessments thereon as provided in Section
14303. Notwithstanding this provision in its articles or bylaws, any such
corporation may sell water to the state, or any department or agency thereof,
or to any school district, or to any public agency, or, to any other mutual
water company or, during any emergency resulting from fire or other disaster
involving danger to public health or safety, to any person at the same rates
as to holders of shares of the corporations; and provided further, that any
corporation may enter into a contract with a county fire protection district
to furnish water to fire hydrants and for fire suppression or fire prevention
purposes at a flat rate per hydrant or other connection. In the event lands to
which any stock is appurtenant are owned or purchased by the state, or any
department or agency thereof, or any school district, or public agency, the
stock shall be canceled by the secretary, but shall be reissued to any person
later acquiring title to the land from the state department, agency, or school
district, or public agency.
(b) A corporation described in subdivision (a) shall be known as a mutual
water company.
SEC. 3. Section 14300.5 is added to the Corporations Code, to read:
14300.5. For purposes of this chapter, “public water system” shall have
the same meaning as provided in Section 116275 of the Health and Safety
Code.
SEC. 4. Section 14301.1 is added to the Corporations Code, to read:
14301.1. (a) No later than December 31, 2012, each mutual water
company that operates a public water system shall submit to the local agency
formation commission for its county a map depicting the approximate
boundaries of the property that the mutual water company serves.
(b) A mutual water company that operates a public water system shall
respond to a request from a local agency formation commission, located
within a county that the mutual water company operates in, for information
in connection with the preparation of municipal service reviews or spheres
of influence pursuant to Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 56425) of
Part 2 of Division 3 of Title 5 of the Government Code within 45 days of
the request. The mutual water company shall provide all reasonably available
nonconfidential information relating to the operation of the public water
system. The mutual water company shall explain, in writing, why any
requested information is not reasonably available. The mutual water company
shall not be required to disclose any information pertaining to the names,
addresses, or water usage of any specific shareholder. This subdivision shall
not be interpreted to require a mutual water company to undertake any study
or investigation. A mutual water company may comply with this section by
submitting to the local agency formation commission the same information
that the mutual water company submitted to the State Department of Public
Health.
87
— 5 — Ch.512
(c) A mutual water company that operates a public water system shall
be subject to the requirements of, and has the powers granted by, subdivision
(b) of Section 116755 of the Health and Safety Code.
SEC. 5. Section 14301.2 is added to the Corporations Code, to read:
14301.2. Each board member of a mutual water company that operates
a public water system shall comply with the training requirements set out
in subdivision (a) of Section 116755 of the Health and Safety Code.
SEC. 6. Section 14301.3 is added to the Corporations Code, to read:
14301.3. (a) All construction on public water systems operated by a
mutual water company shall be designed and constructed to comply with
the applicable California Waterworks standards, as provided in Chapter 16
of Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations.
(b) A mutual water company that operates a public water system shall
maintain a financial reserv e fund for repairs and replacements to its water
production, transmission, and distribution facilities at a level sufficient for
continuous operation of facilities in compliance with the federal Safe
Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. Sec. 300f et seq.) and the California Safe
Drinking Water Act (Chapter 4 (commencing with 116270) of Part 12 of
Division 104 of the Health and Safety Code).
SEC. 7. Section 56375 of the Government Code is amended to read:
56375. The commission shall have all of the following powers and duties
subject to any limitations upon its jurisdiction set forth in this part:
(a) (1 ) To review and approve with or without amendment, wholly,
partially, or conditionally, or disapprove proposals for changes of
organization or reorganization, consistent with written policies, procedures,
and guidelines adopted by the commission.
(2) The commission may initiate proposals by resolution of application
for any of the following:
(A) The consolidation of a district, as defi ned in Section 56036.
(B) The dissolution of a district.
(C) A merger.
(D) The establishment of a subsidiary district.
(E) The formation of a new district or districts.
(F) A reorganization that includes any of the changes specified in
subparagraph (A), (B), (C), (D), or (E).
(3) A commission may initiate a proposal described in paragraph (2)
only if that change of organization or reorganization is consistent with a
recommendation or conclusion of a study prepared pursuant to Section
56378, 56425, or 56430, and the commission makes the determinations
specified in subdivision (b) of Section 56881.
(4) A commission shall not disapprove an annexation to a city, initiated
by resolution, of contiguous territory that the commission finds is an y of
the following:
(A) Surrounded or substantially surrounded by the city to which the
annexation is proposed or by that city and a county boundary or the Pacifi c
Ocean if the territory to be annexed is substantially developed or developing,
is not prime agricultural land as defined in Section 56064, is designated for
87
Ch.512 — 6 —
urban growth by the general plan of the annexing city, and is not within the
sphere of influence of another city.
(B) Located within an urban service area that has been delineated and
adopted by a commission, which is not prime agricultural land, as defined
by Section 56064, and is designated for urban growth by the general plan
of the annexing city.
(C) An annexation or reorganization of unincorporated islands meeting
the requirements of Section 56375.3.
(5) As a condition to the annexation of an area that is surrounded, or
substantially surrounded, by the city to which the annexation is proposed,
the commission may require, where consistent with the purposes of this
division, that the annexation include the entire island of surrounded, or
substantially surrounded, territory.
(6) A commission shall not impose any conditions that would directly
regulate land use density or intensity, property development, or subdivision
requirements.
(7) The decision of the commission with regard to a proposal to annex
territory to a city shall be based upon the general plan and prezoning of the
city. When the development purposes are not made known to the annexing
city, the annexation shall be reviewed on the basis of the adopted plans and
policies of the annexing city or county. A commission shall require, as a
condition to annexation, that a city prezone the territory to be annexed or
present evidence satisfactory to the commission that the existing development
entitlements on the territory are vested or are already at build-out, and are
consistent with the city’s general plan. However, the commission shall not
specify how, or in what manner, the territory shall be prezoned.
(b) With regard to a proposal for annexation or detachment of territory
to, or from, a city or district or with regard to a proposal for reorganization
that includes annexation or detachment, to determine whether territory
proposed for annexation or detachment, as described in its resolution
approving the annexation, detachment, or reorganization, is inhabited or
uninhabited.
(c) With regard to a proposal for consolidation of two or more cities or
districts, to determine which city or district shall be the consolidated
successor city or district.
(d) To approve the annexation of unincorporated, noncontiguous territory,
subject to the limitations of Section 56742, located in the same county as
that in which the city is located, and that is owned by a city and used for
municipal purposes and to authorize the annexation of the territory without
notice and hearing.
(e) To approve the annexation of unincorporated territory consistent with
the planned and probable use of the property based upon the review of
general plan and prezoning designations. No subsequent change may be
made to the general plan for the annexed territory or zoning that is not in
conformance to the prezoning designations for a period of two years after
the completion of the annexation, unless the legislative body for the city
makes a finding at a public hearing that a substantial change has occurred
87
— 7 — Ch.512
in circumstances that necessitate a departure from the prezoning in the
application to the commission.
(f) With respect to the incorporation of a new city or the formation of a
new special district, to determine the number of registered voters residing
within the proposed city or special district or, for a landowner-voter special
district, the number of owners of land and the assessed value of their land
within the territory proposed to be included in the new special district. The
number of registered voters shall be calculated as of the time of the last
report of voter registration by the county elections official to the Secretary
of State prior to the date the first signature was affixed to the petition. The
executive officer shall notify the petitioners of the number of registered
voters resulting from this calculation. The assessed value of the land within
the territory proposed to be included in a new landowner-voter special
district shall be calculated as shown on the last equalized assessment roll.
(g) To adopt written procedures for the evaluation of proposals, including
written definitions consistent with e xisting state law. The commission may
adopt standards for any of the factors enumerated in Section 56668. Any
standards adopted by the commission shall be written.
(h) To adopt standards and procedures for the evaluation of service plans
submitted pursuant to Section 56653 and the initiation of a change of
organization or reorganization pursuant to subdivision (a).
(i) To make and enforce regulations for the orderly and fair conduct of
hearings by the commission.
(j) To incur usual and necessary expenses for the accomplishment of its
functions.
(k) To appoint and assign staff personnel and to employ or contract for
professional or consulting services to carry out and effect the functions of
the commission.
(l) To review the boundaries of the territory involved in any proposal
with respect to the definiteness and certainty of those boundaries, the
nonconformance of proposed boundaries with lines of assessment or
ownership, and other similar matters affecting the proposed boundaries.
