Eastern Plumas County Municipal Service Review (adopted Oct 3, 2011)

E A S T E R N P LU M A S M U N I C I PA L S E RV I C E R E V I E W F I N A L Adopted October 3, 2011 Prepared for the Plumas Local Agency Formation Commission by Policy Consulting Associates, LLC. TA BL E OF CON TEN TS TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................................................ I LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................................................................................... V ACRONYMS .......................................................................................................................................................... VIII PREFACE ................................................................................................................................................................. XI CONTEXT .............................................................................................................................................................. XI CREDITS ................................................................................................................................................................ XI 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................ 1 SERVICE PROVIDERS .................................................................................................................................................. 1 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE .............................................................................................................................................. 2 GROWTH .................................................................................................................................................................... 2 PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT ................................................................................................................................. 3 FIRE & EMS .............................................................................................................................................................. 4 WATER & WASTEWATER........................................................................................................................................... 5 GOVERNANCE OPTIONS ............................................................................................................................................. 6 2. LAFCO AND MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEWS ..................................................................................... 7 LAFCO OVERVIEW ................................................................................................................................................... 7 MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW ORIGINS .................................................................................................................... 8 MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW LEGISLATION .......................................................................................................... 10 MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW PROCESS ................................................................................................................. 11 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE UPDATES ............................................................................................................................ 12 3. MSR AREA ...................................................................................................................................................... 14 GROWTH & POPULATION PROJECTIONS ................................................................................................................... 14 SERVICE PROVIDERS ................................................................................................................................................ 17 FIRE AND EMS SERVICES ........................................................................................................................................ 18 WATER SERVICE ...................................................................................................................................................... 25 WASTEWATER SERVICES ......................................................................................................................................... 31 4. CITY OF PORTOLA ...................................................................................................................................... 36 AGENCY OVERVIEW ................................................................................................................................................ 36 WASTEWATER SERVICES ......................................................................................................................................... 50 WATER SERVICES .................................................................................................................................................... 58 FIRE AND EMERGENCY SERVICES ............................................................................................................................ 68 PARK AND RECREATION SERVICES .......................................................................................................................... 73 CITY OF PORTOLA DETERMINATIONS ...................................................................................................................... 80 5. BECKWOURTH COUNTY SERVICE AREA ............................................................................................. 84 AGENCY OVERVIEW ................................................................................................................................................ 84 WASTEWATER SERVICES ......................................................................................................................................... 92 BECKWOURTH CSA DETERMINATIONS ................................................................................................................... 98 6. BECKWOURTH FIRE DISTRICT ............................................................................................................. 100 AGENCY OVERVIEW .............................................................................................................................................. 100 FIRE AND EMERGENCY SERVICES .......................................................................................................................... 113 BECKWOURTH FPD DETERMINATIONS .................................................................................................................. 119 TABLE OF CONTENTS cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V II 7. CLIO PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT ......................................................................................................... 121 AGENCY OVERVIEW .............................................................................................................................................. 121 WATER SERVICES .................................................................................................................................................. 127 CLIO PUD DETERMINATIONS ................................................................................................................................ 133 8. C-ROAD COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT ..................................................................................... 135 AGENCY OVERVIEW .............................................................................................................................................. 135 FIRE AND EMERGENCY SERVICES .......................................................................................................................... 146 STREET MAINTENANCE SERVICES ......................................................................................................................... 151 C-ROAD CSD DETERMINATIONS ........................................................................................................................... 152 9. EASTERN PLUMAS RECREATION DISTRICT ..................................................................................... 154 AGENCY OVERVIEW .............................................................................................................................................. 154 PARK AND RECREATION SERVICES ........................................................................................................................ 161 EASTERN PLUMAS RECREATION DISTRICT DETERMINATIONS ............................................................................... 163 10. EASTERN PLUMAS HEALTHCARE DISTRICT .................................................................................... 165 AGENCY OVERVIEW .............................................................................................................................................. 165 HEALTHCARE SERVICES ........................................................................................................................................ 173 EASTERN PLUMAS HEALTHCARE DISTRICT DETERMINATIONS .............................................................................. 179 11. EASTERN PLUMAS RURAL FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT ........................................................... 181 AGENCY OVERVIEW .............................................................................................................................................. 181 FIRE AND EMERGENCY SERVICES .......................................................................................................................... 196 EASTERN PLUMAS RURAL FPD DETERMINATIONS ................................................................................................ 202 12. GOLD MOUNTAIN COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT .................................................................. 204 AGENCY OVERVIEW .............................................................................................................................................. 204 WATER SERVICES .................................................................................................................................................. 214 WASTEWATER SERVICES ....................................................................................................................................... 222 FIRE SERVICES ....................................................................................................................................................... 228 GOLD MOUNTAIN CSD DETERMINATIONS ............................................................................................................ 231 13. GRAEAGLE FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT ........................................................................................ 233 AGENCY OVERVIEW .............................................................................................................................................. 233 FIRE AND EMERGENCY SERVICES .......................................................................................................................... 246 GRAEAGLE FPD DETERMINATIONS ....................................................................................................................... 253 14. GRIZZLY LAKE COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT ....................................................................... 255 AGENCY OVERVIEW .............................................................................................................................................. 255 WATER SERVICES .................................................................................................................................................. 265 WASTEWATER SERVICES ....................................................................................................................................... 273 GRIZZLY LAKE COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT DETERMINATIONS .................................................................... 281 15. GRIZZLY RANCH COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT ................................................................... 284 AGENCY OVERVIEW .............................................................................................................................................. 284 WATER SERVICES .................................................................................................................................................. 292 WASTEWATER SERVICES ....................................................................................................................................... 300 GRIZZLY RANCH CSD DETERMINATIONS .............................................................................................................. 306 16. LAST CHANCE CREEK WATER DISTRICT .......................................................................................... 308 AGENCY OVERVIEW .............................................................................................................................................. 308 WATER SERVICES .................................................................................................................................................. 314 LAST CHANCE CREEK WATER DISTRICT DETERMINATIONS .................................................................................. 316 TABLE OF CONTENTS cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V III 17. PLUMAS-EUREKA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT .................................................................. 318 AGENCY OVERVIEW .............................................................................................................................................. 318 FIRE SERVICES ....................................................................................................................................................... 332 WASTEWATER SERVICES ....................................................................................................................................... 339 WATER SERVICES .................................................................................................................................................. 347 PLUMAS EUREKA CSD DETERMINATIONS ............................................................................................................. 355 18. PORTOLA CEMETERY DISTRICT .......................................................................................................... 358 AGENCY OVERVIEW .............................................................................................................................................. 358 CEMETERY SERVICES ............................................................................................................................................ 366 PORTOLA CEMETERY DISTRICT DETERMINATIONS ................................................................................................ 369 19. SIERRA VALLEY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT ............................................................................... 371 AGENCY OVERVIEW .............................................................................................................................................. 371 FIRE AND EMERGENCY SERVICES .......................................................................................................................... 383 SIERRA VALLEY FPD DETERMINATIONS ............................................................................................................... 388 20. WHITEHAWK RANCH COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT ........................................................... 390 AGENCY OVERVIEW .............................................................................................................................................. 390 PARK AND RECREATION SERVICES ........................................................................................................................ 399 WHITEHAWK CSD DETERMINATIONS ................................................................................................................... 402 TABLE OF CONTENTS cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V IV L I ST O F F I G U R ES FIGURE 1-1: SERVICE PROVIDERS IN EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY .................................................................................. 1 FIGURE 1-2: EXISTING SPHERE OF INFLUENCES .............................................................................................................. 2 FIGURE 2-1: COMMISSION MEMBERS, 2011 ................................................................................................................... 8 FIGURE 3-1: POPULATION GROWTH RATES IN PLUMAS COUNTY AND CALIFORNIA ..................................................... 15 FIGURE 3-2: NEW RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PERMITS .................................................................................................... 15 FIGURE3-4: COUNTYWIDE DOF POPULATION PROJECTIONS ........................................................................................ 16 FIGURE 3-5: ANNUALIZED GROWTH PROJECTIONS BY METHOD .................................................................................. 17 FIGURE 3-6: REVIEWED SERVICE PROVIDERS IN EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY ............................................................... 17 FIGURE 3-7: FIRE AND EMS PROVIDERS IN EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY ...................................................................... 19 FIGURE 3-8: FIRE AND EMS PROVIDERS IN EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY ...................................................................... 20 FIGURE 3-9: SERVICE AREA (SQUARE MILES) PER FIRE STATION ................................................................................. 22 FIGURE 3-10: FIREFIGHTERS PER 1,000 RESIDENTS ...................................................................................................... 23 FIGURE 3-11: OPERATING EXPENDITURES PER CAPITA (FY 09-10) .............................................................................. 23 FIGURE 3-12: OPERATING EXPENDITURES PER SERVICE CALL (FY 09-10) .................................................................. 24 FIGURE 3-13: EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY WATER PROVIDERS .................................................................................... 25 FIGURE 3-14: WATER AND WASTEWATER PROVIDERS IN EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY ................................................ 26 FIGURE 3-15: WATER CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS BY SYSTEM ............................................................................. 27 FIGURE 3-16: WATER RELATED VIOLATIONS PER 1,000 CONNECTIONS (2000-2010) .................................................. 28 FIGURE 3-17: TIME IN COMPLIANCE WITH DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS (2010) ................................................... 29 FIGURE 3-18: BREAKS OR LEAKS PER 100 MILES OF PIPELINES (2010) ........................................................................ 29 FIGURE 3-19: WATER LOSS RATE BY SYSTEM ............................................................................................................. 30 FIGURE 3-20: WATER MONTHLY RESIDENTIAL RATES (2011) ..................................................................................... 30 FIGURE 3-21: EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY WASTEWATER PROVIDERS ......................................................................... 31 FIGURE 3-22: WASTEWATER CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS BY SYSTEM .................................................................. 32 FIGURE 3-23: VIOLATIONS PER 1,000 RESIDENTS (2005-2010) .................................................................................... 33 FIGURE 3-24: TIME IN COMPLIANCE WITH EFFLUENT REQUIREMENTS(2010) .............................................................. 33 FIGURE 3-25: SEWER SYSTEM OVERFLOWS PER 100 MILES OF PIPELINE (2008-2010)................................................. 34 FIGURE 3-26: WASTEWATER PEAKING FACTORS ......................................................................................................... 34 FIGURE 3-27: WASTEWATER MONTHLY RESIDENTIAL RATES (2011) .......................................................................... 35 FIGURE 4-1: CITY OF PORTOLA BOUNDARY HISTORY .................................................................................................. 