(m) To waive the restrictions of Section 56744 if it finds that the
application of the restrictions would be detrimental to the orderly
development of the community and that the area that would be enclosed by
the annexation or incorporation is so located that it cannot reasonably be
annexed to another city or incorporated as a new city.
(n) To waive the application of Section 22613 of the Streets and Highways
Code if it finds the application w ould deprive an area of a service needed
to ensure the health, safety, or welfare of the residents of the area and if it
finds that the waiver would not affect the ability of a city to provide any
service. However, within 60 days of the inclusion of the territory within the
city, the legislative body may adopt a resolution nullifying the waiver.
(o) If the proposal includes the incorporation of a city, as defined in
Section 56043, or the formation of a district, as defined in Section 2215 of
the Revenue and Taxation Code, the commission shall determine the property
87
Ch.512 — 8 —
tax revenue to be exchanged by the affected local agencies pursuant to
Section 56810.
(p) To authorize a city or district to provide new or extended services
outside its jurisdictional boundaries pursuant to Section 56133.
(q) To enter into an agreement with the commission for an adjoining
county for the purpose of determining procedures for the consideration of
proposals that may affect the adjoining county or where the jurisdiction of
an affected agency crosses the boundary of the adjoining county.
(r) To approve with or without amendment, wholly, partially, or
conditionally, or disapprove pursuant to this section the annexation of
territory served by a mutual water company formed pursuant to Part 7
(commencing with Section 14300) of Division 3 of Title 1 of the
Corporations Code that operates a public water system to a city or special
district. Any annexation approved in accordance with this subdivision shall
be subject to the state and federal constitutional prohibitions against the
taking of private property without the payment of just compensation. This
subdivision shall not impair the authority of a public agency or public utility
to exercise eminent domain authority.
SEC. 8. Section 56430 of the Government Code is amended to read:
56430. (a) In order to prepare and to update spheres of influence in
accordance with Section 56425, the commission shall conduct a service
review of the municipal services provided in the county or other appropriate
area designated by the commission. The commission shall include in the
area designated for service review the county, the region, the subregion, or
any other geographic area as is appropriate for an analysis of the service or
services to be reviewed, and shall prepare a written statement of its
determinations with respect to each of the following:
(1) Growth and population projections for the affected area.
(2) Present and planned capacity of public facilities and adequacy of
public services, including infrastructure needs or deficiencies.
(3) Financial ability of agencies to provide services.
(4) Status of, and opportunities for, shared facilities.
(5) Accountability for community service needs, including governmental
structure and operational efficiencies.
(6) Any other matter related to effective or efficient service delivery, as
required by commission policy.
(b) In conducting a service review, the commission shall comprehensively
review all of the agencies that provide the identified service or services
within the designated geographic area.
(c) In conducting a service review, the commission may include a review
of whether the agencies under review, including any public water system
as defined in Section 116275, are in compliance with the Safe Drinking
Water Act. A public water system may satisfy any request for information
as to compliance with the Safe Drinking Water Act by submission of the
consumer confidence or water quality report prepared by the public water
system as provided by Section 116470 of the Health and Safety Code.
87
— 9 — Ch.512
(d) The commission may request information, as part of a service review
under this section, from identified public or priv ate entities that provide
wholesale or retail supply of drinking water, including mutual water
companies formed pursuant to Part 7 (commencing with Section 14300) of
Division 3 of Title 1 of the Corporations Code, and private utilities, as
defined in Section 1502 of the Public Utilities Code.
(e) The commission shall conduct a service review before, or in
conjunction with, but no later than the time it is considering an action to
establish a sphere of infl uence in accordance with Section 56425 or 56426.5
or to update a sphere of influence pursuant to Section 56425.
SEC. 9. Article 12 (commencing with Section 116755) of Chapter 4 of
Part 12 of Division 104 is added to the Health and Safety Code, to read:
Article 12. Board Member Training
116755. (a) Each board member of a mutual water company that operates
a public water system, as defined in Section 116275, shall, within six months
of taking office, or by December 31, 2012, if that member was serving on
the board on December 31, 2011, complete a two-hour course offered by a
qualified trainer regarding the duties of board members of mutual water
companies, including, but not limited to, the duty of a corporate director to
avoid contractual conflicts of interest and fiduciary duties, the duties of
public water systems to provide clean drinking water that complies with the
federal Safe Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. Sec. 300f et seq.) and this
chapter, and long-term management of a public water system. For the
purposes of this subdivision, a trainer may be qualified in any of the
following ways:
(1) Membership in the California State Bar.
(2) Accreditation by the International Association of Continuing
Education and Training (IACET) ANSI/IACET 1-2007.
(3) Sponsorship by either the Rural Community Assistance Corporation
or the California Rural Water Association.
(b) A mutual water company formed pursuant to Part 7 (commencing
with Section 14300) of Division 3 of Title 1 of the Corporations Code shall
be liable for the payment of any fines, penalties, costs, expenses, and other
amounts that may be imposed upon the mutual water company pursuant to
this chapter. The mutual water company may levy an assessment, pursuant
to Section 14303 of the Corporations Code, to pay these fines, penalties,
costs, expenses, and other amounts so imposed. If the amount of outstanding
fines, penalties, costs, expenses and other amounts imposed pursuant to this
chapter exceed 5 percent of the annual budget of the mutual water company,
then the mutual water company shall levy an assessment, pursuant to Section
14303 of the Corporations Code, to pay those fines, penalties, costs,
expenses, and other amounts so imposed.
SEC. 10. Section 116760.90 of the Health and Safety Code is amended
to read:
87
Ch.512 — 10 —
116760.90. (a) The department shall not approve an application for
funding unless the department determines that the proposed study or project
is necessary to enable the applicant to meet safe drinking water standards,
and is consistent with an adopted countywide plan, if any. The department
may refuse to fund a study or project if it determines that the purposes of
this chapter may more economically and efficiently be met by means other
than the proposed study or project. The department shall not approve an
application for funding a project with a primary purpose to supply or attract
future growth. The department may limit funding to costs necessary to
enable suppliers to meet primary drinking water standards, as defined in
Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 116270).
(b) With respect to applications for funding of project design and
construction, the department shall also determine all of the following:
(1) Upon completion of the project, the applicant will be able to supply
water that meets safe drinking water standards.
(2) The project is cost-effective.
(3) If the entire project is not to be funded under this chapter, the
department shall specify which costs are eligible for funding.
(c) In considering an application for funding a project that meets all other
requirements of this chapter and regulations, the department shall not be
prejudiced by the applicant initiating the project prior to the department
approving the application for funding. Preliminary project costs that are
otherwise eligible for funding pursuant to the provisions of this chapter shall
not be ineligible because the costs were incurred by the applicant prior to
the department approving the application for funding. Construction costs
that are otherwise eligible for funding pursuant to the provisions of this
chapter shall not be ineligible because the costs were incurred after the
approval of the application by the department but prior to the department
entering into a contract with the applicant pursuant to Section 116761.50.
O
87
AP.3: CA DEPT. OF FINANCE. NEW POPULATION
PROJECTIONS
MACRO USED: H:\Prod\Template\Dof-Ltrhd.dotm
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: CONTACT: Ethan Sharygin (916) 323-4086
March 8, 2017 H.D. Palmer (916) 323-0648
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE RELEASES NEW STATE POPULATION PROJECTIONS
SACRAMENTO – New projections showing how California’s population is expected to change
by growth, generation, and geography through 2060 were released today by the Department of
Finance.
Highlights
From 2016 to 2036, California is projected to grow at an annualized rate of 0.76 percent, adding
6.5 million people. During these 20 years, the share of the population age 65 and older is
projected to grow from 14 percent to 23 percent. In 2051, California is projected to join the ranks
of Japan and many European countries which have more deaths than births, while migration is
expected to keep California’s population growth rate positive. Compared to previous projections
(2013 baseline series, published Dec. 2014), the statewide population forecast in 2060 is
approximately 1 percent lower, due primarily to lower expected birth rates.
The Hispanic population is projected to grow from 39 percent today to 46 percent by 2060. The
Millennial generation (born 1981-1997) was the largest in California as of 2016 (9.4 million or 24
percent of the population). “Generation X” (born 1965-1980) is projected to overtake the Baby
Boom generation in total population size by 2019, when both become approximately 20 percent
of the population. The San Francisco Bay Area, greater Sacramento region, Central Valley, and
Inland Empire regions of the state are projected to grow more quickly than the state overall,
each increasing their share of the state’s total population (by 1 to 2 percentage points).
Total population growth
California’s population on July 1, 2016 was 39.4 million. The state is poised to reach a
population of 40 million by the year 2018, 45 million by 2035, and 50 million during 2055.
Between 2016 and 2060, the state is projected to grow by 30 percent: from 39.4 million to 51.1
million (0.6 percent annually), adding over 11.7 million people (more than the 2016 population of
Ohio).
Total population is calculated using projected births, deaths, and migration—collectively, the
components of change. The crude birth rate1 has been declining in California since the late
2000s, and is projected to decline further from 12.6 births per 1,000 population in 2015 (490,000
births) to 9.4 per 1,000 in 2060 (475,000 births). As the elderly population grows, the projected
number of deaths rises more rapidly: from a crude death rate2 of 6.8 deaths per 1,000
population in 2015 (265,000 deaths) to approximately 9.9 per 1,000 in 2060 (505,000 deaths).
The number of deaths is projected to exceed the number of births starting in 2051.
1
Net migration refers to the arrival of people (foreign- or native-born) to California. The rate of net
migration is projected to steadily grow from approximately 1.8 net migrants per 1,000 population
per year in 2015 (70,000 net migrants) to 4 per 1,000 by 2060 (215,000 net migrants). Projected
migration cannot be separated by direction (domestic or foreign flows) due to limitations in the
historical data sources used to estimate net migrants.
Population aging
In 2016, 24 percent of the population of California was under age 18 (9.2 million). The working-
age population (18-64) was 63 percent of the population (24.6 million), and is projected to
decrease modestly as a share of the total population. Growth is expected in the age 65 and over
group: it was 14 percent of the population in 2016 (5.5 million), and is projected to grow to 23
percent in 2036 and 26 percent in 2060 (Table 1/Figure 1).
Table 1. Population by age category: California, 2016-2060
2016 2036 2060
Total population 39,354,432 100% 45,807,050 100% 51,056,510 100%
Age <18 9,257,380 24% 8,946,985 20% 9,166,821 18%
Age 18-24 4,223,279 11% 4,401,571 10% 4,401,877 9%
Age 25-64 20,413,692 52% 22,087,332 48% 23,999,011 47%
Age 65+ 5,460,081 14% 10,371,162 23% 13,488,801 26%
Age 16+ 31,171,308 79% 37,951,306 83% 42,995,258 84%
Note: Total of shares may not sum due to rounding.
Figure 1. Population by age category: California, 2010-2060
2
Population aging will be rapid during the next 20 years as a large cohort of Baby Boomers (born
1946-1964) moves into and through retirement. The share of the population age 65 and older is
projected to grow rapidly, becoming a larger share of the population in 2030 than children under
18. The median age in California was 36.2 years in 2016, compared to 37.8 years nationwide.
By 2036, the state median age is projected to increase to 41 years, and to 45 years in 2060. A
large Baby Boom cohort in California kept the state younger than the national average for many
years, but the state will see more rapid increases in the elderly population than the rest of the
country due to the aging of this cohort over the next decades.
Other important causes of population aging in California are lower fertility rates and greater
longevity. The total fertility rate3 has fallen from 2.1 children per woman in 2000 to 1.8 in 2015,
and is projected to decrease to 1.6 children per woman by 2060. At the same time, life
expectancy at birth has increased from 78 years in 2000 to 81 years in 2015, and is projected to
increase to 86 years by 2060.
Migration to California has been a contributor to the youthfulness of the state’s population
(Figure 2). Foreign-born Californians are concentrated in prime working ages (25-64). Foreign-
born Californians have contributed significantly to the state’s population growth: over 40 percent
of children born in California since 2000 have at least one foreign-born parent.
Figure 2: Age profile of the native and foreign-born populations: California, 2015
Men Women
Foreign born Native born Total
100
80
60
40
20
0
300 200 100 0 100 200 300 300 200 100 0 100 200 300 300 200 100 0 100 200 300
Source: American Community Survey, Public Use Microdata Survey (PUMS) 1-year file (2015).
3
egA
Population (1000s)
Population change by race/ethnicity
A plurality of California is Hispanic, with 39 percent (15 million) claiming Hispanic ethnicity. The
Hispanic proportion of the population is projected to grow to 42 percent by 2036 and 46 percent
by 2060. The fastest growth is projected for the multiracial and Hispanic populations (Table 2).
Table 2. Population by race and Hispanic ethnicity: California, 2016-2060
2016 2036 2060
Total population 39,354,432 100% 45,807,050 100% 51,056,510 100%
Non-Hispanic
White 15,147,499 38% 15,863,204 35% 15,792,622 31%
Black 2,260,738 6% 2,628,340 6% 2,847,709 6%
American Indian/Alaska Native 165,633 <1% 176,608 <1% 167,582 <1%
Asian/Pacific Islander/Hawaiian 5,302,598 13% 5,864,385 13% 6,081,859 12%
Multiracial (2+ of the above) 1,065,236 3% 1,778,219 4% 2,862,227 6%
Hispanic 15,412,728 39% 19,496,294 43% 23,304,511 46%
Note: Totals may not sum due to rounding.
Generational change
Births through 1997 can be divided into five generations or cohorts (Table 3/Figure 3). The
largest cohort in California today is the Millennial (born 1981-1997). The Millennial generation is
projected to peak in size at 9.5 million persons during the 2030s, as its ranks continue to grow
due to migration. Baby Boomers (born 1946-1964) constitute the second-largest cohort at
present, but will rapidly diminish in size due to mortality. In 2019, Generation X (born 1965-
1980) is projected to exceed the Baby Boom generation in population size.
Table 3. Population by generation: California, 2016-2060
2016 2036 2060
Total population 39,354,432 100% 45,807,050 100% 51,056,510 100%
Born <1928 343,180 1% 181 <1%
Born 1928-1945 2,973,738 8% 527,399 1%
Born 1946-1964 8,468,780 22% 6,455,468 14% 510,480 1%
Born 1965-1980 8,274,964 21% 7,891,899 17% 5,210,083 10%
Born 1981-1997 9,460,216 24% 9,431,876 21% 8,918,679 17%
Note: Totals by generation do not sum to total population (births after 1997 not shown).
4
Figure 3. Population by birth cohort: California, 2010-2060
Regional growth
California’s population will go through phases of aging and renewal during the projection period,
with varying effects by race, ethnicity, and geography. The patterns are related to the relative
size of birth cohorts, decisions on where to move for education, work, family, and retirement,
and the size of migration flows to and from California. Some rural counties will see
replenishment of population, while others will see rising median ages.
Counties in the greater Los Angeles region will add the most people over the next 45 years.
During 2016-2060, Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino counties are each projected to
grow by over 1 million. At present, 45 percent of Californians live in coastal southern counties
(Ventura, Los Angeles, Orange, or San Diego). However, this share is projected to decrease in
the coming years (declining to 42 percent in 2036 and 39 percent by 2060). The Central Valley,
San Francisco Bay Area, Inland Empire, and greater Sacramento region are all expected to
grow faster than the statewide average, increasing their share of the state population by 1 to 2
percentage points (Table 4).
5
Table 4. Population by region: California, 2016-2060
2016 2036 2060
Total population 39,354,432 100% 45,807,050 100% 51,056,510 100%
[1] San Francisco Bay Area 7,680,709 20% 9,163,287 20% 10,468,398 21%
[2] Sacramento 2,458,135 6% 3,066,335 7% 3,714,415 7%
[3] Far North 1,055,315 3% 1,143,648 2% 1,229,677 2%
[4] Central Valley 4,208,003 11% 5,310,906 12% 6,494,076 13%
[5] Sierra Nevada 187,901 0% 198,799 0% 205,220 0%
[6] Central Coast 1,502,662 4% 1,709,588 4% 1,825,151 4%
[7] South Coast 17,565,890 45% 19,291,680 42% 19,990,023 39%
[8] Inland Empire 4,695,817 12% 5,922,807 13% 7,129,550 14%
Note: Counties by region: [1]: San Francisco, Marin, Sonoma, Napa, Solano, Contra Costa, Alameda, Santa Clara,
San Mateo; [2] Sacramento, Sutter, Yuba, Yolo, Placer, El Dorado; [4] San Joaquin, Stanislaus, Merced, Madera,
Fresno Kinds, Tulare, Kern; [5] Alpine, Amador, Calaveras, Tuolumne, Mariposa, Mono, Inyo; [6] Santa Cruz, San
Benito, Monterey, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara; [7] Ventura, Los Angeles, Orange, San Diego; [8] San
Bernardino, Riverside, Imperial; [3] all others.