37 FIGURE 4-2: CITY OF PORTOLA BOUNDARIES AND SOI ................................................................................................ 38 FIGURE 4-3: CITY OF PORTOLA GOVERNING BODY ...................................................................................................... 41 FIGURE 4-4: CITY OF PORTOLA POPULATION GROWTH (2000-2010) ........................................................................... 43 FIGURE 4-5: CITY OF PORTOLA GENERAL FUND REVENUES & EXPENDITURES (FYS 09-11) ....................................... 47 FIGURE 4-6: CITY OF PORTOLA GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES (FY 09-10) ............................................................... 48 FIGURE 4-7: CITY OF PORTOLA WASTEWATER SERVICE ADEQUACY INDICATORS ....................................................... 54 FIGURE 4-8: CITY OF PORTOLA WASTEWATER PROFILE............................................................................................... 55 FIGURE 4-9: CITY OF PORTOLA WATER SERVICE ADEQUACY INDICATORS .................................................................. 64 FIGURE 4-10: CITY OF PORTOLA WATER SERVICE TABLES ......................................................................................... 65 FIGURE 4-11: CITY OF PORTOLA FIRE DEPARTMENT FIRE PROFILE ............................................................................. 72 FIGURE 4-12: CITY OF PORTOLA PARK AND RECREATION PROFILE ............................................................................. 79 FIGURE 5-1: BECKWOURTH CSA BOUNDARIES AND SOI ............................................................................................. 86 FIGURE 5-2: BECKWOURTH CSA GOVERNING BODY ................................................................................................... 87 FIGURE 5-3: BECKWOURTH CSA REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES .............................................................................. 90 FIGURE 5-4: BECKWOURTH CSA WASTEWATER SERVICE ADEQUACY INDICATORS .................................................... 94 FIGURE 5-5: BECKWOURTH CSA WASTEWATER PROFILE ............................................................................................ 95 FIGURE 6-1: BECKWOURTH FD BOUNDARY HISTORY ................................................................................................ 101 FIGURE 6-2: BECKWOURTH FD BOUNDARIES AND SOI .............................................................................................. 103 FIGURE 6-3: BECKWOURTH FD GOVERNING BODY .................................................................................................... 104 FIGURE 6-4: BECKWOURTH FD NUMBER OF CALLS (2006-10) .................................................................................. 106 FIGURE 6-5: BECKWOURTH FD REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES ............................................................................... 111 FIGURE 6-6: BECKWOURTH FIRE DISTRICT FIRE PROFILE ......................................................................................... 118 FIGURE 7-1: CLIO PUD BOUNDARIES AND SOI .......................................................................................................... 123 LIST OF FIGURES cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V V FIGURE 7-2: CLIO PUD GOVERNING BODY ................................................................................................................ 124 FIGURE 7-3: CPUD WATER SERVICE ADEQUACY INDICATORS .................................................................................. 129 FIGURE 7-4: CPUD WATER SERVICE TABLES ........................................................................................................... 130 FIGURE 8-1: C-ROAD CSD BOUNDARIES AND SOI .................................................................................................... 137 FIGURE 8-2: C-ROAD CSD GOVERNING BODY .......................................................................................................... 138 FIGURE 8-3: C-ROAD CSD NUMBER OF CALLS (2006-10) ........................................................................................ 140 FIGURE 8-4: C-ROAD CSD REVENUES AND EXPENSES............................................................................................... 145 FIGURE 8-5: C-ROAD COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT FIRE PROFILE ..................................................................... 150 FIGURE 9-1: EPRD BOUNDARIES ............................................................................................................................... 156 FIGURE 9-2: EPRD GOVERNING BODY ...................................................................................................................... 157 FIGURE 10-1: EPHD BOUNDARIES AND SOI .............................................................................................................. 167 FIGURE 10-2: EASTERN PLUMAS HEALTHCARE DISTRICT GOVERNING BODY ........................................................... 168 FIGURE 10-3: TOTAL PATIENT DAYS, IN THOUSANDS (2007 - 2010) ......................................................................... 170 FIGURE 10-4: EPHD REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES (FYS 10 & 11) ........................................................................ 172 FIGURE 10-5: EPHD LOANS AND LEASES ................................................................................................................. 173 FIGURE 10-6: EASTERN PLUMAS HEALTHCARE DISTRICT SERVICE PROFILE ............................................................. 178 FIGURE 11-1: EPRFPD BOUNDARY HISTORY ............................................................................................................ 182 FIGURE 11-2: EPRFPD BOUNDARIES AND SOI ......................................................................................................... 185 FIGURE 11-3: EPRFPD GOVERNING BODY ................................................................................................................ 186 FIGURE 11-4: EPRFPD NUMBER OF CALLS BY YEAR ............................................................................................... 188 FIGURE 11-5: EPRFPD REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES ........................................................................................... 195 FIGURE 11-6: EASTERN PLUMAS RURAL FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT FIRE PROFILE ................................................ 201 FIGURE 12-1: GMCSD BOUNDARIES AND SOI.......................................................................................................... 207 FIGURE 12-2: GMCSD GOVERNING BODY ................................................................................................................ 208 FIGURE 12-3: GMCSD REVENUES AND EXPENSES .................................................................................................... 212 FIGURE 12-4: GMCSD WATER SERVICE ADEQUACY INDICATORS ............................................................................ 217 FIGURE 12-5: GMCSD WATER SERVICE TABLES ...................................................................................................... 219 FIGURE 12-6: GMCSD WASTEWATER SERVICE ADEQUACY INDICATORS ................................................................. 224 FIGURE 12-7: GMCSD WASTEWATER PROFILE ......................................................................................................... 225 FIGURE 13-1: GFPD LIST OF LAFCO APPROVED BORDER CHANGES ........................................................................ 234 FIGURE 13-2: GFPD BOUNDARIES AND SOI ............................................................................................................. 236 FIGURE: 13-3: GFPD GOVERNING BODY ................................................................................................................... 237 FIGURE 13-4: GFPD NUMBER OF CALLS BY YEAR .................................................................................................... 239 FIGURE 13-5: GFPD REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES ................................................................................................ 245 FIGURE 13-6: GRAEAGLE FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT FIRE PROFILE ........................................................................ 252 FIGURE 14-1: GLCSD BOUNDARIES AND SOI ........................................................................................................... 258 FIGURE 14-2: GRIZZLY LAKE COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT GOVERNING BODY.................................................. 259 FIGURE 14-3: GLCSD REVENUE AND EXPENDITURES (FYS 10-11) ........................................................................... 263 FIGURE 14-4: GLCSD WATER SERVICE ADEQUACY INDICATORS ............................................................................. 268 FIGURE 14-5: GLCSD WATER SERVICE TABLES ....................................................................................................... 270 FIGURE 14-6: GLCSD WASTEWATER SERVICE ADEQUACY INDICATORS .................................................................. 276 FIGURE 14-7: GLCSD WASTEWATER PROFILE .......................................................................................................... 277 FIGURE 15-1: GRIZZLY RANCH CSD BOUNDARIES .................................................................................................... 286 FIGURE 15-2: GRIZZLY RANCH CSD GOVERNING BODY ........................................................................................... 287 FIGURE 15-3: GRCSD REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES ............................................................................................. 290 FIGURE 15-4: GRCSD WATER SERVICE ADEQUACY INDICATORS ............................................................................. 295 FIGURE 15-5: GRCSD WATER SERVICE TABLES ...................................................................................................... 297 FIGURE 15-6: GRCSD WASTEWATER SERVICE ADEQUACY INDICATORS .................................................................. 302 FIGURE 15-7: GRCSD WASTEWATER PROFILE .......................................................................................................... 303 FIGURE 16-1: LAST CHANCE CREEK WATER DISTRICT BOUNDARIES ........................................................................ 310 FIGURE 16-2: LAST CHANCE CREEK WD GOVERNING BODY ..................................................................................... 311 FIGURE 16-3: WATER RIGHT ALLOTMENTS (CFS) ...................................................................................................... 315 FIGURE 17-1: PLUMAS-EUREKA CSD BOUNDARIES AND SOI .................................................................................... 321 FIGURE 17-2: PECSD GOVERNING BODY .................................................................................................................. 322 FIGURE 17-3: PECSD NUMBER OF FIRE CALLS (2006-10) ........................................................................................ 325 FIGURE 17-4: PECSD REVENUES AND EXPENSES ...................................................................................................... 329 FIGURE 17-5: PLUMAS-EUREKA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT FIRE PROFILE ..................................................... 338 LIST OF FIGURES cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V VI FIGURE 17-6: PECSD WASTEWATER SERVICE ADEQUACY INDICATORS ................................................................... 342 FIGURE 17-7: PECSD WASTEWATER PROFILE ........................................................................................................... 344 FIGURE 17-8: PECSD WATER SERVICE ADEQUACY INDICATORS .............................................................................. 351 FIGURE 17-9: PECSD WATER SERVICE TABLES ....................................................................................................... 352 FIGURE 18-1: PORTOLA CEMETERY DISTRICT LIST OF LAFCO APPROVED BORDER CHANGES ................................. 359 FIGURE 18-2: PORTOLA CEMETERY DISTRICT BOUNDARIES AND SPHERE OF INFLUENCE .......................................... 360 FIGURE 18-3: PORTOLA CEMETERY DISTRICT GOVERNING BODY ............................................................................. 361 FIGURE 18-4: PORTOLA CEMETERY DISTRICT SERVICE PROFILE ............................................................................... 368 FIGURE 19-1: SIERRA VALLEY FPD BOUNDARIES AND SOI ....................................................................................... 373 FIGURE 19-2: SVVFD GOVERNING BODY.................................................................................................................. 374 FIGURE 19-3: SVVFD NUMBER OF CALLS (2006-10) ............................................................................................... 377 FIGURE 19-4: SVVFD REVENUES AND EXPENSES...................................................................................................... 381 FIGURE 19-5: SIERRA VALLEY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT FIRE PROFILE................................................................ 387 FIGURE 20-1: WHITEHAWK RANCH CSD BOUNDARIES AND SOI ............................................................................... 392 FIGURE 20-2: WHRCSD GOVERNING BODY .............................................................................................................. 393 FIGURE 20-3: WHRCSD REVENUES AND EXPENSES .................................................................................................. 397 FIGURE 20-4: WHITEHAWK RANCH COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT PARK AND RECREATION PROFILE ................. 401 LIST OF FIGURES cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V VII AC RON YMS ACHD: Association of California Healthcare Districts ADWF: Average dry weather flow af: Acre-feet afa: Acre-feet per annum BCSA: Beckwourth County Service Area BLS: Basic Life Support BOD: Biological oxygen demands BOE California Board of Equalization ccf: Hundreds of cubic feet CC&R Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions CEO: Chief Executive Officer CEQA: California Environmental Quality Act cfs: Cubic feet per second CHP: California Highway Patrol CIWMB: California Integrated Waste Management Board CIP: Capital improvement plan CMS: Center for Medical and Medicaid Studies CPUD: Clio Public Utility District CSA: County Service Area CSD: Community Services District CSDA: California Special District Association CY: Calendar year DFG: California Department of Fish and Game DME: Durable Medical Equipment DOF: California Department of Finance DPH: California Department of Public Health DWR: California Department of Water Resources EMS: Emergency Medical Services EMT: Emergency Medical Technician EPA: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency EPHD: Eastern Plumas Healthcare District EPRD: Eastern Plumas Recreation District EPRFPD: Eastern Plumas Rural Fire Protection District ERAF: Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund FDAC-FASIS: Fire District Association of California- Fire Agency Self-Insurance System FEERAM: Fire Engine Equipment Replacement and Maintenance FEMA: Federal Emergency Management Agency FD: Fire District FF: Firefighter FPD: Fire Protection District FRC: Feather River College FTE: Full Time Equivalent FY: Fiscal year ACRONYMS cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V VIII GFPD: Graeagle Fire Protection District GIS: Geographic Information Systems GLCSD: Grizzly Lake Community Services District GM: General Manger GMCSD: Gold Mountain Community Services District gpd: Gallons per day gpm: Gallons per minute GP: General Plan GRCSD: Grizzly Ranch Community Services District HJFPD: Hallelujah-Junction Fire Protection District I/I: Infiltration and inflow ISO: Insurance Services Organization IRWMP: Integrated Regional Water Management Plan IVHD: Indian Valley Healthcare District JHA: Jurisdiction having authority JPA: Joint Powers Authority LAFCo: Local Agency Formation Commission LCCWD: Last Chance Creek Water District MCL: Maximum Contaminant Level mg: Millions of gallons mgd: Millions of gallons per day MSR: Municipal services review MS4: Municipal separate storm sewer systems NA: Not applicable NFPA: National Fire Protection Association NP: Not provided NPDES: National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System OASA: Out-of-Area Service Agreement OES: Office of Emergency Services OIT: Operator in training OPR: Governor’s Office of Planning and Research PCD: Portola Cemetery District PCFCWCD: Plumas County Flood Control and Water Conservation District PECSD: Plumas-Eureka Community Services District PSAP: Public Safety Answering Point PWWF: Peak wet weather flow RID: Resort Improvement District RWQCB: Regional Water Quality Control Board SCADA: Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition SDMRA: Special District Risk Management Authority SDWA: Safe Drinking Water Act SOI: Sphere of influence SSMP: Sewer System Management Plan SSO: Sewer System Overflow SVHD: Sierra Valley Healthcare District SVVFD: Sierra Valley Volunteer Fire District (Sierra Valley FPD) SWP: State Water Project ACRONYMS cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V IX SR: State Route SWRCB: State Water Resources Control Board TDS: Total dissolvable solids TMDL: Total maximum daily load TSS: Total suspended solids USDA: United States Department of Agriculture USFS: United States Forest Service UWMP: Urban Water Management Plan WHRCSD: Whitehawk Ranch Community Services District WWTP Wastewater treatment plant WTP: Water treatment plant ACRONYMS cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V X P R E FAC E Prepared for the Plumas Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo), this report is a regional municipal services review—a state-required comprehensive study of services within a designated geographic area. This MSR focuses on local agencies and other municipal service providers in the eastern region of Plumas County that provide municipal services, including water, wastewater, fire, park and recreation, and cemetery services. CCOONNTTEEXXTT Plumas LAFCo is required to prepare this MSR by the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 (Government Code §56000, et seq.), which took effect on January 1, 2001. The MSR reviews services provided by public agencies whose boundaries and governance are subject to LAFCo. Those agencies providing municipal services in the eastern region of Plumas County are the focus of this review. CCRREEDDIITTSS The authors extend their appreciation to those individuals at many agencies that provided planning and financial information and documents used in this report. The contributors are listed individually at the end of this report. Plumas LAFCo Executive Officer, John Benoit, provided project direction and review. Dennis Miller prepared maps and provided GIS analysis. This report was prepared by Policy Consulting Associates, LLC, and was co-authored by Jennifer Stephenson and Oxana Kolomitsyna. Jennifer Stephenson served as project manager. Oxana Kolomitsyna provided research analysis. Research assistance was provided by Melody Harvey. The local agencies have provided a substantial portion of the information included in this document. Each local agency provided budgets, financial statements, various plans, and responded to questionnaires. The service providers provided interviews covering workload, staffing, facilities, regional collaboration, and service challenges. PREFACE cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V XI PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY 1. EX EC UT IVE S UMMARY This report is a Municipal Service Review (MSR) of services provided in the eastern region of Plumas County prepared for the Plumas Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo). An MSR is a State-required comprehensive study of services within a designated geographic area, in this case, Eastern Plumas County. The MSR requirement is codified in the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 (Government Code Section 56000 et seq.). After MSR findings are adopted, the Commission will begin the process of updating the spheres of influence (SOIs) of the agencies covered in this report. SSEERRVVIICCEE PPRROOVVIIDDEERRSS This report focuses on service providers located in the Eastern Plumas County region. As shown in Figure 1-1, one city and 16 special districts were reviewed as part of this Municipal Service Review. There are seven water, six wastewater, eight fire and EMS, two parks and recreation, one cemetery, one healthcare, and three road service providers in the region. Many of the agencies reviewed provide multiple services. Figure 1-1: Service Providers in Eastern Plumas County Agency EXECUTIVE SUMMARY cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 1 retaW retawetsaW SME & eriF ceR & skraP yretemeC erachtlaeH steertS City of Portola      Beckwourth CSA  Beckwourth FD  C-Road CSD   Clio Public Utility District  Eastern Plumas Healthcare District  Eastern Plumas Recreation District  Eastern Plumas Rural FPD  Gold Mountain CSD    Graeagle FPD  Grizzly Lake CSD   Grizzly Ranch CSD   Last Chance Creek Water District  Plumas Eureka CSD     Portola Cemetery District  Sierra Valley FPD  Whitehawk Ranch CSD  PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY SSPPHHEERREE OOFF IINNFFLLUUEENNCCEE Following the adoption of the MSR, LAFCo will update the Sphere of Influence (SOI) for each agency. The existing SOI for each agency covered in this MSR is shown in Figure 1-2. Figure 1-2: Existing Sphere of Influences1 Boundary Area SOI Area Agency SOI Description (square miles) (square miles) City of Portola 5.5 10.1 Annexable SOI Beckwourth CSA 0.3 0.9 Annexable SOI Beckwourth FD 13.1 190.3 Annexable SOI C-Road CSD 1.9 N/A No SOI Adopted Clio Public Utility District 0.31 7.0 Annexable SOI Eastern Plumas Healthcare District 852 852 Coterminous SOI Eastern Plumas Recreation District 846.5 N/A No SOI Adopted Eastern Plumas Rural FPD 8.5 28 Annexable SOI Gold Mountain CSD 2 4.7 Annexable SOI Graeagle FPD 8 14.5 Annexable SOI Grizzly Lake CSD 2 6.8 Annexable SOI Grizzly Ranch CSD 1.6 N/A No SOI Adopted Last Chance Creek Water District 37.4 N/A No SOI Adopted Plumas Eureka CSD 0.5 0.5 Coterminous SOI Portola Cemetery District 217.2 217.2 Coterminous SOI Sierra Valley FPD 220.8 7.9 Detachable SOI Whitehawk Ranch CSD 1.5 N/A No SOI Adopted GGRROOWWTTHH Over the last decade, the County has experienced overall negative growth of four percent, as a result of a decline in available jobs and migration to more urban areas. Similarly, the City of Portola experienced an overall decline in population of five percent. This slow/negative growth and unstable economy pose a challenge for agencies to adequately plan for future needs and anticipate demand. Projections for future growth made by three separate agencies (California Department of Finance, Plumas County and the Plumas County Transportation Commission) anticipate minimal positive population growth over the next two decades of between 0.06 and 1.2 percent average annual growth. The Department of Finance projections are significantly higher than of other two projection sources. The City of Portola does not make specific predictions of future growth, although, three possible growth scenarios are demonstrated using two, three and five percent annual growth rates in the City’s General Plan. The City anticipates a strong potential for 1 Coterminous SOI is the same as the boundary area; annexable SOI is larger than the boundary area; detachable SOI is smaller than the boundary area. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 2 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY significant development in the near future. There are 1,220 of planned and proposed new dwelling units within the city limits, which indicates the potential for significant growth should the economy recover and construction of new housing resume. There are several constraints to growth that are identified in this report, including the lack of a designated fire provider in several areas, insufficient fire flow in several water systems, and arsenic issues in some areas of the groundwater. PPLLAANNNNIINNGG AANNDD MMAANNAAGGEEMMEENNTT Overall, the agencies demonstrated a heavy reliance on volunteers, which allows them to provide services at a minimal cost. For example, the Clio PUD water system is operated by a board member certified in water distribution systems. The fire departments are comprised almost entirely of volunteer firefighters, with minimal paid staff. There are several challenges to relying heavily on volunteers to provide services, including 1) heavy volunteerism among board members can lead to burn out or a lack of interest in serving on the board, which may lead to heavy turnover rates among board members, 2) should long-term volunteers choose to stop offering their time, the agencies will need to find a means to cover the additional expenditures to pay competitive prices to personnel, 3) fire departments are struggling to find dependable volunteer firefighters and retain them long enough to capitalize on the time intensive training. Due to a struggling economy, volunteerism is on the decline as people leave the County or are working more at paid jobs. There are several areas of planning and management practices where providers could make improvements. Specifically, there is a general lack of tracking of demand and other service indicators, which inform remaining capacity and level of services, in particular for water, wastewater, fire and cemetery services. With the exception of Gold Mountain and the City of Portola, the connections throughout the other water systems are unmetered. State law does not require metering and reading of connections until 2025; however, in order to accurately gauge the remaining capacity of the systems and determine the exact rate of water loss, it is recommended that water providers begin installing meters as financing allows. Meters will also enable agencies to charge water rates that promote water conservation. With regard to fire services, only Beckwourth FD tracks actual response times to service calls. All other fire departments were unable to provide exact response times, including 90th percentile and median response times throughout the year. Response times are the primary indicator of an agency’s ability to provide emergency services, and as such, each of the fire agencies should make efforts to track their response times and analyze the results to identify where improvements can be made. The Portola Cemetery District does not maintain records of annual interments, and consequently, is unable to assess the actual remaining capacity of the cemeteries. In order to adequately plan for existing and future demand and capacity needs, cemeteries track the EXECUTIVE SUMMARY cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 3 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY number of interments annually. It is recommended that Portola Cemetery District begin keeping burial records and assess the remaining capacity of the existing facilities. Of the 17 agencies reviewed, six maintain websites where documents and information are made available to the public—City of Portola, Beckwourth FD, Eastern Plumas Healthcare District, Gold Mountain CSD, Plumas Eureka CSD, and Whitehawk Ranch CSD. It is a recommended practice that districts maintain a website where all district information is readily available to constituents. FFIIRREE && EEMMSS While not all territory within the County has a designated local fire protection provider, all territory within the County has a determined first responder based on an informal agreement with the Sheriff’s Dispatch Center. These fire agencies have agreed to respond outside of their LAFCo-approved boundary to provide fire and medical emergency response when an incident is not within the purview of USFS. Providers do not receive compensation for these responses outside of their bounds unless the agency has a fee system in place to charge the caller for the response. Every fire service provider in Eastern Plumas County, except for the City of Portola, has service area larger than its boundaries. Graeagle FPD, Beckwourth FD and Plumas-Eureka CSD are the only providers who charge per incident for providing services outside of their bounds. In Eastern Plumas County, there is approximately 46 square miles where Eastern Plumas Rural FPD (28 square miles), C-Road CSD (0,4 square miles), Plumas Eureka CSD (19.5 square miles) and Sierra Valley FPD (one square mile) are providing services outside of their bounds without compensation. This equates to 11 percent of the combined service area of all fire providers of Eastern Plumas County, except for the U.S. Forest Service. It is recommended that these respective districts start charging fees for providing services within their service areas, but outside of their boundaries to recoup costs or, as an alternative, annex these territories to try to capitalize on the potential tax sharing with the County. Currently there is no countywide tax sharing agreement, but there is an opportunity to negotiate tax sharing with the County for annexations on a case-by-case basis and only for a portion of any future tax increases, and not for the base. It is recommended that a countywide tax sharing agreement be adopted to promote annexation of unserved areas and ensure consistency across agreements between the County and the fire providers. The County is responsible for ensuring that new developments meet all State and County fire code requirements. It outlines policies in its General Plan for new developments to follow to ensure adequate levels of fire service. The General Plan update has several proposed new requirements that are meant to enhance fire safety. Proposals for new developments are sent for review to the appropriate fire provider if a development is within the district’s boundaries. The County reported that as SOI maps had not been digitized, it had been challenging to ensure that proposals go to the appropriate district if a proposed development is within that district’s SOI but outside its boundaries. It was also reported by some districts that they believed that new developments in the County were not being required to comply with County policies outlined in its General Plan. The County EXECUTIVE SUMMARY cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 4 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY reported that only one agency had come to the County regarding these concerns, which were unfounded at the time. No conjecture is made by the authors of this report as to the accuracy of these statements. Currently, the County and fire districts are working to enhance compliance with fire code requirements. The County Board of Supervisors is discussing the possibility of hiring a fire marshal to allow for more efficient code enforcement and building inspections. The Emergency Services Advisory Committee, formed by the Board of Supervisors, is attempting to ensure uniform and comprehensive emergency services provision to all of Plumas County by increasing funding for emergency services. A majority of the fire districts in Eastern Plumas County reported that financing was a significant challenge to providing services. Each agency reported that their revenues had declined, due to difficult economic conditions. There is less grant money available and fewer people are willing to donate or to buy items from district-run stores or auxiliaries. People are moving out of the County in search of jobs and most planned or proposed developments are on hold; therefore, property tax income or income from assessments is either staying the same or declining. Financial constraints are exacerbated by a lack of sharing of resources among the small districts, which could benefit from sharing administrative expenses, equipment and facilities. A potential governance alternative that could reduce costs through resource sharing, and potentially enhance financing levels, is the consolidation of fire providers. There are multiple consolidation options that are currently being discussed by the fire providers in Eastern Plumas, but no concrete steps had been taken as of the drafting of this report. C- Road CSD is considering consolidation with GFPD or EPRFPD for fire services. Beckwourth FD explored the possibility of uniting with EPRFPD. SVVFD is contemplating consolidating with one or more fire districts. There are continuous discussions that take place among fire providers regarding the issue and many of them believe that future consolidation is inevitable, but in the meantime they collaborate through mutual and automatic aid and the Fire Chiefs’ Association. WWAATTEERR && WWAASSTTEEWWAATTEERR As mentioned previously, several water and wastewater providers lack necessary information to determine the actual capacity of their systems, quantify the existing demand for services, and identify infrastructure needs. Clio PUD does not track the amount of water flow entering or exiting the system. It is also recommended that Clio PUD begin tracking the flow of water into the system from the springs in order to maintain accurate records. Similarly, the Grizzly Lake CSD Crocker wastewater system lacks a flow meter at any point in the system to document daily and annual demand. An engineering report has not been completed for the Beckwourth CSA system since 1969. Gold Mountain CSD has not evaluated the exact capacity of its leachfields. It is recommended that these agencies fully evaluate the capacities of their systems, and install a means to track demand. With regard to rates, Clio PUD and Beckwourth CSA have not updated their utility rates since 2006 and 1983, respectively. Both agencies charge rates significantly below the median rate of other providers in the region. In particular, Beckwourth CSA charges only EXECUTIVE SUMMARY cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 5 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY $4.25 a month for services, which is inadequate to finance the District’s deferred maintenance and capital improvement needs. It is recommended that Clio PUD and Beckwourth CSA evaluate their rates and update them so that they are more in line with other providers, which will enable both districts to finance necessary capital outlays. GGOOVVEERRNNAANNCCEE OOPPTTIIOONNSS In addition to the consolidation of fire providers, and the various permutations, mentioned previously, several other governance options were identified over the course of this study, including:  Annexation of extraterritorial service areas to promote logical boundaries for Beckwourth CSA, Grizzly Lake CSD, and the City of Portola.  Transitioning Grizzly Ranch CSD from a dependent to an independent special district.  Annexation of the community of Clio to a fire provider.  Regionalization of sewer and water services between the City of Portola and Grizzly Lake CSD or a collaborative agreement to share specialized equipment and mutual aid resources.  BCSA is considering taking on water services in the community.  Dissolution of the Eastern Plumas Recreation District, if a permanent financing source cannot be found.  Consolidation of Eastern Plumas Healthcare District with Sierra Valley Healthcare District.  Reducing the boundary size of Last Chance Creek Water District to only those properties with allocated water rights that may vote in the District’s elections.  Detachment from Sierra Valley FPD of the area north of Frenchman Lake, which generally is not accessible during the winter.  Initiation of a Joint Powers Agreement between the City of Portola and Gold Mountain CSD for fire services.  Annexation of GMCSD to GFPD or EPRFPD.  Annexation of the Johnsville area to either GFPD or PECSD.  Designating the communities of Lake Davis to the north, Grizzly Ranch to the east, Iron Horse and Gold Mountain to the south, and Delleker to the west as an Area of Concern for the City of Portola and Plumas County.  Consolidation or reorganization of EPRFPD and Beckwourth FD. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 6 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY 2. L A FCO A N D M U N I C I PA L S E RVI C ES R EV I EWS This report is prepared pursuant to legislation enacted in 2000 that requires LAFCo to conduct a comprehensive review of municipal service delivery and update the spheres of influence (SOIs) of all agencies under LAFCo’s jurisdiction. This chapter provides an overview of LAFCo’s history, powers and responsibilities. It discusses the origins and legal requirements for preparation of the municipal services review (MSR). Finally, the chapter reviews the process for MSR review, MSR approval and SOI updates. LLAAFFCCOO OOVVEERRVVIIEEWW After World War II, California experienced dramatic growth in population and economic development. With this boom came a demand for housing, jobs and public services. To accommodate this demand, many new local government agencies were formed, often with little forethought as to the ultimate governance structures in a given region, and existing agencies often competed for expansion areas. The lack of coordination and adequate planning led to a multitude of overlapping, inefficient jurisdictional and service boundaries, and the premature conversion of California’s agricultural and open-space lands. Recognizing this problem, in 1959, Governor Edmund G. Brown, Sr. appointed the Commission on Metropolitan Area Problems. The Commission's charge was to study and make recommendations on the "misuse of land resources" and the growing complexity of local governmental jurisdictions. The Commission's recommendations on local governmental reorganization were introduced in the Legislature in 1963, resulting in the creation of a Local Agency Formation Commission, or "LAFCo," operating in every county. Plumas LAFCO was first staffed by the County Planning Department, which undertook the first Spheres of Influence in 1974. The Department had more pressing priorities and as a result LAFCo was maintained at an acceptable level for the time. LAFCo was formed as a countywide agency to discourage urban sprawl and encourage the orderly formation and development of local government agencies. LAFCo is responsible for coordinating logical and timely changes in local governmental boundaries, including annexations and detachments of territory, incorporations of cities, formations of special districts, and consolidations, mergers and dissolutions of districts, as well as reviewing ways to reorganize, simplify, and streamline governmental structure. The Commission's efforts are focused on ensuring that services are provided efficiently and economically while agricultural and open-space lands are protected. To better inform itself and the community as it seeks to exercise its charge, LAFCo conducts service reviews to evaluate the provision of municipal services within the County. LAFCo regulates, through approval, denial, conditions and modification, boundary changes proposed by public agencies or individuals. It also regulates the extension of LAFCO & MSRS cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 7 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY public services by cities and special districts outside their boundaries. LAFCo is empowered to initiate updates to the SOIs and proposals involving the dissolution or consolidation of special districts, mergers, establishment of subsidiary districts, and any reorganization including such actions. Otherwise, LAFCo actions must originate as petitions or resolutions from affected voters, landowners, cities or districts. Plumas LAFCo consists of five regular members: two members from the Plumas County Board of Supervisors, two city council members, and one public member who is appointed by the other members of the Commission. There is an alternate in each category. All Commissioners are appointed to four-year terms. Figure 2-1: Commission Members, 2011 Appointing Agency Members Alternate Members Two members from the Board of Supervisors appointed Robert Meacher by the Board of Supervisors. Terrell Swofford Ole Olsen Two members representing the cities in the County. Must be city officer and and appointed by the City John Larrieu Selection Committee. William Kennedy William Weaver One member from the general public appointed by the other four commissioners. Kevin Goss John Hafen MMUUNNIICCIIPPAALL SSEERRVVIICCEESS RREEVVIIEEWW OORRIIGGIINNSS The MSR requirement was enacted by the Legislature months after the release of two studies recommending that LAFCos conduct reviews of local agencies. The “Little Hoover Commission” focused on the need for oversight and consolidation of special districts, whereas the “Commission on Local Governance for the 21st Century” focused on the need for regional planning to ensure adequate and efficient local governmental services as the California population continues to grow. Little Hoover Commission In May 2000, the Little Hoover Commission released a report entitled Special Districts: Relics of the Past or Resources for the Future? This report focused on governance and financial challenges among independent special districts, and the barriers to LAFCo’s pursuit of district consolidation and dissolution. The report raised the concern that “the underlying patchwork of special district governments has become unnecessarily redundant, inefficient and unaccountable.” In particular, the report raised concern about a lack of visibility and accountability among some independent special districts. The report indicated that many special districts hold excessive reserve funds and some receive questionable property tax revenue. The report expressed concern about the lack of financial oversight of the districts. It asserted that financial reporting by special districts is inadequate, that districts are not required to submit financial information to local elected officials, and concluded that district financial information is “largely meaningless as a tool to evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of LAFCO & MSRS cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 8 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY services provided by districts, or to make comparisons with neighboring districts or services provided through a city or county.”2 The report questioned the accountability and relevance of certain special districts with uncontested elections and without adequate notice of public meetings. In addition to concerns about the accountability and visibility of special districts, the report raised concerns about special districts with outdated boundaries and outdated missions. The report questioned the public benefit provided by health care districts that have sold, leased or closed their hospitals, and asserted that LAFCos consistently fail to examine whether they should be eliminated. The report pointed to service improvements and cost reductions associated with special district consolidations, but asserted that LAFCos have generally failed to pursue special district reorganizations. The report called on the Legislature to increase the oversight of special districts by mandating that LAFCos identify service duplications and study reorganization alternatives when service duplications are identified, when a district appears insolvent, when district reserves are excessive, when rate inequities surface, when a district’s mission changes, when a new city incorporates and when service levels are unsatisfactory. To accomplish this, the report recommended that the State strengthen the independence and funding of LAFCos, require districts to report to their respective LAFCo, and require LAFCos to study service duplications. Commission on Local Governance for the 21st Century The Legislature formed the Commission on Local Governance for the 21st Century (“21st Century Commission”) in 1997 to review statutes on the policies, criteria, procedures and precedents for city, county and special district boundary changes. After conducting extensive research and holding 25 days of public hearings throughout the State at which it heard from over 160 organizations and individuals, the 21st Century Commission released its final report, Growth Within Bounds: Planning California Governance for the 21st Century, in January 2000.3 The report examines the way that government is organized and operates and establishes a vision of how the State will grow by “making better use of the often invisible LAFCos in each county.” The report points to the expectation that California’s population will double over the first four decades of the 21st Century, and raises concern that our government institutions were designed when our population was much smaller and our society was less complex. The report warns that without a strategy open spaces will be swallowed up, expensive freeway extensions will be needed, job centers will become farther removed from housing, and this will lead to longer commutes, increased pollution and more stressful lives. Growth Within Bounds acknowledges that local governments face unprecedented challenges in 2 Little Hoover Commission, 2000, page 24. 3 The Commission on Local Governance for the 21st Century ceased to exist on July 1, 2000, pursuant to a statutory sunset provision. LAFCO & MSRS cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 9 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY their ability to finance service delivery since voters cut property tax revenues in 1978 and the Legislature shifted property tax revenues from local government to schools in 1993. The report asserts that these financial strains have created governmental entrepreneurism in which agencies compete for sales tax revenue and market share. The 21st Century Commission recommended that effective, efficient and easily understandable government be encouraged. In accomplishing this, the 21st Century Commission recommended consolidation of small, inefficient or overlapping providers, transparency of municipal service delivery to the people, and accountability of municipal service providers. The sheer number of special districts, the report asserts, “has provoked controversy, including several legislative attempts to initiate district consolidations,”4 but cautions LAFCos that decisions to consolidate districts should focus on the adequacy of services, not on the number of districts. Growth Within Bounds stated that LAFCos cannot achieve their fundamental purposes without a comprehensive knowledge of the services available within its county, the current efficiency of providing service within various areas of the county, future needs for each service, and expansion capacity of each service provider. Comprehensive knowledge of water and sanitary providers, the report argued, would promote consolidations of water and sanitary districts, reduce water costs and promote a more comprehensive approach to the use of water resources. Further, the report asserted that many LAFCos lack such knowledge and should be required to conduct such a review to ensure that municipal services are logically extended to meet California’s future growth and development. MSRs would require LAFCo to look broadly at all agencies within a geographic region that provide a particular municipal service and to examine consolidation or reorganization of service providers. The 21st Century Commission recommended that the review include water, wastewater, and other municipal services that LAFCo judges to be important to future growth. The Commission recommended that the service review be followed by consolidation studies and be performed in conjunction with updates of SOIs. The recommendation was that service reviews be designed to make nine determinations, each of which was incorporated verbatim in the subsequently adopted legislation. The legislature since consolidated the determinations into six required findings. MMUUNNIICCIIPPAALL SSEERRVVIICCEESS RREEVVIIEEWW LLEEGGIISSLLAATTIIOONN The Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 requires LAFCo review and update SOIs no less than every five years and to review municipal services before updating SOIs. Plumas County LAFCo policies state that “Plumas LAFCo must review and update each agency’s Sphere of Influence at least once every five years, as necessary”. The requirement for service reviews arises from the identified need for a more coordinated and efficient public service structure to support California’s anticipated growth. The service review provides LAFCo with a tool to study existing and future public 4 Commission on Local Governance for the 21st Century, 2000, page 70. LAFCO & MSRS cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 10 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY service conditions comprehensively and to evaluate organizational options for accommodating growth, preventing urban sprawl, and ensuring that critical services are provided efficiently. Effective January 1, 2008, Government Code §56430 requires LAFCo to conduct a review of municipal services provided in the county by region, sub-region or other designated geographic area, as appropriate, for the service or services to be reviewed, and prepare a written statement of determination with respect to each of the following topics:  Growth and population projections for the affected area;  Present and planned capacity of public facilities and adequacy of public services, including infrastructure needs or deficiencies;  Financial ability of agencies to provide services;  Status of, and opportunities for shared facilities;  Accountability for community service needs, including governmental structure and operational efficiencies; and  Any other matter related to effective or efficient service delivery, as required by commission policy. MMUUNNIICCIIPPAALL SSEERRVVIICCEESS RREEVVIIEEWW PPRROOCCEESSSS For local agencies, the MSR process involves the following steps:  Outreach: LAFCo outreach and explanation of the project  Data Discovery: provide documents and respond to LAFCo questions  Map Review: review and comment on LAFCo draft map of the agency’s boundary and sphere of influence  Profile Review: internal review and comment on LAFCo draft profile of the agency  Public Review Draft MSR: review and comment on LAFCo draft MSR  LAFCo Hearing: attend and provide public comments on MSR MSRs are exempt from California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to §15262 (feasibility or planning studies) or §15306 (information collection) of the CEQA Guidelines. LAFCo’s actions to adopt MSR determinations are not considered “projects” subject to CEQA. The MSR process does not require LAFCo to initiate changes of organization based on service review findings, only that LAFCo identify potential government structure options. However, LAFCo, other local agencies, and the public may subsequently use the LAFCO & MSRS cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 11 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY determinations to analyze prospective changes of organization or reorganization or to establish or amend SOIs. Within its legal authorization, LAFCo may act with respect to a recommended change of organization or reorganization on its own initiative (e.g., certain types of consolidations), or in response to a proposal (i.e., initiated by resolution or petition by landowners or registered voters). Once LAFCo has adopted the MSR determinations, it must update the SOIs for one city and eight independent districts. The LAFCo Commission determines and adopts the spheres of influence for each agency. A CEQA determination is made by LAFCo on a case- by-case basis for each sphere of influence action and each change of organization, once the proposed project characteristics are sufficiently identified to assess environmental impacts. SSPPHHEERREE OOFF IINNFFLLUUEENNCCEE UUPPDDAATTEESS The Commission is charged with developing and updating the Sphere of Influence (SOI) for each city and special district within the county.5 An SOI is a LAFCo-approved plan that designates an agency’s probable future boundary and service area. Spheres are planning tools used to provide guidance for individual boundary change proposals and are intended to encourage efficient provision of organized community services and prevent duplication of service delivery. Territory cannot be annexed by LAFCo to a city or district unless it is within that agency's sphere. The purposes of the SOI include the following: to ensure the efficient provision of services, discourage urban sprawl and premature conversion of agricultural and open space lands, and prevent overlapping jurisdictions and duplication of services. LAFCo cannot regulate land use, dictate internal operations or administration of any local agency, or set rates. LAFCo is empowered to enact policies that indirectly affect land use decisions. On a regional level, LAFCo promotes logical and orderly development of communities as it considers and decides individual proposals. LAFCo has a role in reconciling differences between agency plans so that the most efficient urban service arrangements are created for the benefit of current and future area residents and property owners. The Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg (CKH) Act requires to develop and determine the SOI of each local governmental agency within the county and to review and update the SOI every five years. LAFCos are empowered to adopt, update and amend the SOI. They may do so with or without an application and any interested person may submit an application proposing an SOI amendment. 5 The initial statutory mandate, in 1971, imposed no deadline for completing sphere designations. When most LAFCos failed to act, 1984 legislation required all LAFCos to establish spheres of influence by 1985. LAFCO & MSRS cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 12 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY While SOIs are required to be updated every five years, as necessary, this does not necessarily define the planning horizon of the SOI. The term or horizon of the SOI is determined by each LAFCo. In the case of Plumas LAFCo, the Commission’s policies state that an agency’s near term SOI shall generally include land that is anticipated to be annexed within the next five years, while the agency’s long-term SOI shall include land that is within the probable growth boundary of an agency and therefore anticipated to be annexed in the next 20 years. LAFCo may recommend government reorganizations to particular agencies in the county, using the SOIs as the basis for those recommendations. In determining the SOI, LAFCo is required to complete an MSR and adopt the nine determinations previously discussed. In addition, in adopting or amending an SOI, LAFCo must make the following determinations:  Present and planned land uses in the area, including agricultural and open-space lands;  Present and probable need for public facilities and services in the area;  Present capacity of public facilities and adequacy of public service that the agency provides or is authorized to provide;  Existence of any social or economic communities of interest in the area if the Commission determines these are relevant to the agency; and The CKH Act stipulates several procedural requirements in updating SOIs. It requires that special districts file written statements on the class of services provided and that LAFCo clearly establish the location, nature and extent of services provided by special districts. By statute, LAFCo must notify affected agencies 21 days before holding the public hearing to consider the SOI and may not update the SOI until after that hearing. The LAFCo Executive Officer must issue a report including recommendations on the SOI amendments and updates under consideration at least five days before the public hearing LAFCO & MSRS cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 13 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY 3. M S R A R EA This chapter provides an overview of Plumas County and the municipal service providers in the eastern region of Plumas County. For a detailed description of each local agency, please refer to the agency-specific chapters of this report. The Eastern Plumas MSR area includes the unincorporated communities of Chilcoot, Vinton, Beckwourth, Graeagle, Clio, Maybe and Blairsden, as well as the City of Portola. The MSR area also encompasses the Plumas National Forest, Lake Davis and Frenchman Lake. Plumas County is located near the northeast corner of California, near the convergence of the Sierra and Cascade mountains. The Feather River, with its several forks, flows through the County. Quincy, the unincorporated county seat, is about 80 miles northeast from Oroville, California, and about 85 miles from Lake Tahoe and Reno, Nevada. Plumas borders Lassen County in the north and east, Sierra County in the South, Butte and Tehama Counties in the west, Yuba County in the southwest, and Shasta County in the northwest. Approximately 70 percent of the County is covered with National Forests. The only incorporated city in the County is the City of Portola. GGRROOWWTTHH && PPOOPPUULLAATTIIOONN PPRROOJJEECCTTIIOONNSS This section reviews population and economic growth, the jobs-housing balance, projected growth and growth areas. Historical Growth There were 20,824 residents in Plumas County, as of the 2000 Census. The population in the unincorporated communities was 18,597, composing 89 percent of the County population. Since the 2000, the countywide population experienced negative growth of almost four percent, from 20,824 to 20,007 in 2010. The population in the unincorporated communities decreased from 18,597 to 17,903 over this time period. The population in the City of Portola decreased from 2,227 in 2000 to 2,104 in 2010, a decrease of more than five percent. Annually, the entire County averaged 0.2 percent negative population growth. The population growth rate in unincorporated Plumas County has been below the statewide growth rate for the last ten years, as shown in Figure 3-1. Population growth in the unincorporated areas peaked in 2005 at 0.7 percent, but declined to negative 0.7 in 2008 and 2009 and went up slightly to negative 0.1 in 2010. MSR AREA cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 14 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY Figure 3-1: Population Growth Rates in Plumas County and California The growth rate in Portola 2.5% has been lower than both the 2.0% countywide and statewide 1.5% 1.0% growth rates over the last 10 0.5% years. In the last 10 years, 0.0% 2004 was the only year when -0.5% the City experienced a -1.0% positive growth of 0.1 -1.5% -2.0% percent. The City -2.5% experienced the largest -3.0% decline in population in 2008, 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 with a negative growth rate of Portola Unincorporated California 2.4 percent. In 2009 and 2010, the City’s population growth returned to levels similar to the unincorporated areas of the County. Plumas County’s population density is eight residents per square mile, including both incorporated and unincorporated areas. There are approximately 2 persons per household countywide. Development Residential Development Figure 3-2: New Residential Building Permits The number of new 400 residential permits 350 issued in Plumas County 300 peaked in 2005 at 337 and has since declined to 250 35 in 2010, as shown in 200 Figure 3-2. 150 Between 2000 and 100 2010, the City of Portola issued four percent of 50 the building permits 0 approved in the County. 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Similar to the County, the Unincorporated Portola number of permits issued by the City has drastically declined over the last several years, from 19 permits in 2002 to zero permits issued in 2008 and 2010. All permits, except for one, in the County in the last ten years were issued for single- family buildings. One permit, issued in Portola in 2002 was for a two unit building. MSR AREA cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 15 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY Population Projections Countywide Population projections for the County vary depending on the data source that is used. Countywide projections are made by the Department of Finance (DOF), Plumas County Planning Department, and the Plumas County Transportation Commission. Figure3-4: Countywide DOF Population Projections The California 30,000 Department of Finance (DOF) projects a countywide 25,000 population of 22,934 by 20,000 2020, 24,530 by 2030, 26,279 by 2040, and 28,478 by 2050. 