Kern is projected to overtake Fresno County in population size during 2052 (Table 5). During
the next 20 years, the highest growth rates (above 1 percent annually) are expected in the
Central Valley counties of Yolo, Kern, Madera, Placer, and San Joaquin (Table 6).
Table 5. Largest counties: California, 2016-2060
10 Largest Counties
Rank
2016 2036 2060
1 Los Angeles 10,229,245 Los Angeles 11,070,046 Los Angeles 11,251,434
2 San Diego 3,300,891 San Diego 3,756,811 San Diego 4,136,812
3 Orange 3,181,371 Orange 3,516,426 Orange 3,617,223
4 Riverside 2,360,727 Riverside 3,052,045 Riverside 3,602,352
5 San Bernardino 2,147,933 San Bernardino 2,636,148 San Bernardino 3,237,092
6 Santa Clara 1,930,215 Santa Clara 2,358,693 Santa Clara 2,810,865
7 Alameda 1,637,712 Alameda 1,973,632 Alameda 2,265,671
8 Sacramento 1,506,677 Sacramento 1,871,993 Sacramento 2,262,556
9 Contra Costa 1,129,894 Contra Costa 1,384,877 Contra Costa 1,568,920
10 Fresno 989,183 Fresno 1,212,462 Kern 1,488,228
6
Table 6. Fastest growing counties: California, 2015-2060
10 Fastest Growing Counties
Rank
2015-2016 2016-2036 2016-2060
1 Yolo 1.9% Yolo 1.3% Yolo 1.2%
2 San Joaquin 1.5% Kern 1.3% Madera 1.2%
3 Placer 1.4% Madera 1.3% Kern 1.2%
4 Riverside 1.3% Placer 1.3% Merced 1.2%
5 Stanislaus 1.2% San Joaquin 1.3% Placer 1.0%
6 Contra Costa 1.2% Riverside 1.3% San Joaquin 1.0%
7 Solano 1.1% Merced 1.3% Imperial 1.0%
8 Sacramento 1.1% Imperial 1.1% Riverside 1.0%
9 Monterey 1.1% Sacramento 1.1% San Bernardino 0.9%
10 Alameda 1.1% Stanislaus 1.1% Sacramento 0.9%
These 2016 baseline population projections are used by state and local government agencies to
anticipate and plan for future population needs and resource demands, as well as to measure
incidence rates and program effectiveness. The Department of Finance uses a cohort-
component method to project population by age, gender, and race/ethnicity. A cohort-
component method traces people born in a given year through their lives: with each passing
year, new cohorts are formed by applying fertility assumptions, and the population at each age
grows or shrinks due to aging, mortality, and migration assumptions.
The baseline assumptions of the projections are the continuation of changing demographic
dynamics within the norm of historical experience. The projections assume that the trends
described in the projections will continue irrespective of recent or anticipated legislation or policy
changes. The projections are developed in consultation with local and regional authorities, who
may make different assumptions in their analysis that are partly reflected in the final migration,
fertility, and mortality forecasts when their input is taken into consideration.
County tables and maps are appended. Additional datasets and methodological notes are
available from the Department of Finance website:
http://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Projections/
1 Crude birth rate: number of births per 1,000 population.
2 Crude death rate: number of deaths per 1,000 population.
3 Total fertility rate: a synthetic measure of fertility representing the hypothetical number of children born
to a woman during her lifetime, if she experienced the age-specific rates for the period in question
throughout her reproductive life.
7
Total Estimated and Projected Population for California and Counties: July 1, 2010 to July 1, 2060 in 5-year Increments
Estimates Projections
2010 2015 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060
California 37,333,583 39,059,809 42,407,005 44,019,846 45,521,334 46,884,801 48,088,425 49,158,401 50,124,768 51,056,510
Alameda County 1,515,338 1,619,679 1,795,390 1,878,556 1,958,389 2,032,262 2,099,569 2,159,782 2,213,971 2,265,671
Alpine County 1,175 1,157 1,134 1,150 1,169 1,164 1,141 1,105 1,078 1,057
Amador County 38,069 37,314 38,977 40,134 41,083 41,719 42,197 42,711 43,391 44,245
Butte County 220,157 224,363 238,546 247,339 256,042 263,642 270,612 277,512 285,290 292,892
Calaveras County 45,535 44,899 46,143 47,129 47,851 48,242 48,465 48,775 49,397 50,468
Colusa County 21,465 22,271 24,085 24,980 25,765 26,451 26,989 27,482 28,013 28,626
Contra Costa County 1,051,525 1,116,882 1,250,935 1,314,573 1,373,950 1,426,050 1,469,258 1,505,996 1,537,429 1,568,920
Del Norte County 28,387 27,119 27,467 27,775 28,062 28,309 28,553 28,773 29,082 29,550
El Dorado County 180,975 183,140 196,057 204,977 214,008 221,939 228,335 234,290 241,185 249,924
Fresno County 932,628 979,357 1,088,963 1,145,646 1,201,416 1,256,572 1,309,006 1,358,963 1,407,602 1,457,705
Glenn County 28,182 28,960 30,605 31,594 32,502 33,261 33,856 34,357 34,841 35,389
Humboldt County 134,929 135,090 140,298 141,501 142,085 141,958 141,625 141,193 140,651 140,489
Imperial County 175,107 185,328 208,364 220,459 232,298 243,975 255,677 267,419 278,720 290,106
Inyo County 18,539 18,640 19,048 19,219 19,339 19,360 19,307 19,176 18,993 18,864
Kern County 841,887 883,327 995,408 1,067,631 1,141,109 1,213,558 1,283,154 1,350,705 1,419,039 1,488,228
Kings County 152,175 149,702 162,049 170,105 178,505 187,048 195,106 202,760 209,804 217,058
Lake County 64,905 65,180 66,476 67,718 69,030 70,275 71,574 73,015 74,769 76,877
Lassen County 34,869 30,969 30,478 30,157 29,668 29,117 28,521 27,941 27,408 26,999
Los Angeles County 9,837,011 10,185,487 10,688,523 10,885,337 11,042,709 11,161,569 11,238,210 11,274,596 11,275,452 11,251,434
Madera County 150,193 154,956 174,156 186,761 199,556 212,229 224,744 237,116 249,271 262,065
Marin County 252,185 262,105 270,747 274,243 277,316 278,955 278,811 277,335 275,223 273,469
Mariposa County 18,245 18,088 18,243 18,481 18,698 18,823 18,967 19,112 19,323 19,655
Mendocino County 87,661 88,429 92,145 93,657 94,782 95,329 95,500 95,608 95,847 96,369
Merced County 256,803 269,729 305,794 326,574 348,150 369,193 389,832 410,095 430,832 452,519
Modoc County 9,689 9,507 9,228 9,177 9,105 8,971 8,808 8,656 8,543 8,497
Mono County 14,017 13,818 14,389 14,692 14,928 15,020 14,974 14,778 14,473 14,179
Monterey County 414,915 436,242 475,105 491,601 507,123 521,041 532,661 541,508 548,649 554,839
Napa County 136,237 141,546 149,471 154,107 158,238 161,795 164,541 166,634 168,466 170,408
Nevada County 98,517 98,190 102,549 105,732 108,910 111,421 113,423 115,821 119,222 123,679
Orange County 3,014,962 3,161,218 3,351,315 3,434,157 3,504,411 3,558,718 3,595,775 3,616,582 3,621,879 3,617,223
Placer County 350,052 370,738 424,858 454,102 482,171 507,740 530,743 551,660 572,485 594,279