15,000 This means that population in Plumas County is 10,000 anticipated to increase by 12 5,000 percent from 2010 to 2020, by seven percent from 2020 0 to 2030, and a total of 30 percent from 2010 to 2050. The DOF projections through 2050 are shown in Figure 3-4. The County is currently in the process of updating its General Plan. As part of the Housing Element that was updated in 2007, Plumas County included a chapter on population trends and projections. All projections were done by the Planning Department. The growth patterns of the last few years are expected to continue until new circumstances shape growth. Most population growth is anticipated to occur in the Almanor, Mohawk and Sierra Valley areas. These areas are primarily influenced by recreational development and proximity to out-of-County employment. The County projects that the unincorporated county population will grow by nine percent between 2010 and 2020, which equates to an average annual growth rate of 0.9 percent. The County does not make projections beyond 2020 in the Housing Element. According to the Plumas County Transportation Commission, Plumas County has experienced slow growth (population increases at less than 0.1 percent per year on the long-term average) in population and employment over the past two decades and is forecast to continue this trend through 2030. The Regional Transportation Plan projects an annual growth rate of 0.06 percent countywide through 2030. A comparison of the annualized growth rates through 2030 for each of the projection methods discussed is shown in Table 3-5. As shown, the DOF projections are significantly higher than of other two projection sources. MSR AREA cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 16 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY Figure 3-5: Annualized Growth Projections by Method Method 2010-2020 2020-2030 DOF Projections 1.2% 0.70% County Projections 0.9% No Projections Plumas County Transportation Commission 0.06% 0.06% City of Portola DOF and the County do not make projections specific to the City of Portola. The City has constructed its own projections in the Land Use Element of its 2000 General Plan. No specific predictions of future growth are made, although, three possible growth scenarios are demonstrated using two, three and five percent annual growth rates. Since the General Plan provides no actual predictions for future growth in Portola, and prior growth rates have always been less than two percent, it is a challenge to predict growth over the next 10 to 20 years. The City’s Water Master Plan from 2007 predicts five percent annual growth over the next 15 years, since the City anticipates a strong potential for significant development in the near future. There are 1,220 planned and proposed new dwelling units in the City of Portola, which indicates the potential for significant growth should the economy recover and construction resume. The City population could grow to 4,544 at build-out of all planned and proposed development projects, which would more than double the City’s existing population. SSEERRVVIICCEE PPRROOVVIIDDEERRSS This report focuses on service providers located in the Eastern Plumas County region. As shown in Figure 3-6, one city and 16 special districts were reviewed as part of this Municipal Service Review. There are seven water, six wastewater, eight fire and EMS, two parks and recreation, one cemetery, one healthcare, and three street service providers. Figure 3-6: Reviewed service providers in Eastern Plumas County Agency Water Wastewater Fire & EMS Parks & Rec Cemetery Healthcare Streets City of Portola      Beckwourth CSA  Beckwourth FPD  C-Road CSD   Clio Public Utility District  Eastern Plumas Hospital District  Eastern Plumas Recreation District  Eastern Plumas Rural FPD  Gold Mountain CSD    Graeagle FPD  Grizzly Lake CSD   Grizzly Ranch CSD   Last Chance Water District  Plumas Eureka CSD     Portola Cemetery District  Sierra Valley FPD  Whitehawk Ranch CSD  MSR AREA cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 17 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY FFIIRREE AANNDD EEMMSS SSEERRVVIICCEESS This section provides an overview of fire protection services in Plumas County and offers a brief review the fire and EMS services provided by local agencies within the Eastern Plumas MSR area. For a detailed description of each service provider, refer to the agency’s respective chapter in this document. Background Plumas County is 2,613 square miles in size. About 18 percent or 287,072 acres are privately owned lands and the remaining 82 percent are public lands. Of these public lands, the Plumas National Forest consists of 70 percent or 1,151,360 acres, and the Tahoe and Lassen National Forests, the Bureau of Land Management lands and Lassen Volcanic National Park, Plumas Eureka State Park and Lake Davis comprised the remaining ten percent. The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CalFire) has a statutory responsibility for wildfire protection of private lands in California. The Lassen-Modoc- Plumas Unit of CalFire is administratively responsible for fire protection of private lands in Plumas County and has Direct Protection Area responsibility for an area north of Chester. Through a cooperative agreement between CalFire and the U.S. Forest Service (USFS), wildfire protection for vegetation fires on private lands for a majority of Plumas County has been granted to the USFS based in the Plumas National Forest. Responsibility for all other fire and medical emergencies, including structural fires, vehicle accidents, emergency medical calls, lies with the local fire agency. The Local Responsibility Areas (LRA) in Plumas County are the more densely populated areas with less wildfire hazard. LRA areas include the City of Portola, portions of Quincy and East Quincy, Chester and the portion of Sierra Valley south of the railroad. As part of the operating plan that is part of the agreement between USFS and CalFire, USFS conducts a majority of the prevention activities that would normally be conducted by CalFire. However, a State law exists which precludes Federal officers in northern California, from going on to private lands to enforce State laws except by invitation or threat of wildfire. An exemption exists, but the County Sheriff must enact it. Current prevention activities on private land include the issuance of burning permits, residential inspections for those whom request it and wildland fire investigations. The agreement between USFS and CalFire does not include fire safe planning on State Responsibility Area (SRA) lands. Plumas County’s Fire Safe ordinances have been adopted into County Code and have been certified by the Board of Forestry in lieu of the State Fire Safe requirements. Since the County administers the Fire Safe requirements through local ordinance, all development projects are routed through CalFire for comments and for consultation, when required. The County, through the General Plan update of the Safety Element, will be further expanding and clarifying its fire planning activities. The Plumas County Fire Safe Council furthers fire safe efforts through firewise community and evacuation planning, and hazardous fuel reduction. MSR AREA cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 18 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY Local fire protection, for other than vegetation fires, is provided to communities in Plumas County by 19 fire departments located throughout the County. While not all territory within the County has a designated local fire protection provider, all territory within the County has a determined first responder based on an informal agreement with the Sheriff’s Dispatch Center. These fire agencies have agreed to respond outside of their LAFCo-approved boundary to provide fire and medical emergency response when an incident is not within the purview of USFS. Providers do not receive compensation for these responses outside of their bounds unless the agency has a fee system in place to charge the caller for the response. Provider Overview Fire and EMS services are provided in the Eastern Plumas County MSR area by seven districts and one city that are outlined in Figure 3-7. Gold Mountain CSD provides fire services to its residence through the contract with the City of Portola. The bounds and service areas of these agencies are shown in Figure 3-8. The service areas shown on the map are reflective of the areas that the agencies have informally agreed to respond to outside of their bounds, and are based on the Sheriff’s first responder map for dispatch purposes. Figure 3-7: Fire and EMS providers in Eastern Plumas County Fire and EMS The County is responsible for ensuring that developments in the area meet all State and County fire City of Portola code requirements. Proposals for new developments Beckwourth FD are typically sent for review to the appropriate fire C-Road CSD provider, if a development is within a district’s Eastern Plumas Rural FPD boundaries. The County Board of Supervisors is Gold Mountain CSD discussing the possibility of hiring a fire marshal to Graeagle FPD allow for more efficient code enforcement and building Plumas Eureka CSD inspections. Sierra Valley FPD In 2007, the Board of Supervisors formed the Emergency Services Advisory Committee to “evaluate the funding feasibility of providing uniform and comprehensive emergency services to all of Plumas County.” The Committee attempted to look for opportunities to increase funding for emergency services, but faced a considerable challenge in the difficult economic times. Most recently, it focused on mitigating efforts through improvements to building and development standards and the General Plan update process, and encouraging local fire service providers to share resources and realize economies of scale in preparing grant applications, conducting training and engaging in other joint programs. In a further attempt to improve fire services and extend fire protection to unserved developments, the County started encouraging annexations of additional territory into existing districts in 2002 by sharing property taxes with fire districts on a case-by-case basis. Districts that annex additional territory may be able to get a property tax allocation for future structures and land values. MSR AREA cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 19 3-8 Eastern Plumas Fire Service Providers Plumas County Lassen County Lake Davis Grizzly Rd Ge B n e e c s k e w e o R u d rth ·|}þ 70 ·|}þ 70 Portola McClears Rd 89 Beck wo C ur a t l h pine Rd ² Beckwourth FPD Beckwourth FPD Service Area Legend State Responsibility Area C-Road CSD C Road Service Area (Federal Responsibility lies Eastern Plumas Rural FPD Eastern Plumas FPD Service Area outside hatched area.) Graeagle FPD Graeagle FPD Service Area Fire Stations Plumas Eureka CSD Plumas Eureka CSD Service Area 0 1.5 3 6Miles City of Portola Portola FPD Service Area Sierra Valley FPD Sierra Valley FPD Service Area Source: Plumas LAFCo Map Created 5/6/2011 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY Service Adequacy This section contains a discussion on service adequacy indicators which is intended to identify outliers—providers with relatively high service levels and those providers that could take steps to improve certain aspects of service provision. The fire and emergency medical service adequacy measures discussed here include firefighter certification rates, response times, ISO ratings, coverage adequacy, and operating expenditures. Firefighter Certification According to the California State Fire Marshal, all volunteer and call firefighters must acquire Firefighter I certification; however, there is no time limit as to how long they may work before attaining certification. Firefighter I certification requires completion of the 259–hour Firefighter I course, which includes training on various fireground tasks, rescue operations, fire prevention and investigation techniques, and inspection and maintenance of equipment. In addition to the course, Firefighter I certification also requires that the applicant have a minimum of six months of volunteer or call experience in a California fire department as a firefighter performing suppression duties. 6 Among fire providers who provided their information on firefighter certification, the City of Portola FD has the highest certification rate of 100 percent for both Firefighter I and BLS I certifications. Beckwourth FD has a certification rate of approximately 50 percent Firefighter I and about 90 percent for BLS I certification. On the other side of the spectrum, none of the firefighters with Sierra Valley FPD are certified in either category; although, two firefighters are currently getting their BLS I certification. The number of certified Eastern Plumas Rural FPD personnel was not provided by the District. Response Times Response times reflect the time elapsed between the dispatch of personnel and the arrival of the first responder on the scene. As such, response times do not include the time required to transport a victim to the hospital. The response times include the dispatching time of fire personnel. Response times are generally faster for more compact service areas and longer in large districts. Response times will also vary depending on the number and location of stations and firefighters available. Particularly in cases involving patients who have stopped breathing or are suffering from heart attacks, the chances of survival improve when the patient receives medical care quickly. Similarly, a quick fire suppression response can potentially prevent a structure fire from reaching the “flashover” point at which very rapid fire spreading occurs— generally in less than 10 minutes.7 6 State Fire Marshall, Course Information and Required Materials, 2007, p. 44. 7 NFPA Standard 1710, 2004. MSR AREA cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 21 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY With the exception of Beckwourth FD, none of the fire providers track their response times for each incident and were unable to provide the 90 percentile or actual average response times. However, all of the providers reported their average estimated response times. The shortest average response time of five minutes was reported by Beckwourth FD. Plumas-Eureka CSD and EPRFPD reportedly have next fastest average response times, of between five and eight minutes and between five and ten minutes, respectively. ISO Ratings The Insurance Service Office (ISO), an advisory organization, classifies fire service in communities from 1 to 10, indicating the general adequacy of coverage. Communities with the best systems for water distribution, fire department facilities, equipment and personnel and fire alarms and communications receive a rating of 1. A Public Protection Classification (PPC) rating has a direct bearing on the cost of property insurance for every home and building in a community. In the case of split classifications, the first class generally applies to properties within five miles of a station and 1,000 feet of a hydrant. The second class applies to areas within five miles of a station but beyond 1,000 feet of a hydrant. The ISO ratings differ for every fire provider. Some fire providers have multiple ratings for different areas. In Plumas County, the ISO ratings mostly depend on the availability of water in a specific area. The fire providers in the MSR area have ISO ratings ranging from four to 10. Many of the providers have multiple ratings depending on the location of hydrants and stations in the area. The best ISO rating of four was received by Graeagle FPD in Graeagle and Whitehawk Ranch areas. Beckwourth FD has an area within its bounds that is rated as a 10. Coverage Adequacy Figure 3-9: Service Area (square miles) per Fire Station The service area8 sizes for each fire station differ for every C-Road CSD fire provider, as shown in Figure 3-9. The median fire station in City of Portola Eastern Plumas serves EPRFPD approximately 20 square miles. Sierra Valley FPD serves the Plumas-Eureka CSD most expansive area with 111 square miles served per station Graeagle FPD on average. Moreover, one of the SVVFD stations is used only to Beckwourth FD house an inoperable vehicle, so Sierra Valley FPD in reality one fire station serves 222 square miles. Densely 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 8 Service Area refers to the area that the agency will respond to based on the First Responder map used by the Sherriff’s office. MSR AREA cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 22 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY populated areas tend to have smaller service areas. For example, the average service area for the City of Portola is 3.8 per fire station. C-Road CSD has the smallest station service area of 2.3 square miles. Figure 3-10: Firefighters per 1,000 residents The number of 45 firefighters serving within a 40 particular jurisdiction is 35 30 another indicator of service 25 adequacy; however, it is 20 approximate. The providers’ 15 10 call firefighters may have 5 differing availability and 0 reliability. A district with more firefighters could have fewer resources if scheduling availability is restricted. Figure 3-10 illustrates the number of firefighters each provider has as a rate per 1,000 residents served. Staffing levels in Eastern Plumas vary from eight call firefighters per 1,000 residents in the City of Portola service area to 42 in Beckwourth FD. Operating Expenditures Figure 3-11: Operating Expenditures per Capita (FY 09-10) Operating expenditures per capita, shown in Figure 3-11, Sierra Valley CSD provide an indication of the level Graeagle FPD of service for each of the fire providers. Among the providers, C-Road CSD Portola spends the least per City of Portola FD capita, which may be the case, as administrative expenses are EPRFPD shared with other municipal Plumas-Eureka CSD services provided by the City. Beckwourth FD expends the most Beckwourth FD per capita. The reason for the higher rate of expenditures may $0 $200 $400 $600 $800 be that Beckwourth FD is one of the few fire providers with paid staff, which may be indicative of a higher level of service. MSR AREA cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 23 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY Figure 3-12: Operating Expenditures per Service Call (FY 09-10) A similar situation exists with operating expenditures Sierra Valley CSD per service call, as is clear from Figure 3-12. The low Graeagle FPD cost per service call for Portola is most likely C-Road CSD explained by administrative City of Portola FD cost sharing, while the high cost per service call for EPRFPD Beckwourth FD and Graeagle FPD may be Plumas-Eureka CSD explained by paid staff. Beckwourth FD $0 $1,000 $2,000 $3,000 $4,000 $5,000 MSR AREA cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 24 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY WWAATTEERR SSEERRVVIICCEE This section provides an overview of water services in Plumas County and offers a brief review of the water services provided by local agencies in the Eastern Plumas MSR area. For a detailed description of each service provider, refer to the agency’s respective chapter in this document. Overview There are seven domestic and irrigation water providers in the MSR Area under LAFCO jurisdiction. Of these agencies, two provide recycled water for irrigation purposes. There are also three water providers that are not under LAFCO jurisdiction within the study area— Graeagle Water Company, Whitehawk Ranch Mutual Water Company and Blairsden Water Users Association. The water agencies under LAFCO jurisdiction and the services they provide are shown in Figure 3-13. The location and boundaries of each of these providers are shown in Figure 3-14. Figure 3-13: Eastern Plumas County Water Providers Retail Services Agency # of Connections MSR AREA cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 25 elbatoP noitagirrI delcyceR tnemtaerT noitubirtsiD elaselohW ecnanetniaM City of Portola 1,022     Clio Public Utility District 49     Grizzly Lake Community Services District 414     Grizzly Ranch Community Services District 59      Gold Mounty Community Services District 89     Last Chance Creek Water District 15  Plumas Eureka Community Services District 548       All of the potable water providers presently rely on groundwater from wells and springs. The City of Portola will be transitioning to a surface water source once the new Lake Davis Water Treatment Plant is online and operational. Last Chance Creek Water District receives surface water from Frenchman Lake. Recycled water use is presently limited in Plumas County, but is expected to increase in the future. Recycled water is wastewater effluent treated to high standards and regulated by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) through the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) – Redding Office. Plumas Eureka CSD and Grizzly Ranch CSD have recycled water facilities that provide reclaimed water to golf courses for irrigation. Gold Mountain CSD plans to construct a similar facility when demand warrants. Eastern Plumas Water & Wastewater Providers 3-14 Plumas County Lake Davis G rizzly R d Ge B n e e c s k e w e o R u d rth State Route 284 ·|}þ 70 ·|}þ 70 89 Portola McClears Rd Beck wo C ur a t l h pine Rd State R o ute 49 ² Legend Beckwourth CSA Grizzly Ranch CSD Portola SOI Clio PUD Last Chance Water District Grizzly Lake CSD (SOI) 0 1.5 3 6Miles Gold Mountain CSD Plumas Eureka CSD Clio PUD (SOI) Source: Plumas LAFCo Grizzly Lake CSD Portola Beckwourth CSA (SOI) Map Created 5/6/2011 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY Regulation of Water Providers The California Department of Public Health (DPH) is responsible for the enforcement of the federal and California Safe Drinking Water Acts and the operational permitting and regulatory oversight of public water systems. The Plumas County Public Health Agency (PCPHA) is responsible for regulatory oversight of small water systems. The domestic water providers are subject to inspections by these agencies. Each of the domestic water providers is inspected by the respective regulatory agency periodically. Due to differing regulations depending on the size and type of system regulated, inspection standards and reporting vary, with the DPH reports more comprehensive and more regular than PCPHA inspection reports. Through an annual primacy delegation agreement on file with the DPH, responsibility was passed to PCPHA for the oversight and regulation of public water systems servings less than 200 connections on July 1, 2005. The system users are protected through shared oversight between DPH and PCPHA Of the seven water agencies reviewed, three have less than 200 connections and are regulated by the PCPHA—Clio PUD, Grizzly Ranch CSD, and Gold Mountain CSD. Inspection frequency for these three agencies is set by California Code or Regulations Title 22 §64255; accordingly, Grizzly Ranch CSD is inspected biennially, while Clio PUD and Gold Mountain CSD are inspected every five years. The three other potable water providers, with more than 200 connections, are regulated by the California Department of Public Health. Last Chance Creek Water District acts as a conduit for financing to receive irrigation water from DWR operated and maintained infrastructure, and as such the District is not regulated by a public health agency. Figure 3-15: Water Certification Requirements by System Water operators are required Chief Operator to get certification by the Water System Requirements Certification Department of Public Health to CPUD D1 D1 operate and maintain any water GMCSD D1 T3, D2 system. Water treatment and GLCSD - Delleker D1 T2, D3 GLCSD - Crocker/Welch D1 T2, D3 distribution personnel must meet GRCSD T1, D1 T4, D1 State certification requirements, PECSD D2 D2, T2 which vary depending on the type of system and size of population served. Certification requirements are separate for distribution (D) systems and treatment (T) systems. Certification levels range from D1 to D5 for distribution systems, with D5 being the highest attainable certification level. Similarly, treatment certification levels range from T1 to T5. In the case of many of the Eastern Plumas systems, groundwater is not treated and no treatment certification is required for operators. The requirements for each system and current chief operator certification levels are shown in Figure 3-15. Each agency meets or exceeds the respective system requirements. MSR AREA cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 27 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY Service Adequacy This section contains a discussion on service adequacy indicators which is intended to identify outliers—providers with relatively high service levels and those providers that could take steps to improve certain aspects of service provision. The water service adequacy measures discussed here include drinking water quality, as indicated by health and monitoring violations and compliance with drinking water standards, and distribution system integrity, as defined by the number of break and leaks and unaccounted for distribution losses. Drinking Water Quality Drinking water quality is determined by a combination of historical violations reported by the EPA since 2000 and the percent of time that the agencies were in compliance with Primary Drinking Water Regulations in 2010. The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) is the main federal law that ensures the quality of Americans' drinking water. The law requires many actions to protect drinking water and its sources—rivers, lakes, reservoirs, springs and groundwater wells—and applies to public water systems serving 25 or more people. National Primary Drinking Water Regulations (NPDWRs or primary standards) are legally enforceable standards that limit the levels of contaminants in drinking water supplied by public water systems. To meet water quality standards and comply with regulations, a water system with a contaminant exceeding a maximum contaminant limit (MCL) must notify the public and remove the source from service or initiate a process and schedule to install treatment for removing the contaminant. Health violations occur when the contaminant amount exceeds the safety standard (MCL) or when water is not treated properly. Monitoring violations involve failure to conduct or to report in a timely fashion the results of required monitoring. For the purposes of this report, the number of violations are shown as a rate per 1,000 connections in order to compare between providers of varying sizes. Figure 3-16: Water Related Violations per 1,000 Connections (2000-2010) The number of violations per 1,000 connections, for Portola each of the providers in the region, are shown in Figure GLCSD 3-16. Violation rates ranged from no violations for Grizzly PECSD Ranch CSD to 102 for Clio GRCSD PUD. Clio PUD had four health violations and one GMCSD monitoring violation for coliform, all of which CPUD occurred prior to 2005. Water providers in the 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 eastern region of the County MSR AREA cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 28 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY had a median of 21 violations per 1,000 connections. Figure 3-17: Time in Compliance with Drinking Water Regulations (2010) Water service providers in the region were in compliance CPUD with drinking water regulations 96 percent of the GMCSD time on average in 2010. GRCSD PECSD and Portola have a particular challenge with PECSD arsenic levels in the groundwater. Both agencies GLCSD are making efforts to address the issue. Arsenic tests are Portola required quarterly, so if an agency is out of compliance 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% on one test, that equates to being out of compliance for three months. PECSD was out of compliance on all four arsenic tests in 2010, and the City was out of compliance on two tests in 2010. Distribution System Integrity Indicators of distribution system integrity are the number of breaks and leaks in 2010 and the rate of unaccounted for distribution loss. Figure 3-18: Breaks or Leaks per 100 Miles of Pipelines (2010) Each provider reported the number of breaks and leaks for Portola agency-owned and maintained mains in 2010. The number of GLCSD breaks and leaks are shown in PECSD Figure 3-18 as a rate per 100 miles of pipelines maintained GRCSD in order to compare between providers of varying sizes. GMCSD Providers in the region had a median rate of 12 breaks per CPUD 100 pipe mile. PECSD and 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 CPUD reported no breaks or leaks in 2010. Portola had the highest rate of breaks or leaks with almost 50 per 100 miles of pipelines in the system. Inevitably, a portion of water produced does not get delivered to customers as a result of fire flows, lack of integrity in the distribution system and conveyance losses. The median Eastern Plumas water system loses seven percent of water. By comparison, the industry average is 10 percent. MSR AREA cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 29 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY Figure 3-19: Water Loss Rate by System Those agencies with the greatest water loss in their Portola systems include Portola and Grizzly Ranch CSD. Gold GLCSD Unknown Mountain CSD has the lowest PECSD water loss. Bothe Grizzly Lake CSD and Clio PUD were unable GRCSD to provide an estimate of the amount of water lost between GMCSD the water source and delivery to CPUD Unknown the customer, as these systems are unmetered. Other systems 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% are unmetered as well, but provided a rough estimate. Rates Compared with other municipal services, there are relatively few financing constraints for water enterprises. Generally, agencies may establish service charges on a cost-of- service basis. In the past, water providers have not been required to obtain voter approval for rate increases or restructuring, however, based on recent court findings, water purveyors have been required to complete a Proposition 218 voter protest process when updating rates. The boards of each of the public sector water providers are responsible for establishing service charges. Service charges are restricted to the amount needed to recover the costs of providing water service. The water rates and rate structures are not subject to regulation by other agencies. Service providers can and often do increase rates annually. Figure 3-20: Water Monthly Residential Rates (2011) All of the providers have updated their rates in the last CPUD two years, with the exception GMCSD of Clio PUD, which last updated rates in 2006. Clio GRCSD PUD has the lowest water PECSD - Eureka Springs rates among the providers. The median rate in the region PECSD - Eureka Estates is $35.25 per connection per GLCSD month. Portola and Gold Mountain CSD are the only Portola two providers that charge $0.00 $20.00 $40.00 $60.00 $80.00 $100.00 rates according to water consumption. Grizzly Ranch CSD does not charge rates, but instead levies a benefit assessment to cover costs of services. The benefit assessment is reflected in Figure 3-20 for comparison purposes. MSR AREA cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 30 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY WWAASSTTEEWWAATTEERR SSEERRVVIICCEESS This section provides an overview of wastewater services in Plumas County and offers a brief review of the wastewater services provided by local agencies in the Eastern Plumas MSR area. For a detailed description of each service provider, refer to the agency’s respective chapter in this document. Overview There are six wastewater providers in the MSR Area. The wastewater agencies and the services they provide are shown in Figure 3-21. The location and boundaries of each of these providers are shown in Figure 3-14. Figure 3-21: Eastern Plumas County Wastewater Providers Agency Connections MSR AREA cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 31 noitcelloC tnemtaerT lasopsiD ecnanetniaM City of Portola 1,005     Beckwourth County Service Area 70     Grizzly Lake Community Services District 300     Grizzly Ranch Community Services District 58    Gold Mounty Community Services District 88    Plumas Eureka Community Services District 318     Regulation of Wastewater Providers Wastewater providers are regulated by the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). Wastewater providers operate under permits issued by the RWQCB that outline effluent discharge requirements. Those agencies discharging to land operate under Waste Discharge Requirements, while agencies that discharge to surface water are regulated by National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits. Legislation (A.B. 885) passed in 2000 requires SWRCB to adopt regulations for the permitting and operation of septic systems. Each regional water quality control board must incorporate SWRCB regulations or standards into its regional water quality control plans. SWRCB released draft septic regulations in March 2007. The implementation of these regulations in 2008 would require all septic systems statewide to meet permitting and operation standards. The regulations include required system inspections, restrictions on septic systems near impaired water bodies, performance standards and enforcement actions. There has been much debate on these regulations, and they have not been implemented to date. PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY The State Water Resources Control Board adopted new policies in 2004 requiring wastewater collection providers to report sanitary sewer overflows and to prepare and implement Sewer System Management Plans (SSMPs). SSMP requirements are modeled on proposed federal capacity, management, operations, and maintenance plans. Dischargers must provide adequate sewer collection system capacity, prevent overflows, prioritize system deficiencies, and develop a plan for disposal of grease, among other requirements. SSMP implementation deadlines depend on service area size. All wastewater providers in California must have implemented an SSMP by August 2010. Also, providers must now report sanitary sewer overflows greater than 100 gallons to the RWQCB, keep internal records of smaller overflows, and produce an annual report on overflows. Figure 3-22: Wastewater Certification Requirements by System The California State Chief Operator Water Resources Control Wastewater System Requirements Certification Board issues California BCSA Grade 1 Grade 1 Wastewater Operator GMCSD Grade 1 Grade 2 certification. GLCSD Grade 1 Grade 2 Certification guarantees GRCSD Grade 31 Grade 3 a certain minimum level PECSD Grade 3 Grade 5 of competence and that Notes: 1) Certification requirement when the WWTP is in operation. experience and training requirements have been met. Anyone employed in a public wastewater or industrial treatment plant is required to have a certificate. Workers at private wastewater plants that are monitored by the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) also require certification. Five levels of certification are available, each with a different minimum level of experience and education. All certificates require courses, a written exam, experience requirements, a fee, and application form. The certificate is valid for four years and must be renewed. Certification requirements for each system vary depending on the type of system and size of population served. The requirements for each system and current chief operator certification levels are shown in Figure 3-22. Each agency meets or exceeds the respective system requirements. Service Adequacy This section contains a discussion on service adequacy indicators which is intended to identify outliers—providers with relatively high service levels and those providers that could take steps to improve certain aspects of service provision. The wastewater service adequacy measures discussed here include regulatory compliance, treatment effectiveness, sewer overflows and collection system integrity. Of the six providers, two have been issued formal enforcement actions as a result of violations of permit conditions between 2005 and 2010. The City has been issued two Administrative Civil Liability Orders—one in 2008 for exceeding coliform levels in treated effluent on eight occasions in 2005, and another in 2008 for violating effluent pH limitations on 24 occasions in 2004. The RWQCB waived the fine on the condition that the MSR AREA cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 32 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY City conduct a full-scale pilot study to evaluate potential solutions to the pH issue. The City is in the process of completing this study, which is planned to be completed by the end of 2011. Grizzly Lake CSD was issued an Administrative Civil Liability Order in 2009 for six non-serious violations of permit effluent limitations outlined in the District’s permit for the Delleker facility. Grizzly Lake CSD received another Administrative Civil Liability Order in 2010 for four serious violations of permitted effluent limitations and nine non-serious violations. Grizzly Lake CSD is required to complete construction of effluent pumping control and monitoring improvements by October 2012 in order to have the fines waived. Figure 3-23: Violations per 1,000 Residents (2005-2010) Violations of State requirements for Portola wastewater providers and GLCSD treatment facilities are recorded by SWRCB. PECSD Violations are categorized GRCSD according to severity and type. Figure 3-23 shows the GMCSD rate of violations per 1,000 population served for the BCSA period from January 1, 2005 0 50 100 150 200 250 to December 31, 2010. The rate of violations among the providers ranged from zero for Gold Mountain CSD to 206 violations per 1,000 residents for Grizzly Ranch CSD. GRCSD has been issued 18 violations between 2005 and 2010, 17 of which were for exeedances of arsenic levels in discharged backwash. Grizzly Ranch CSD is making efforts to remain in compliance with permit requirements regarding arsenic levels. Of the providers, only Grizzly Lake CSD had priority violations, which consisted of 15 percent of the total violations received by the District. Figure 3-24: Time in Compliance with Effluent Requirements(2010) Wastewater treatment providers are Portola required to comply with effluent quality GLCSD standards under the PECSD waste discharge requirements GRCSD NA determined by RWQCB. Wastewater providers in GMCSD the eastern region of BCSA Plumas County were out of compliance on 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% average nine days in 2010. Portola was out of compliance with effluent quality requirements for total suspended solids during the months of March, April and December, on a total of 39 days. MSR AREA cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 33 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY Figure 3-25: Sewer System Overflows per 100 Miles of Pipeline (2008-2010) Wastewater agencies are required to report Portola sewer system overflows (SSOs) to SWRCB. GLCSD Overflows reflect the capacity and condition of PECSD collection system piping and the effectiveness of GRCSD routine maintenance. The sewer overflow rate is calculated as the number GMCSD of overflows per 100 miles of collection piping. BCSA Portola, Grizzly Ranch CSD and Beckwourth CSA 0 20 40 60 80 100 reported no overflows during the period from 2008 thru 2010, and consequently the overflow rate for these providers is zero. Other providers in the region averaged an SSO rate of 3.8 per 100 miles of collection piping. Figure 3-26: Wastewater Peaking Factors There are several measures of integrity of the wastewater Portola collection system, including GLCSD peaking factors, efforts to address infiltration and inflow (I/I), and PECSD - WWTP 6 inspection practices. PECSD - WWTP 7 The peaking factor is the ratio GRCSD NA of peak day wet weather flows to GMCSD NA average dry weather flows. The peaking factor is an indicator of the BCSA degree to which the system suffers 0 2 4 6 8 from I/I, where rainwater enters the sewer system through cracks, manholes or other means. As shown in Figure 3-26, those agencies with the highest peaking factors and therefore the highes rate of I/I are Portola, Plumas Eureka’s WWTP 7 system, and Beckwourth CSA. Rates Compared with other municipal services, there are relatively few financing constraints for wastewater enterprises. Generally, agencies may establish service charges on a cost-of- service basis. In the past, wastewater providers have not been required to obtain voter approval for rate increases or restructuring however, based on recent court findings, MSR AREA cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 34 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY wastewater providers have been required to complete a Proposition 218 voter protest process when updating rates. The boards of each of the public sector wastewater providers are responsible for establishing service charges. Service charges are restricted to the amount needed to recover the costs of providing wastewater service. The wastewater rates and rate structures are not subject to regulation by other agencies. Service providers can and often do increase rates annually. Figure 3-27: Wastewater Monthly Residential Rates (2011) All of the providers have updated their rates in Portola the last two years, with the GLCSD exception of Beckwourth PECSD - Plumas Eureka Estates CSA, which last updated rates in 1983. As seen in PECSD - All other areas Figure 3-27, Beckwourth GRCSD CSA charges significantly lower wastewater rates GMCSD than the other providers. BCSA The median monthly $0 $20 $40 $60 $80 $100 $120 wastewater rate in the region is $68.53. Grizzly Ranch CSD does not charge rates, but instead levies a benefit assessment to cover costs of services. The benefit assessment is reflected in Figure 3-24 for comparison purposes. MSR AREA cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 35 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY 4. CITY OF P O RTOLA The City of Portola provides general government services in the form of city administration, finance, building inspection, public works, and community development. In addition to these services, the City provides fire protection, Emergency Medical Service (EMS), water treatment and distribution, wastewater collection and treatment, storm drainage, park and recreation, road maintenance and snow removal services. The City also has a community service officer that acts as an animal control officer, does parking enforcement and some code enforcement. The City provides some services outside corporate boundaries, including fire protection, water and wastewater, as detailed in the Extra-territorial Services section of this chapter. The City contracts with Plumas County for law enforcement and animal control services outside of the purview of the community service officer. Solid waste collection is provided by Intermountain Disposal by franchise agreement. The library is a branch of the Plumas County Library and is funded entirely by the County. Liberty Energy provides electric power to Portola. Currently, cable service is offered by New Day Broadband under a city franchise. An MSR of the City was completed in January 2003, and has not been updated since. AAGGEENNCCYY OOVVEERRVVIIEEWW Background The City of Portola, incorporated on May 14, 1946, was formed as a general law city. It is the only incorporated city in Plumas County. Since that time, there have been two efforts to disincorporate the City; neither has had LAFCo approval. The City is located along SR 70, west of the Sierra Valley, approximately 50 miles from Reno, Nevada. The City is surrounded by the Plumas National Forest, and lies east of the crest of the Sierra Nevada mountain range. The Middle Fork Feather River, the Union Pacific Railroad, and SR 70 run parallel through the valley and divide the city in distinctly separate north and south sectors. Boundaries The City’s existing boundaries, including annexed, undeveloped areas cover an area of 5.5 square miles or 3,490 acres.9 As shown in Figure 4-2, the boundaries generally extend from the edge of the Woodbridge development to the south, including the Portola 192 development, then continuing north crossing the Feather River, Union Pacific rail lines along the western edge of the City, continuing north along Lake Davis Road, incorporating the Teanna Ranch annexation, then along Joy Way from Lake Davis Road to Meadow Way, 9 Total agency area calculated in GIS software based on agency boundaries as of July 1, 2011. The data is not considered survey quality. CITY OF PORTOLA cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 36 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY continuing south through Riverwalk Park, crossing the Feather River and Union Pacific rail lines to the eastern edge of the Woodbridge development. The proposed Portola 192 subdivision (Final Map approved) has been dubbed as such since it has 192 acres and will have approximately 200 equivalent dwelling units. The Teanna Ranch annexation is 2,028- acre area is uninhabited and is presently Williamson Act land that cannot be developed. The Williamson Act contract on the land will expire in 2019. Plumas LAFCo records date back to 1966, and the State Board of Equalization (BOE) maintains records of officially recorded boundary changes since 1948. Over this time frame, LAFCo and BOE records indicate there have been 11 modifications to the City’s boundaries—all of which were annexations. Three of the annexations (Reed Territory, Dayton Property and Joy Property) were not recorded by the Board of Equalization, and therefore the City and LAFCo should work together to determine whether these annexations were satisfactorily completed and submitted for recording by the State and ensure that the City’s Tax Rate Area is consistent with BOE records. Refer to Figure 4-1 for list of the boundary changes. Figure 4-1: City of Portola Boundary History Project Name Type of Action Date Source Holsinger Annexation 1979 LAFCo, BOE Lake Davis Road Annexation 1983 LAFCo, BOE North Area, Lake Davis Road Annexation 1984 LAFCo, BOE Reed Territory Annexation 1984 LAFCo Joy Way Annexation 1984 LAFCo, BOE Francisco Territory Annexation 1995 LAFCo, BOE Portola 192 Annexation 1999 LAFCo, BOE North Joy Way Annexation 2003 LAFCo, BOE Teanna Ranch Annexation 2003 LAFCo, BOE Dayton Property Annexation 2007 LAFCo Joy Property Annexation 2008 LAFCo Sphere of Influence The City’s SOI is presently ten square miles or 6,438 acres, which is approximately twice the area within the City’s boundary. The SOI encompasses the City’s boundaries in their entirety and extends beyond the boundaries to the east and west. The SOI was first adopted in 1982 and last updated in 2003.10 During the 2003 update, the SOI was amended by LAFCo to indicate the anticipated five-year annexable area of the City.11 10 LAFCo Resolution 2003-09. 