Plumas County 19,982 19,586 19,194 19,022 18,760 18,366 17,947 17,605 17,473 17,538
Riverside County 2,196,137 2,329,256 2,692,006 2,863,260 3,021,572 3,165,363 3,292,187 3,406,136 3,507,769 3,602,352
Sacramento County 1,421,628 1,489,952 1,669,830 1,762,759 1,854,128 1,942,004 2,025,927 2,105,299 2,183,173 2,262,556
San Benito County 55,401 57,584 63,368 66,796 70,220 73,535 76,499 79,210 81,812 84,473
San Bernardino County 2,044,228 2,129,851 2,357,002 2,483,568 2,610,720 2,735,646 2,857,883 2,981,484 3,105,723 3,237,092
San Diego County 3,100,529 3,275,084 3,529,054 3,638,609 3,737,507 3,830,210 3,916,308 3,997,108 4,069,577 4,136,812
San Francisco County 809,174 863,108 945,660 981,738 1,015,352 1,047,902 1,081,493 1,117,661 1,156,570 1,196,108
San Joaquin County 687,827 727,547 839,665 895,240 947,929 996,379 1,040,015 1,079,902 1,116,089 1,150,034
San Luis Obispo County 269,013 276,844 295,019 302,323 307,467 310,367 310,573 309,424 308,155 307,681
San Mateo County 720,496 764,379 822,392 846,852 867,540 886,272 902,065 915,205 927,366 938,228
Santa Barbara County 423,552 444,900 477,699 492,495 505,338 516,163 524,590 531,252 536,043 540,508
Santa Clara County 1,790,301 1,915,102 2,124,780 2,230,564 2,337,470 2,443,718 2,545,513 2,640,473 2,726,922 2,810,865
Santa Cruz County 262,341 274,697 294,233 303,377 311,059 317,542 322,998 327,682 332,459 337,650
Shasta County 177,062 178,777 184,384 188,847 193,030 196,656 199,830 202,817 206,244 210,014
Sierra County 3,233 3,147 3,126 3,092 3,042 2,985 2,931 2,899 2,890 2,910
Siskiyou County 44,862 44,500 44,352 44,492 44,522 44,339 44,095 44,024 44,290 44,954
Solano County 412,573 429,267 482,723 509,230 534,008 556,679 576,963 595,865 614,246 633,039
Sonoma County 483,844 501,182 538,701 558,134 574,747 586,957 595,413 601,189 606,178 611,690
Stanislaus County 515,888 538,372 605,618 638,995 670,443 699,177 724,772 747,343 768,026 787,300
Sutter County 94,859 97,618 106,589 111,423 116,316 120,845 125,529 129,929 134,607 139,449
Tehama County 63,505 63,970 66,956 69,004 71,036 72,859 74,607 76,483 78,493 80,751
Trinity County 13,779 13,562 13,324 13,314 13,271 13,224 13,200 13,311 13,623 14,143
Tulare County 442,551 463,291 514,101 541,140 568,186 594,348 617,916 639,477 659,482 679,167
Tuolumne County 55,350 54,525 54,470 54,958 55,369 55,557 55,588 55,691 56,063 56,752
Ventura County 824,467 852,013 896,731 922,001 944,298 961,828 973,476 979,739 982,270 984,554
Yolo County 202,352 212,686 245,902 262,418 279,236 296,657 313,962 331,183 348,267 365,773
Yuba County 72,315 75,579 83,180 86,931 90,400 93,517 96,211 98,554 100,630 102,434
Projections Prepared by Demographic Research Unit, California Department of Finance, February 2017
8
California 2010 Median Age
Del
Norte
Siskiyou
Modoc
µ
Shasta
Trinity Lassen
Humboldt
Tehama
Plumas
Butte
Mendocino Glenn Sierra
Nevada
California: 35
Lake Colusa S Yuba Placer
u
tte
r
El Dorado
Yolo
Sonoma
Alpine
Marin
Napa
Solano
Sacrament A o m
C
a
a
d
l
o
av
r eras
Contra San Tuolumne
Costa Joaquin Mono
San Francisco
Alameda
Stanislaus Mariposa
San Mateo
Santa
Clara Merced d
era
Santa
Ma
Cruz
Fresno
San
Benito
Inyo
Tulare
Monterey
Kings
San
Luis Kern
Obispo
Median Age
San Bernardino
29
Santa
Barbara
Ventura
30 - 34 Los Angeles
35 - 39
Riverside
Orange
40 - 44
San Imperial
Diego
45 - 49
50 - 51
0 20 40 80 120 160
Miles
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census.
Map prepared by: California Department of Finance, Demographic Research Unit, February 2017.
California Projected 2035 Median Age
Del
Norte
Siskiyou
Modoc
µ
Shasta
Trinity Lassen
Humboldt
Tehama
Plumas
Butte
Mendocino Glenn Sierra
Nevada
California: 41
Lake Colusa S Yuba Placer
u
tte
r
El Dorado
Yolo
Sonoma
Alpine
Marin
Napa
Solano
Sacrament A o m
C
a
a
d
l
o
av
r eras
Contra San Tuolumne
Costa Joaquin Mono
San Francisco
Alameda
Stanislaus Mariposa
San Mateo
Santa
Clara Merced d
era
Santa
Ma
Cruz
Fresno
San
Benito
Inyo
Tulare
Monterey
Kings
San
Luis Kern
Obispo
Median Age
San Bernardino
26 - 29
Santa
Barbara
Ventura
30 - 34 Los Angeles
35 - 39
Riverside
Orange
40 - 44
San Imperial
Diego
45 - 49
50 - 56
0 20 40 80 120 160
Miles
Source: California Department of Finance, Population Projections for California and its Counties, 2016 Baseline Series.
Map prepared by: California Department of Finance, Demographic Research Unit, February 2017.
California Projected Population Growth 2010 to 2035
Numeric Change
Del
Norte
Siskiyou
Modoc µ
Shasta
Trinity Lassen
Humboldt
Tehama
Plumas
Butte
Mendocino Glenn Sierra
California: 8,150,486
Nevada
Lake Colusa S Yuba Placer
u
tte
r
El Dorado
Yolo
Sonoma
Alpine
Marin
Napa
Solano
Sacrament A o m
C
a
a
d
l
o
av
r eras
Contra San Tuolumne
Costa Joaquin Mono
San Francisco
Alameda
Stanislaus Mariposa
San Mateo
Santa
Clara Merced d
era
a
Santa M
Cruz
Fresno
San
Benito
Inyo
Tulare
Monterey
Kings
San
Luis Kern
Obispo
San Bernardino
Numeric Change Santa
Barbara
-4,181 to -1 Ventura
Los Angeles
0 to 19,999
Riverside
20,000 to 99,999 Orange
100,000 to 299,999
San Imperial
Diego
300,000 to 999,999
1,000,000 to 1,237,874
0 15 30 60 90 120
Miles
Source: California Department of Finance, Population Projections for California and its Counties, 2016 Baseline Series.
Map prepared by: California Department of Finance, Demographic Research Unit, February 2017.
California Projected Population Growth 2010 to 2035
Percent Change
Del
Norte
Siskiyou µ
Modoc
Shasta
Trinity Lassen
Humboldt
Tehama
Plumas
Butte
Mendocino Glenn Sierra
California: 21.8 Percent
Nevada
Lake Colusa S Yuba Placer
u
tte
r
El Dorado
Yolo
Sonoma
Alpine
Marin
Napa
Solano
Sacrament A o m
C
a
a
d
l
o
av
r eras
Contra San Tuolumne
Costa Joaquin Mono
San Francisco
Alameda
Stanislaus Mariposa
San Mateo
Santa
Clara Merced d
era
Santa
Ma
Cruz
Fresno
San
Benito
Inyo
Tulare
Monterey
Kings
San
Luis Kern
Obispo
San Bernardino
Santa
Barbara
Percent Change Ventura
Los Angeles
-12.0 to -0.1
Riverside
Orange
0.0 to 14.9
15.0 to 29.9 San Imperial
Diego
30.0 to 39.9
0 20 40 80 120 160
Miles
Source: California Department of Finance, Population Projections for California and its Counties, 2016 Baseline Series.
Map prepared by: California Department of Finance, Demographic Research Unit, February 2017.
AP.4: PLACER COUNTY WATER SYSTEMS
Appendix AP.4 -Placer County Water Systems
Drinking Water Branch
Safe Drinking Water Information System
Source: https://sdwis.waterboards.ca.gov/PDWW/JSP/WaterSystems.jsp?