11 Plumas LAFCo, City of Portola MSR 2003-2008, p. 3. CITY OF PORTOLA cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 37 City of Portola 16 15 L a k 14 13 e D a v is R d 18 17 24 23 22 21 19 20 25 26 27 28 ·|þ} 70 30 29 33 34 35 36 rD re k e lle D S ·|þ} D e 70 lle k e r R 31 32 d 4 3 2 1 Portola McClears Rd 6 5 9 10 12 11 7 8 htroN 32 pihsnwoT htroN 22 pihsnwoT 4-2 Range 13 East Range 14 East City of Portola Resolution: Adopted: City of Portola (SOI) Resolution: 2003-003 Adopted: 3/10/2003 Source: Plumas LAFCo Map Created 5/5/2011 Legend Parcels City of Portola Parks Portola Planned Developments Major Roads City of Portola City of Portola (SOI) Mountain View Estates ² ·|}þ 70 CA State Highway Water Service Outside Fire Stations Portola 192 of City Limits Stream / River Sectional Grid (MDB&M) Woodbridge Sewer Served Outside Waterbodies City Limits 0 0.25 0.5 1Miles PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY Extra-territorial Services The City provides services outside of its boundaries to the Gold Mountain CSD for fire suppression services and 113 water and sewer connections. The City began providing contract service to Gold Mountain CSD in 1996. The contract services include fire protection, rescue, emergency medical, and hazardous materials response. Gold Mountain CSD pays the greater of $25,000 or an amount equal to the average fire suppression cost per parcel multiplied by the total number of parcels in Gold Mountain annually to the City for these services. In FY 10-11, GMCSD anticipates paying approximately $26,384 for these services. These services were previously approved by LAFCo through out-of-area service agreements (OASA). LAFCo’s approval of the OASA for service to Gold Mountain CSD expired in 2010, and was not renewed, as a contract between public agencies is exempt from the requirement for LAFCo authorization under Section 56133 (e). The current agreement that both agencies have agreed to will expire on June 30, 2013. There are about 80 active structures in GMCSD’s boundaries. Complete build-out of the area will include approximately 401 residential units, 25 time share parcels, 20 commercial units, the clubhouse, and 13 miscellaneous contingencies. GMCSD also has an 18 hole golf course, including water hazards. The Gold Mountain CSD is neither adjacent to the City boundary nor in the City’s adopted Sphere of Influence. Gold Mountain is located approximately 2.5 miles southwest of Portola within Eastern Plumas Rural FPD’s SOI. Eastern Plumas Rural FPD objects to the City providing these contract services, as EPRFPD has a station in closer proximity to GMCSD. The City provides water services to 113 water connections, 68 of which are also sewer connections, just outside of the city limits.12 These connections are located along Sagebrush Street, Otter Way, Plumas Avenue, Richard Avenue, Rocky Point Road, and Portola McLears Road (County Road A 15). These connections began receiving services from the City between 1994 and 1999, according to LAFCo records. LAFCo records show that LAFCo approved eight of these extraterritorial connections. These areas are indicated on Figure 4-2. When the City approved services to these properties, the landowners were required to agree to annexation, should the City decide to start annexation procedures. Additionally, the City receives pumped septage from Plumas Sanitation Company, from private septic systems outside the city limits. Areas of Interest The Portola Planning Commission has identified several areas outside of the City limits and SOI as areas of mutual interest for Portola and Plumas County. The communities include Lake Davis to the north, Grizzly Ranch to the east, Iron Horse and Gold Mountain to the south, and Delleker to the west. The City reports that these areas impact the City and 12 APNs 125-460-008, 125-360-010, 125-118-006, 125-040-048, 125-460-001, 125-040-047, 125-080-036, 126-270-012 CITY OF PORTOLA cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 39 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY City services, particularly related to fire, safety, traffic, aesthetics, and the environment.13 The City contends that it may not be appropriate to include these areas within the City’s SOI, but that some form of cooperative planning may be a valuable approach for areas with development potential at a city/county boundary. The City has produced a white paper regarding options for joint planning in these areas of mutual interest and the advantages and disadvantages of each. The Portola and Plumas County Planning Commissions have begun discussions to develop a joint planning area. In December 2010, the Portola Planning Commission was tasked with representing the areas in question on a map. These areas are shown on Figure 4-2 in the Background Section. As of the drafting of this report, Portola had not received feedback from the Plumas Planning Commission on the proposed joint planning areas. Plumas County is in the process of updating its General Plan. The County reported that a policy to promote joint planning will likely be incorporated into the General Plan Update; however, development of a joint planning area and process will be a long-term endeavor.14 A governance structure option that may afford the City the planning involvement it desires may be designating the area an Area of Concern. The Plumas LAFCo Policies, Standards and Procedures define an Area of Concern as a geographic area beyond the Sphere of Influence in which land use decisions or other governmental actions of one local agency impact directly or indirectly upon another local agency. Plumas LAFCo may designate, in its discretion, a geographic area beyond the Sphere of Influence as an Area of Concern to any local agency. LAFCo will notify any Concerned Agency when the Commission receives notice of a proposal of another agency in the Area of Concern to the Concerned Agency, and will give great weight to its comments. If requested, Plumas LAFCo will seek to obtain a Joint Powers Agreement or other commitment between the agencies so that the Acting Agency provides advance notice to the Concerned Agency of any actions, or projects being considered within the area of concern, and commits to considering any comments made by the Concerned Agency.15 Accountability and Governance The Portola City Council is composed of five Council members elected to staggered four- year terms. There is an election each November of even numbered years with either two or three seats up for election. In cases where a Councilmember is unable to complete a term the Council can appoint a replacement to fill the remainder of the term. The most recent contested election for a council member seat was held in 2010. Council members and their respective terms are listed in Figure 4-3. The Council selects a Mayor and Mayor Pro Tem from among its members to serve year-long terms. The mayor presides over the Council meetings. 13 Karen Downs, City of Portola Planner, Letter to the Plumas County Planning Commission, January 19, 2011. 14 Interview with Rebecca Herrin, Plumas County Planner, March 3, 2011. 15 Plumas LAFCo, Policies, Standards and Procedures, Section III Part 6, p. 19. CITY OF PORTOLA cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 40 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY Meetings are held on the second and fourth Wednesday of each month. Council meetings begin at 7:00 pm in the City Council Chamber, 35 Third Avenue. All City Council meetings are conducted in compliance with the Brown Act, affording the public the opportunity to participate in and observe the conduct of all business for the City. Meetings are televised on New Day Broadband Channel 37. Figure 4-3: City of Portola Governing Body City of Portola District Contact Information Contact: Administrative Assistant to the City Manager Address: 35 Third Avenue, Portola, CA 96122 Telephone: 530-832-4216 Email/website: l.tigan@ci.portola.ca.us Board of Directors Member Name Position Term Expiration Manner of Selection Length of Term Dan Wilson Mayor November 2012 Elected 4 years Juliana Mark Mayor Pro Tem November 2014 Elected 4 years William Weaver Council Member November 2012 Elected 4 years Curt McBride Council Member November 2014 Elected 4 years John Larrieu Council Member November 2012 Elected 4 years Meetings Date: Second and fourth Wednesday of each month at 7 pm. Location: City Hall Agenda Distribution: Agendas are available on the City's website and are posted outside of City Hall. Minutes Distribution: Minutes are available on the City's website. In addition to the legally required agendas and minutes, other constituent outreach efforts by the City include a website where contact information, documents, and other pertinent information are made available. Informational notices are posted in the weekly newspaper and information is disseminated through the Portola Library and the post office, as well as posted on the city hall and post office bulletin boards. With regard to customer satisfaction, complaints can be submitted in writing, in person, or on the telephone to the city manager. The city manager logs and tracks all complaints to ensure proper resolution of the issue, with the exception of those complaints regarding the city manager, which are handled directly by the City Council. If a constituent is not satisfied with the outcome of a complaint, a formal complaint may be submitted at a city council meeting. Complaints are generally regarding blocking of vehicles, in driveways or on streets, after snow plowing. In 2010, the City reported that there were four formal complaints submitted. The City demonstrated full accountability and disclosure during the MSR process by responding to questionnaire and interview requests and providing all necessary documentation. CITY OF PORTOLA cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 41 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY Planning and Management Practices The City of Portola has an elected council, appointed mayor form of local government that relies on paid professional staff to conduct the daily business and operations of the City. The City currently employs 11 full-time employees, and several part-time and seasonal employees to conduct the various functions and duties of city government, as well as a volunteer fire chief and 16 volunteer fire fighters. In order to cut costs on par with declining revenues, the FY 10-11 budget leaves 1.5 FTE authorized positions vacant—a community service officer position and a building inspector position. The City also relies on contractors and volunteers to provide services to the City residents. The City contracts with the following individuals or agencies for these services:  Legal Services: City Attorney Steve Gross, a partner of Porter Simon, located in Truckee provides legal support to the City Council, City Manager and all departments in matters of law relating to the operation of the City.  Engineering: Dan Bastian, of Bastian Engineering in Graeagle provides contract engineering services for the City.  Financial: Susan Scarlett, located in Quincy, provides for management of the City’s funds. The City Manager is appointed by the City Council to operate the day-to-day functions of the City and to implement policy as directed by the City Council. The City Manager, Planning Commission, City Attorney, City Clerk and City Treasurer all report to the City Council. The Fire Chief, Community Services Officer, Administrative Services Manager, Public Works Building Manager, Planner, Animal Control personnel, Finance Officer and City Engineer all report to the City Manager. All other employees report to the department heads. The overall management efficiency of the City in providing service to the residents and property owners is best reflected in the distribution of resources in the annual operating budget, and the willingness of the part of the City Council to maintain the staffing level in response to constituent demands. By relying on contractors, volunteers and part-time positions, the City has been able to minimize the long-term cost of salaries and benefits, especially in areas that do not require a full-time employee due to low service demand. City staff are generally evaluated whenever they are due for a wage step increase. Evaluations are completed by the employees’ immediate supervisor. Employee workload is monitored through timesheets. Specific tasks are tracked through logs at the water and wastewater treatment plants. Timesheets are used to evaluate whether budgeted amounts are appropriate for the time spent on a particular project or service. The City reported that overall city performance was evaluated during the budget process. The City uses the annual budget process to evaluate if current programs should be continued, and if new service programs and functions can be initiated. The City does not perform any kind of benchmarking with similar service providers. CITY OF PORTOLA cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 42 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY The City’s central planning document is its General Plan. The General Plan was last updated in 2000 with a planning horizon of 2020 and includes elements on housing, land use, community design, circulation, economic development, public services and facilities, safety, conservation and open space, noise, and air quality. The City is in the process of updating the General Plan. An updated housing element was adopted in 2010 with a planning horizon of 2014. Other City planning documents include Master Plans for water, wastewater and park and recreation services. The City’s financial planning documents include annually adopted budgets and annual audits. The City provided a copy of its audited financial statement for FY 08-09 and 09-10 to LAFCo. In addition, the City is in the process of completing a rate study for water and wastewater services. The study was completed in March 2011. The City does not produce a separate capital improvement plan. Existing Demand and Growth Projections Existing land uses within the city limits are primarily residential and retail services. The regional services and highway commercial uses are concentrated along SR 70. Businesses serve both the local population and the regional traffic drawn by recreation opportunities. The commercial strip includes regional services such as banking, restaurants and automobile services. South of the river, the Old Town commercial area along Commercial Street provides small scale, local services and retail. The primary institutional uses are clustered along Gulling Street. These include a hospital, City Hall, a library, City Park, a Sheriff substation, a post office, schools, and a courthouse. Population Figure 4-4: City of Portola Population Growth (2000-2010) Historically, the 3% population in Portola has 2% had periods of growth and 2% other periods of decline. 1% The population grew from 1% 1910 to 1950, but declined 0% from 1950 through 1970. -1% 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Minimal growth was seen -1% from 1970 through 2000, -2% but did not recover to the -2% -3% 1950 level. The City -3% experienced another decline in population between 2000 California Plumas Portola and 2010 with negative annual growth rates of between zero and two percent, as shown in Figure 4-4. As of January 1, 2010, the City had a population of 1,997, according to the DOF. CITY OF PORTOLA cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 43 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY Existing Demand Periods of peak demand for municipal services depend on the service in question and the season. As the region enjoys a high level of recreation-oriented tourism, demand for public safety services area highest during the peak tourism season in the summer when people migrate to their vacation and retirement homes in the region. Conversely, during the winter, the City’s snow removal services are in demand. The City reported that in general the demand for municipal services has not changed over the last decade, as a result of the declining population. Projected Growth and Development The City of Portola General Plan from 2000 discusses anticipated population growth in the Land Use Element. (There are no revised population projections in the updated version of the General Plan.) No specific predictions of future growth are made, although three possible growth scenarios are demonstrated. The General Plan demonstrates potential scenarios using two, three and five percent annual growth rates. The General Plan asserts that the basis for the uncertainty in the growth projections is that the cumulative effect of these factors is difficult to predict with such a small current population. A relatively small increase in population in the City of Portola has the potential to translate to a relatively high growth rate on a percentage basis. Since the General Plan provides no actual predictions for future growth in Portola, and prior growth rates have always been less than two percent, it is a challenge to predict growth over the next 10 to 20 years. The City’s Water Master Plan from 2007 prepares for an aggressive growth pattern of five percent annual growth over the next 15 years, since the City anticipates a strong potential for significant development in the near future. The General Plan discusses the fact that population growth in Portola is likely to come from three primary sources described as follows: (1) Population growth in California and northern Nevada will generate a spill over effect as people seek to relocate to small communities from increasing development in more urban areas. (2) An aging population will generate an increase in retirees seeking small communities for second homes or a permanent retirement home. (3) Economic development will generate new job growth in service and tourism industries, and growth in small businesses whose leaders can choose a location based primarily on quality of life considerations. The State Department of Finance (DOF) and the Plumas County Transportation Commission both make countywide population projections, but no projections specific to Portola. According to the Plumas County Transportation Commission, Plumas County has experienced slow growth (population increases at less than 0.1 percent per year on the long-term average) in population and employment over the past two decades and is forecast to continue this trend through 2030. The Regional Transportation Plan projects an annual growth rate of 0.06 percent countywide through 2030. CITY OF PORTOLA cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 44 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY The DOF projects that the population of Plumas County will grow by five percent in the next 10 years. Thus, the average annual population growth in the County is anticipated to be approximately 0.5 percent until 2020. While the City’s historical growth rates and countywide growth rate projections indicate minimal growth in the future, there are three