PointOfContactType=none&number=&name=&county=Placer
Primary
Water System Principal
Water System Name Type Status Source Water
No. County Served
Type
CA3103294 8200 WATER SYSTEM NTNC A PLACER GW
AGATE BAY WATER
CA3110012 C A PLACER SW
COMPANY
ALPINE MEADOWS
CA3100041 C A PLACER SW
PROPERTY OWNERS ASSO
ALPINE SPRINGS COUNTY
CA3110029 C A PLACER GW
WATER DISTRICT
ANTELOPE OAKS WATER
CA3107329 NTNC A PLACER GW
SYSTEM
CA3105886 ANTELOPE SPRINGS NC A PLACER GW
APPLEGATE MOTEL WATER
CA3100102 NC A PLACER GW
SYSTEM
CA3107069 APPLEGATE PARK NC A PLACER GW
CA3103195 APPLEGATE STATION NC A PLACER GW
CA3107313 AQUAPURE NTNC A PLACER GW
CA3100069 AUBURN RIDGE WOODS C A PLACER GW
AUBURN VALLEY
CA3100011 C A PLACER GW
COMMUNITY SERVICE DIS
BAKER RANCH WATER
CA3100014 C A PLACER GW
COMPANY
CA3107332 BEAR VALLEY YMCA CAMP NC A PLACER GW
BEAR VALLEY, SIERRA
CA3105852 NC A PLACER GW
DISCOVERY TRAIL
BIG BEND CAMPGROUND &
CA3100080 NC A PLACER GW
ADMIN SITE
CA3100086 BIG TREES PICNIC GROUND NC A PLACER GW
CA3110150 CALAM - WEST PLACER C A PLACER SWP
CALTRANS-WHITMORE
CA3104519 NC A PLACER GW
MAINT. STATION
CA3104449 CAMP WINTHERS NC A PLACER SW
CAPITAL MT CHRISTIAN
CA3103209 NC A PLACER GW
CAMP
CA3110033 CASTLE CITY MHP C A PLACER SWP
CHRISTIAN VALLEY PARK
CA3110034 C A PLACER SW
CSD
CA3100008 CISCO GAS & FOOD NC A PLACER GW
CISCO GROVE
CA3106501 NC A PLACER GW
CAMPGROUND & RV PARK
CA3110004 CITY OF LINCOLN C A PLACER SWP
CA3110008 CITY OF ROSEVILLE C A PLACER SW
CA3100105 CLIPPER GAP HEAD START NTNC A PLACER GW
COMMUNITY OF THE GREAT
CA3103218 NC A PLACER GW
COMMISSION
DRY CREEK ELEMENTARY
CA3100077 NTNC A PLACER GW
SCHOOL
CA3100034 DSPUD-BIG BEND NC A PLACER GW
CA3100058 DUTCH FLAT MUTUAL C A PLACER SW
EASTERN REGIONAL
CA3105779 SANITARY LANDFILL NTNC A PLACER GW
WATER
EMIGRANT GAP MUTUAL
CA3103310 C A PLACER GW
WATER CO.
CA3103234 EVERYBODY'S INN NC A PLACER GW
FOLSOM LAKE MUTUAL
CA3107339 C A PLACER SWP
WATER CO
FORESTHILL PUBLIC UTILITY
CA3110003 C A PLACER SW
DIST
FRENCH MEADOWS NORTH
CA3100085 NC A PLACER GW
SHORE
FRENCH MEADOWS SOUTH
CA3100084 NC A PLACER GW
SHORE
CA3110015 FULTON WATER COMPANY C A PLACER SW
GOLD HILL MOBILEHOME
CA3100043 C A PLACER GW
PARK
GOLD RUN RECREATION
CA3100106 NC A PLACER GW
ENTERPRISES
GOLDEN HILLS MUTUAL
CA3100528 C A PLACER SWP
WATER CO
CA3103297 GOOSE MEADOWS NC A PLACER GW
GRANITE FLAT
CA3103665 NC A PLACER GW
CAMPGROUND
HAMPSHIRE ROCKS
CA3100082 NC A PLACER GW
CAMPGROUND
HEATHER GLEN
CA3100038 C A PLACER SW
COMMUNITY SERVICE DIST
CA3100120 HELL HOLE NC A PLACER GW
CA3107327 HIDDEN FALLS NC A PLACER GW
HIDDEN VALLEY
CA3103836 C A PLACER SWP
COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION
CA3104508 HUPPE MOORE LANDSCAPE NTNC A PLACER GW
INDIAN CREEK GOLF
CA3100062 NC A PLACER GW
COURSE
JEHOVAH'S WITNESS/VISTA
CA3106491 NC A PLACER GW
CONG.
JESUIT RETREAT CENTER OF
CA3107323 NC A PLACER GW
THE SIERRA
CA3105853 KIDD LAKE NC A PLACER GW
CA3107324 KILNER PARK NC A PLACER GW
CA3100067 LAKE ARTHUR CABINS NC A PLACER GW
LAKEVIEW HILLS
CA3103835 C A PLACER SWP
COMMUNITY ASSOC
LDS RECREATION BALL
CA3103257 NC A PLACER GW
PARK
LIVE OAK WALDORF
CA3100072 NTNC A PLACER GW
SCHOOL
CA3105446 LODGEPOLE CAMPGROUND NC A PLACER GW
CA3103247 LOOMIS COMMUNITY PARK NC A PLACER GW
LOOMIS LAND INC SENIOR
CA3106937 NTNC A PLACER GW
CARE VILLA WATER
MADDEN CREEK WATER
CA3110043 C A PLACER GW
COMPANY
CA3110022 MCKINNEY WATER DISTRICT C A PLACER GW
CA3110009 MEADOW VISTA CWD C A PLACER SW
MIDDLE MEADOWS
CA3100119 NC A PLACER GU
CAMPGROUND
CA3110041 MIDWAY HEIGHTS C. W. D. C A PLACER SWP
CA3103279 MKS APPLEGATE NC A PLACER GW
MORNING STAR LAKE
CA3100010 NC A PLACER GW
RESORT
NEVADA ID - NORTH
CA3110026 C A PLACER SW
AUBURN
CA3100019 NORTH EDEN VALLEY C A PLACER GW
CA3100081 NORTH FORK CAMPGROUND NC A PLACER GW
NORTH TAHOE PUD -
CA3110023 C A PLACER GW
CARNELIAN WOODS
NORTH TAHOE PUD -
CA3110036 C A PLACER GWP
DOLLAR COVE
CA3110001 NORTH TAHOE PUD - MAIN C A PLACER SW
NORTHSTAR AT TAHOE
CA3107322 NTNC A PLACER GW
COMSTOCK WATER SYSTEM
CA3110028 NORTHSTAR C.S.D. C A PLACER SW
NORTHSTAR SUMMIT DECK
CA3107311 NC A PLACER GW
& GRILL
CA3103291 NYACK WATER SYSTEM NTNC A PLACER GW
CA3100114 OLIVERS GROCERY NC A PLACER GW
OPHIR ELEMENTARY
CA3100083 NTNC A PLACER GW
SCHOOL WATER SYSTEM
CA3107321 PALISADES WATER SYSTEM NC A PLACER GW
CA3103259 PENRYN OAKS PRESCHOOL NTNC A PLACER GW
CA3110048 PLACER CSA - SHERIDAN C A PLACER GW
CA3110024 PLACER CWA - ALTA C A PLACER SW
CA3110050 PLACER CWA - APPLEGATE C A PLACER SW
PLACER CWA -
CA3110005 C A PLACER SW
AUBURN/BOWMAN
PLACER CWA - BIANCHI
CA3110040 C A PLACER SWP
ESTATES
CA3110006 PLACER CWA - COLFAX C A PLACER SW
CA3110025 PLACER CWA - FOOTHILL C A PLACER SW
PLACER CWA - MARTIS
CA3110051 C A PLACER GW
VALLEY
PLACER CWA - MONTE
CA3110124 C A PLACER SW
VISTA
RAINBOW SPRINGS PUBLIC
CA3100027 NC A PLACER GW
WATER SYSTEM
CA3105918 RIDE TO WALK NC A PLACER GW
CA3103260 ROBINSON FLAT NC A PLACER GW
ROCKANNA ROYALE
CA3100023 C A PLACER GW
MOBILE HOME PARK
ROLLINS LAKE RESORT,
CA3103283 NC A PLACER GW
LONG RAVINE
CA3100538 ROSECREST MUTUAL C A PLACER GW
SHADY GLEN COMM WATER
CA3100040 C A PLACER SW
SYSTEM
SIERRA LAKES COUNTY
CA3110017 C A PLACER SW
WATER DIST
SIERRA MEADOWS
CA3100061 C A PLACER GW
APARTMENT
CA3100079 SIERRA REACH MINISTRIES NC A PLACER GW
CA3107318 SIERRA WOODS LODGE NC A PLACER GW
SILVER CREEK
CA3100088 NC A PLACER GW
CAMPGROUND
SILVER CREEK SUMMER
CA3103666 NC A PLACER GW
HOME TRACT
SKY MOUNTAIN CHRISTIAN
CA3104457 NC A PLACER GW
CAMP
CA3103288 SNOWFLOWER NC A PLACER SW
CA3110019 SQUAW VALLEY MWC C A PLACER GW
CA3110020 SQUAW VALLEY PSD C A PLACER GW
CA3103261 SUGAR PINE RESERVIOR NC A PLACER GW
TAHOE CEDARS WATER
CA3110013 C A PLACER GW
COMPANY
TAHOE CITY PUD - ALPINE
CA3110044 C A PLACER GW
PEAKS
CA3110010 TAHOE CITY PUD - MAIN C A PLACER GW
TAHOE CITY PUD -
CA3110011 C A PLACER SW
MCKINNEY/QUAIL
TAHOE PARK WATER CO -
CA3110049 C A PLACER GW
SKYLAND/NIELSEN
TAHOE PARK WATER
CA3110018 C A PLACER SW
COMPANY
TAHOE SWISS VILLAGE
CA3110042 C A PLACER SW
UTILITY
CA3107315 TAHOE VISTANA NC A PLACER GW
TALMONT RESORT
CA3110047 C A PLACER GW
IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
CA3107328 TAMARACK LODGE NC A PLACER GW
TIMBERLAND WATER
CA3100029 C A PLACER GW
COMPANY INC
CA3107084 TURKEY CREEK GOLF CLUB NTNC A PLACER GW
VETERINARY
CA3107310 NTNC A PLACER GW
DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
WAKE ISLAND WATER
CA3107338 NC A PLACER GW
SYSTEM
WARD WELL WATER
CA3110031 C A PLACER GW
COMPANY
CA3110035 WEIMAR WATER COMPANY C A PLACER SW
CA3107337 WISE VILLA WINERY NC A PLACER GW
CA3107330 445 WARD AVE WELL NC I PLACER GW
CA3105895 BLACK BEAR TAVERN NTNC I PLACER GW
CA3103205 BLACK OAK GOLF COURSE NC I PLACER GW
BLUE CANYON WATER
CA3100057 NC I PLACER GW
ASSOCIATION
CEMEX (PATTERSON SAND &
CA3107314 NTNC I PLACER GW
GRAVEL)
CA3104509 FOOTHILL BIBLE CHURCH NC I PLACER GW
CA3107316 FULDA FLAT CAMP NC I PLACER GU
CA3100048 IMMACULATE CONCEPTION NTNC I PLACER GW
KASPIAN POINT PICNIC
CA3103664 NC I PLACER GW
AREA
LAKE FOREST UTILITY
CA3110032 C I PLACER SWP
COMPANY
CA3100063 OPHIR GARDENS C I PLACER GW
SONS OF NORWAY REC
CA3100096 NC I PLACER GW
CENTER
TIMBER HILLS MUTUAL
CA3100001 C I PLACER SWP
WATER CO
Notes:
(a) Water system type definitions:
C = Community: Serves at least 15 service connections used by year‐round residents or regularly
serves 25 year‐round residents.
NTNC = Non‐Transient Non‐Community: Serves at least the same 25 non‐residential individuals
during 6 months of the year.
NC = Transient Non‐Community: Regularly serves at least 25 non‐residential individuals
(transient) during 60 or more days per year.
(b) Primary source of water
GW = Ground Water
SW = Surface Water
AP.5: DEMOGRAPHIC REPORT FOR PLACER COUNTY
DEMOGRAPHICS STARTER REPORT
Placer County
CALIFORNIA
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Topic Page
Summary 2
Population 3
Race 4
Sex 6
Age Breakdown 6
Educational Attainment 7
Households 8
Income 9
Poverty 9
Housing 10
Citations 11
prepared by
www.cubitplanning.com
DEMOGRAPHICS STARTER REPORT
Placer County, CA Page 2
2017 POPULATION MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME
386,166 $76,926
SEX BY AGE
40k
27,727
20k 21,603 22,484 24,312 25,328 19,244 20,344 22,663 21,931 25,628 24,638 25,337 23,156 20,760 25,448 19,968
0k
0 to 9 10 to 19 20 to 29 30 to 39 40 to 49 50 to 59 60 to 69 70+
Female Male
EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT RACE & ORIGIN
5.8% 13.5%
12.2%
3.7%
19.2% 0.1%
0.1%
6.6%
0.3%
24.8%
1.4%
74.3%
38.1%
White Black American Indian
No Diploma High School Some College Asian Islander Other Two
Bachelors Graduate Hispanic
POVERTY UNEMPLOYMENT HOUSING UNITS HOUSEHOLDS
6.2% 4.3% 157,888 136,730
for all families whose income in the past 12 months is below for the population 16 years & over in the labor force houses, apartments, mobile homes, group of rooms or all the people who occupy a housing unit
the poverty level single rooms that serve as separate living quarters
Source: United States Census Bureau. The US Census Bureau's 2017 Population Estimates dataset has the most current population estimate data. The US Census Bureau's 2016 American Community Survey dataset
has the most current demographic data (i.e. race).
DEMOGRAPHICS STARTER REPORT
Placer County, CA Page 3
POPULATION
400k
386,166
379,742
380k
373,469
369,727 370,571
365,822
360,569
360k 356,445
340k
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Population Estimates (PEP) Population Estimates (ACS)
Population Estimates (ACS)
# % Change
2016 5-yr estimate 370,571 -
Source: American Community Survey 2016
Population Estimates (PEP)
# % Change
2011 356,445 -
2012 360,569 1.2%
2013 365,822 1.5%
2014 369,727 1.1%
2015 373,469 1.0%
2016 379,742 1.7%
2017 386,166 1.7%
Source: Annual Estimates of the Resident Population: April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2017
Historical Population Counts
# % Change
2000 248,399 -
2010 348,432 40.3%
Source: Decennial Census 2010, 2000
DEMOGRAPHICS STARTER REPORT
Placer County, CA Page 4
RACE
Race & Origin (Hispanic)
Hispanic: 13.5%
Two or More: 3.7%
Some Other Race: 0.1%
Islander: 0.1%
Asian: 6.6%
American Indian: 0.3%
Black: 1.4%
White: 74.3%
# %
Non-Hispanic 320,667 86.5%
White 275,220 74.3%
Black 5,162 1.4%
American Indian 1,252 0.3%
Asian 24,485 6.6%
Islander 529 0.1%
Other 335 0.1%
Two or More 13,684 3.7%
Hispanic 49,904 13.5%
Total Population 370,571 -
The complete Census race descriptions are as follows: White alone; Black or African American alone; American Indian and Alaska Native alone; Asian alone; Native
Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone; Some Other Race alone; and Two or More Races. Hispanics may be of any race. For more information, visit the American
Community Survey Data & Documentation page: http://www.census.gov/acs/www/data_documentation/documentation_main/.
Source: American Community Survey 2016
DEMOGRAPHICS STARTER REPORT
Placer County, CA Page 5
Detailed Race
# %
One race 352,826 95.2%
White 308,414 83.2%
Black or African American 5,473 1.5%
American Indian and Alaska Native 1,957 0.5%
Cherokee tribal grouping 257 0.1%
Chippewa tribal grouping 32 0.0%
Navajo tribal grouping 119 0.0%
Sioux tribal grouping 39 0.0%
Asian 24,862 6.7%
Asian Indian 5,108 1.4%
Chinese 4,049 1.1%
Filipino 7,982 2.2%
Japanese 1,941 0.5%
Korean 1,609 0.4%
Vietnamese 1,493 0.4%
Other Asian 2,680 0.7%
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 585 0.2%
Native Hawaiian 243 0.1%
Guamanian or Chamorro 128 0.0%
Samoan 20 0.0%
Other Pacific Islander 194 0.1%
Some other race 11,535 3.1%
Two or more races 17,745 4.8%
White and Black or African American 2,147 0.6%
White and American Indian and Alaska Native 4,087 1.1%
White and Asian 5,584 1.5%
Black or African American and American Indian and Alaska
128 0.0%
Native
Total Population 370,571 -
Source: American Community Survey 2016
DEMOGRAPHICS STARTER REPORT
Placer County, CA Page 6
Hispanic or Latino
# %
Non-Hispanic 320,667 86.5%
Hispanic or Latino (of any race) 49,904 13.5%
Mexican 37,822 10.2%
Puerto Rican 2,077 0.6%
Cuban 517 0.1%
Other 9,488 2.6%
Total Population 370,571 -
Source: American Community Survey 2016
SEX
# %
Male 180,790 48.8%
Female 189,781 51.2%
Total Population 370,571 -
Source: American Community Survey 2016
AGE BREAKDOWN
# %
0 to 9 years 44,087 11.9%
10 to 19 years 49,640 13.4%
20 to 29 years 39,588 10.7%
30 to 39 years 44,594 12.0%
40 to 49 years 50,266 13.6%
50 to 59 years 53,064 14.3%
60 to 69 years 43,916 11.9%
70+ years 45,416 12.3%
Total Population 370,571 -
Source: American Community Survey 2016
DEMOGRAPHICS STARTER REPORT
Placer County, CA Page 7
EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT
5.8%
12.2%
19.2%
24.8%
38.1%
No Diploma High School Some College Bachelors Graduate
# %
No diploma 14,879 5.8%
High school graduate & equivalency 49,288 19.2%
Associate degree & some college, no degree 97,742 38.1%
Bachelor's degree 63,509 24.8%
Graduate or Professional degree 31,180 12.2%
Population 25 Years and Over 256,598 -
Source: American Community Survey 2016
DEMOGRAPHICS STARTER REPORT
Placer County, CA Page 8
HOUSEHOLDS
Average Household Size 2.68 persons
Average Family Size 3.20 persons
A household includes all the people who occupy a housing unit. (People not living in households are classified as living in group quarters.) A family household consists of a
householder and one or more other people living in the same household who are related to the householder by birth, marriage, or adoption. For more information, visit the
American Community Survey Data & Documentation page: http://www.census.gov/acs/www/data_documentation/documentation_main/.
Source: American Community Survey 2016
Household Types
# %
Family households (families) 95,580 69.9%
With own children under 18 years 41,214 30.1%
Married-couple family 77,768 56.9%
With own children under 18 years 31,725 23.2%
Male householder, no wife present 4,882 3.6%
With own children under 18 years 2,383 1.7%
Female householder, no husband present 12,930 9.5%
With own children under 18 years 7,106 5.2%
Nonfamily households 41,150 30.1%
Householder living alone 33,380 24.4%
65 years and over 15,909 11.6%
Total households 136,730 -
A family household consists of a householder and one or more other people living in the same household who are related to the householder by birth, marriage, or adoption.
A nonfamily household is a householder living alone or with nonrelatives only. Same-sex couple households with no relatives of the householder present are tabulated in
nonfamily households. For more information, visit the American Community Survey Data & Documentation page:
http://www.census.gov/acs/www/data_documentation/documentation_main/.
Source: American Community Survey 2016
DEMOGRAPHICS STARTER REPORT
Placer County, CA Page 9
INCOME
Median Household Income
Census 2000 in 1999 dollars $57,535
American Community Survey (ACS) 2016 in 2016
$76,926
inflation adjusted dollars
Source: Decennial Census 2000, American Community Survey 2016
Household Income Distribution
Income in thousands. # %
Less than $10 5,487 4.0%
$10 to $14.9 5,155 3.8%
$15 to $24.9 9,481 6.9%
$25 to $34.9 9,949 7.3%
$35 to $49.9 13,734 10.0%
$50 to $74.9 22,789 16.7%
$75 to $99.9 18,050 13.2%
$100 to $149.9 26,586 19.4%
$150 to $199.9 13,342 9.8%
$200K+ 12,157 8.9%
Total Households 136,730 -
Source: American Community Survey 2016
POVERTY
# %
Families with Income in the past 12 months below
(X) 6.2%
poverty level
Population with Income in the past 12 months below
(X) 8.7%
poverty level
Source: American Community Survey 2016
DEMOGRAPHICS STARTER REPORT
Placer County, CA Page 10
HOUSING
Occupancy
# %
Occupied Housing Units 136,730 86.6%
Owner-occupied Housing Units 95,824 70.1%
Renter-occupied Housing Units 40,906 29.9%
Vacant Housing Units 21,158 13.4%
Total Housing Units 157,888 -
Source: American Community Survey 2016
Renter-occupied: 29.9%
Owner-occupied: 70.1%
Value
# %
Median Value of Owner-occupied Housing Units $380,900 -
Source: American Community Survey 2016
DEMOGRAPHICS STARTER REPORT
Placer County, CA Page 11
CITATIONS & NOTES
Citations
United States Census Bureau / American FactFinder. "Annual Estimates of the Resident Population: April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2017". 2017 Population Estimates Program.
Web. March 2018. http://factfinder2.census.gov
United States Census Bureau / American FactFinder. "DP02: SELECTED SOCIAL CHARACTERISTICS IN THE UNITED STATES". 2012 - 2016 American Community
Survey. U.S. Census Bureau's American Community Survey Office. Web. 7 December 2017 http://factfinder2.census.gov.
United States Census Bureau / American FactFinder. "DP03: SELECTED ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS". 2012 - 2016 American Community Survey. U.S. Census
Bureau's American Community Survey Office. Web. 7 December 2017 http://factfinder2.census.gov.
United States Census Bureau / American FactFinder. "DP04: SELECTED HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS". 2012 - 2016 American Community Survey. U.S. Census Bureau's
American Community Survey Office. Web. 7 December 2017 http://factfinder2.census.gov.
United States Census Bureau / American FactFinder. "DP05 : ACS DEMOGRAPHIC AND HOUSING ESTIMATES". 2012 - 2016 American Community Survey. U.S. Census
Bureau's American Community Survey Office. Web. 7 December 2017 http://factfinder2.census.gov.
United States Census Bureau. "B01001 Sex by Age." 2012 - 2016 American Community Survey. U.S. Census Bureau's American Community Survey Office. Web. 7
December 2017 http://ftp2.census.gov/.
United States Census Bureau. 1990 Census. U.S. Census Bureau, 2007.Web. 17 October 2012 ftp://ftp.census.gov/census_1990/.
United States Census Bureau. 2000 Census. U.S. Census Bureau, 2011.Web. 17 October 2012 ftp://ftp.census.gov/census_2000/.
United States Census Bureau. 2010 Census. U.S. Census Bureau, 2012.Web. 17 October 2012 ftp://ftp.census.gov/census_2010/.
Notes
American Community Survey data are estimates, not counts.
Although the American Community Survey (ACS) produces population, demographic and housing unit estimates, it is the Census Bureau's Population Estimates Program
that produces and disseminates the official estimates of the population for the nation, states, counties, cities and towns and estimates of housing units for states and
counties.
Supporting documentation on code lists, subject definitions, data accuracy, and statistical testing can be found on the American Community Survey website in the Data and
Documentation section.
Sample size and data quality measures (including coverage rates, allocation rates, and response rates) can be found on the American Community Survey website in the
Methodology section.
Data are based on a sample and are subject to sampling variability. The degree of uncertainty for an estimate arising from sampling variability is represented through the
use of a margin of error. The value shown here is the 90 percent margin of error. The margin of error can be interpreted roughly as providing a 90 percent probability that
the interval defined by the estimate minus the margin of error and the estimate plus the margin of error (the lower and upper confidence bounds) contains the true value. In
addition to sampling variability, the ACS estimates are subject to nonsampling error (for a discussion of nonsampling variability, see Accuracy of the Data). The effect of
nonsampling error is not represented in these tables.
The ACS questions on Hispanic origin and race were revised in 2008 to make them consistent with the Census 2010 question wording. Any changes in estimates for 2008
and beyond may be due to demographic changes, as well as factors including questionnaire changes, differences in ACS population controls, and methodological differences
in the population estimates, and therefore should be used with caution. For a summary of questionnaire changes see
http://www.census.gov/acs/www/methodology/questionnaire_changes/. For more information about changes in the estimates see
http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/hispanic/reports.html.
For more information on understanding race and Hispanic origin data, please see the Census 2010 Brief entitled, Overview of Race and Hispanic Origin: 2010, issued March
2011. (pdf format)
05000US06061
Generated 2018-07-18 00:17:26 +0000
AP.6: PUBLIC NOTICE – LAFCO STAFF WORKSHOP IN TRUCKEE, 2017
This Appendix presents the public notice from the 2017 LAFCO staff workshops held in Truckee. Please
see the next page.