planned developments within the city limits, which have the potential to add an additional 1,220 dwelling units to the City, or approximately 2,440 additional residents. This would be an increase over the 2010 city population of 122 percent. The Portola 192 development, comprised of 200 dwellings on 192 acres, is located in the very western part of the City of Portola. The final map for Portola 192 has been approved; however, the development is presently on hold until the economy recovers. The Woodbridge development consists of 1,005 dwelling units on 398 acres and extends from the Portola High School in the north to the southern boundary of the city. The City has approved a tentative map for the Woodbridge development and is working with the developer on final conditions. Mountain View Estates is an eight-acre development with 14 planned dwelling units. A tentative map for the subdivision was approved in 2008, but no progress toward a final map has been made since then. While there are presently no plans for development of the Teanna Ranch territory, the area has the potential for significant growth after the Williamson Act contract on the land expires in 2019. While the City generally has the capacity to provide adequate services to the existing level of demand, it is anticipated that if these planned developments come to fruition and build-out, the City will require significant facility capacity enhancements and additional staffing to meet dramatically increased demand. Given the amount of growth potential in the City based on planned developments, the City will need to plan for significant growth to meet future demand levels and meet urban service level expectations. Growth Strategies Portola’s existing planning area is larger than its SOI. The City’s present land use designations extend beyond its SOI to the east and west along SR 70. The planning area in the City’s General Plan update, which is currently being processed, is the same as the defined area in the General Plan from 2000. The primary guiding goals for land use and development in the City of Portola are outlined in the Community Design Element of the 2000 General Plan. The Community Design Element defines the characteristics of the land use and provides guidelines and standards for development with the primary goal of developing a built environment that is compatible with the natural amenities. The fundamental goal for the Community Design Element is to encourage development that is 1) economically and environmentally sustainable; relates well to the natural setting; 2) sustainable because it is well constructed of durable, quality materials appropriate to the setting, and 3) offers memorable buildings and spaces. Specific standards include limiting removal of trees to construct a building and limiting modifications to the natural land form and natural flow of water through grading. The City hopes that compliance with these fundamentals will inherently protect the natural CITY OF PORTOLA cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 45 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY character of the community. The companion priority is to develop the community in a manner that is compatible with and protective of the natural surroundings. With regard to specific growth plans, the City did not propose any SOI expansion areas, but as mentioned in the Background Section, the City reported that it would like to be involved in joint planning with the County for areas such as Delleker where growth will affect the City and the services it provides, but which are not within its SOI. The City listed the following as reasons behind the need for joint planning:16  The type and scale of development in Delleker could drain economic vitality from Portola’s unique downtown and the region as a whole, to the shared disadvantage of the City and County.  The absence of a clearly defined, well thought out, border between rural and more “urbanized” development (at a scale appropriate for the setting) could damage the natural assets and other special characteristics of this unique location and its importance to local residents and visitors.  Service provision that is not well coordinated by all relevant parties is likely to be inefficient and not cost effective. Infrastructure expansions should be considered in a shared vision of what the City and County see as the future for the area. The City identified water and wastewater capacity as the most significant constraints to growth. The existing water supply and delivery system is adequate only for the existing community. Land use development anticipated in the Land Use Element will require an increase in the water supply and the expansion and upgrading of the water storage and distribution system.17 Similarly, the wastewater system is adequate for the existing community, but expansion of the collection system will be needed to accommodate the development anticipated in the Land Use Element. In addition, improvements are required to make full use of the treatment plant. In addition to capital needs to extend services to new subdivisions, some older areas of the city were never fully developed and lack basic sewer, water, drainage and streets. Full development of the city will require extending the basic infrastructure to these “in-fill” areas. The City compiled Water and Wastewater Master Plans in 2007 and has adopted development impact fees for water and sewer services to address capital improvement needs for the growth of the community. Financing The City reported that while financing levels were generally adequate to provide services, there had been a decline in revenues which had forced the City to find ways to trim expenditures, such as not filling 1.5 FTE authorized positions (a community service officer position and a building inspector position). Because of these cutbacks, the City has 16 City of Portola, Options for Cooperative Planning for the Delleker Area - Draft, March 2010, p. 1. 17 City of Portola, General Plan, 2000, p. 6-6. CITY OF PORTOLA cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 46 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY considered sharing a building inspector with the County to reduce costs. In addition, capital projects in the past have generally been funded through interest income on investments; however, in the past two years interest earnings have fell to 0.5 percent. Consequently, project expenditures in recent years have started to exceed the City’s interest income. Key fiscal challenges are a decline in sales tax revenues, a decline in assessed property values and a recent decrease in development activity and related fees. The City tracks its financial activities separately through various funds. The general fund is the City’s main operating fund. Other major governmental funds include special revenue funds such as gas taxes, which may only be used for certain services. Wastewater, water and solid waste finances are tracked through enterprise funds. Portola finances its general government, police, fire, parks and recreation, public works, and planning/ community development operations primarily with vehicle license fees, sales taxes and property taxes. The City finances its street needs with gas tax and general revenue. The City finances its water and sewer operations with utility rates, and its water and sewer capital improvements primarily with connection fees and development impact fees and secondarily with rates. Figure 4-5: City of Portola General Fund Revenues & Expenditures (FYs 09-11) Income/Expenses FY 09-10 Budgeted FY 09-10 Actual FY 10-11 Budgeted Revenues Taxes $554,500 38% $492,482 36% $510,600 53% Licenses and permits $84,000 6% $67,153 5% $49,200 5% Fines, forfeitures and penalties $2,000 0% $3,648 0% $2,000 0% Use of money and property $52,000 4% $23,388 2% $22,000 2% Intergovernmental $714,252 49% $723,482 52% $301,000 31% Charges for services $52,100 4% $69,126 5% $72,384 8% Other revenue $0 0% $1,801 0% $0 0% Total Income $1,458,852 100% $1,381,080 100% $957,184 100% Expenses General Government $328,779 21% $324,240 20% $336,544 40% Planning and Community Development $292,984 18% $291,310 18% $117,675 14% Public Safety $311,794 20% $303,586 19% $220,827 26% Public Works $103,439 6% $103,473 7% $79,282 9% Parks and Recreation $533,002 33% $537,493 34% $67,168 8% Debt Service $26,089 2% $26,089 2% $26,089 3% Total Expenses $1,596,087 100% $1,586,191 100% $847,585 100% Net Income -$137,235 -$205,111 $109,599 The primary revenue sources for the City’s general fund in FY 09-10 were property taxes (21 percent), sales tax (17 percent) and vehicle in-lieu fees (14 percent). With regard to the water and wastewater enterprise funds, rates comprised 81 and 99 percent of the revenue sources for each fund, respectively. The City charges an assessment on each lot based on the level of risk associated with the property use to finance fire services through the general fund. A single family residential unit is assessed $12.51 annually and a commercial unit is assessed $18.77 annually. The assessment was approved by voters in 1984. The assessment does not CITY OF PORTOLA cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 47 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY adjust annually based on inflation. Approximately $20,000 was collected in FY 09-10 through the assessment. Figure 4-6: City of Portola General Fund Expenditures (FY 09-10) Debt Service 2% General Government Parks and 20% Recreation 34% Planning and Community Public Safety Development Public Works 19% 18% 7% Figure 4-6 shows the City’s expenditures in FY 09-10 from the general fund, and the portion attributed to significant expenses. General government (20 percent), planning and community development (18 percent), public safety (20 percent), and parks and recreation (34 percent) constituted a majority of the City’s general fund expenditures. The City does not have a citywide CIP, but has outlined infrastructure needs in its water, wastewater and parks and recreation master plans. Capital planning is also completed annually in the budget. The City reported that it generally finances capital improvements, other than water and wastewater related capital investments, with interest earnings and occasional grants. However, recently due to the decline in interest earnings, the City has had to dip into its reserve fund. The City does not presently have a sinking fund for repaying or purchasing outstanding loans and securities held against the City for water and wastewater services. The City planned to finance this through a Proposition 218 voting process in May 2011; however, due to public dissent, the City is searching for other alternatives. As of June 30, 2010, the City had long-term outstanding debt of approximately $1.5 million, of which two percent was a capital lease obligation for a fire truck to be paid off by the end of FY 10-11, 78 percent was related to water services (two notes payable for system improvements and an emergency drought relief note), 14 percent was attributed to sewer system improvements, and six percent was a note payable on a landfill closure. At the end of FY 09-10, the City had an unreserved undesignated fund balance of $3.23 million for the governmental funds, $0.95 million in the water utility fund, approximately $49,400 in the wastewater utility fund, and a negative balance of $2.04 million in the solid waste fund due to liability for the closure of the City’s landfill in 2005. The City maintains an emergency fund that had a balance of $200,000 at the end of FY 09-10. The emergency CITY OF PORTOLA cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 48 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY reserve, or reserve for economic uncertainty, is to be used to pay the cost of provide City services during poor economic times or in times when the cost of services rises dramatically. Based on the undesignated fund balance and the emergency reserve fund balance, the City maintains approximately 2 years of operating costs for the City based on expenses in FY 09-10. The City maintains an investment in the State of California Local Agency Investment Fund, which is an investment pool consisting of funds held by the State and other participating agencies. The City also participates in joint powers agreements related to liability coverage through the Small Cities Organized Risk Effort and California Joint Powers Risk Management Authority. CITY OF PORTOLA cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 49 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY WWAASSTTEEWWAATTEERR SSEERRVVIICCEESS Service Overview The City owns and operates the wastewater collection and treatment system that serves the City. All services are provided directly by city staff. There are two FTEs dedicated to wastewater services. As of 2011, the City provides sewer services to 1,005 connections. Wastewater services are provided within the City’s limits and to 68 connections just outside of the City’s boundaries. Within the City’s limits, Teanna Ranch is the only area where wastewater services are not available. There are no other lots that are unserved and rely on septic systems within the city limits. Additionally, the City receives pumped septage from Plumas Sanitation Company, from private septic systems outside the city limits. Facilities and Capacity The existing collection system is comprised of 15.8 miles of six to 15-inch diameter lines of varying materials. The sewage collection system includes a Northside Pumping Station and a Southside Pumping Station, both of which were constructed in the late 1940’s. Prior to improvements completed in 1997 and 1999, leaky sewer mains and laterals contributed to significant inflow and infiltration during the wet weather season. Improvements to the pumping stations and the treatment plant were completed in the late 1990’s as part of a State Revolving Loan Fund Project. These improvements addressed fundamental causes of past sewage surcharges by substantial reconstruction of the Northside and Southside pumping stations, as well as replacement of asbestos cement and clay lines to PVC pipes and enlargement of mains throughout the system. The collection system is generally considered in good condition by the City. Sewage is collected and conveyed to the wastewater treatment plant where treatment consists of aeration and settling ponds. The ponds provide secondary treatment in a total of 17.3 acres. The last step of sewage treatment is the chlorination/dechlorination of pond discharge prior to flow into the 5.8-acre foot storage pond. Treated and disinfected effluent is discharged from the storage pond to 1.4 acres of constructed wetland adjacent to the Feather River. The City operates under an NPDES permit and Waste Discharge Requirements from 2009 (set to expire in 2014), which restricts surface water discharges to the river during the period from November 1st to April 31st and when river flows exceed 40 cfs. From May 1 to October 31, the storage pond is used for storage and disposal (through evaporation and percolation) and flow to the wetland is prevented, in accordance with the permit. The treatment plant has permitted capacity to process a monthly average dry weather flow of 0.50 mgd. The permitted peak wet weather flow capacity is 0.74 mgd and the design capacity is 0.75 mgd. The ADWF in 2010 was 0.2 mgd or 40 percent of the City’s CITY OF PORTOLA cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 50 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY permitted capacity. While ADWF is well within the City’s permitted capacity, PWWFs have on occasion exceeded the treatment system’s permitted wet weather flow due to significant I/I. In 2010, the City’s PWWF was almost double its permitted PWWF capacity. At the average usage rate of 275 gallons per day per dwelling unit equivalent, the wastewater treatment plant has the capacity to serve a total of 1,818 dwelling unit equivalents, approximately double the current demand for wastewater treatment in the city. Assuming an aggressive annual growth rate of five percent, the existing system should have the capacity to serve growth in demand through 2028, based on the author’s estimates. The City estimates that there will be approximately 2,965 edu (6,368 residents) served by the City’s wastewater system by year 2027 with an ADDWF wastewater production of approximately 0.644 mgd. At build-out, it is estimated that there will be 5,723 edu contributing to the City’s wastewater collection system with a daily flow of 1.24 mgd.18 Infrastructure Needs Sewer collection and treatment systems in Portola have been constructed piece meal over a period of decades. The two issues that are currently threatening the wastewater system are: a) inflow and infiltration, and b) significantly diminished treatment pond capacity from sludge buildup and lack of regular maintenance. Serious infiltration problems and inadequate treatment resulted in upgrading the collection system and improvements to the treatment plant during the 1990’s. However, the system still suffers from a high peak wet weather flow which is mostly attributed to excessive inflow to the southern collection system during rain events.19 Flows going through the southern lift station during storm events can reach flows almost nine times higher than average daily dry weather flows. These I/I rates need to be reduced to levels closer to those of the northern collection system (around three times regular flow) for rational planning of future infrastructure. The Wastewater Master Plan recommends a full I/I analysis be undertaken in the southern arms of the collection system including smoke testing and flow metering within suspect branches at the City’s earliest opportunity in order to identify and prioritize necessary improvements to greatly reduce wet weather flows. The City has begun implementing this recommendation by smoke testing approximately 25 percent of the entire collection system annually. The City reported that it had experienced a little improvement in the system’s I/I rate in the last few years.20 Though there is more than adequate dry weather capacity for the existing and currently planned developments of Portola, wet weather flows are already exceeding pump 18 City of Portola, Wastewater Master Plan, 2007, p. v. 19 Ibid, p. 3-2. 20 Interview with Todd Roberts, City of Portola Public Works Director, March, 14, 2011. CITY OF PORTOLA cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 51 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY capacities in the southern lift station during heavy rains. Additionally, two critical sewer sections were identified. In the south, the line from MH4A to the lift station has some critically shallow slopes that could surcharge under extremely high flows. In the north, MH85 to MH75 showed similar limitations due to pipe sizing. Upgrades to these two sections are recommended by 2017.21 The City has addressed the treatment pond infrastructure needs that were identified in the Wastewater Master Plan, which included sludge removal and monitoring and reestablishment of the 1.2-acre pond as the primary treatment unit. Sludge removal is no longer considered a deficiency and is now more of a regular operational component that is addressed on a regular basis. The City has hired an engineering firm to complete an analysis of the entire treatment system to identify ways in which performance and operations efficiencies can be improved. The firm is in the data collection portion of the project, which is anticipated to be completed sometime in 2011. Options that are being analyzed as part of the project include rock filtration for pH control, spray irrigation to reduce discharge to the river, and onsite bio-solids spreading.22 There were no cost estimates for these projects as of the drafting of this report. With regard to infrastructure needs related to future growth, the City’s Wastewater Master Plan outlines specific capital improvement needs for the collection system, lift stations, and treatment facilities through 2027 based on the location and degree of anticipated development and subsequent increase in demand. These improvements are estimated to cost approximately $1.95 million, all of which will be eligible for financing through facility fees. While the plan gives estimated timing for the improvements, scheduling for the projects will depend on the rate of growth in the City. Highlighted potential improvements to the wastewater system include:  Expansion of the two existing lift stations and construction of an additional lift station.  Revisions to NPDES permit to change the volume and time period in which discharges may be made to the river.  Improvements to the system will be required to improve biological performance sometime before 2017. Expansion of the emergency pond is proposed at this time although other alternatives will be considered.  Expansion of the chlorine contact basin will be required within the next couple of years to allow for higher flow rates to be discharged to Pond 6. Eventual expansion of the chlorine contact chamber or switching to UV disinfection could improve the disinfection process, providing more flexibility in the disposal options available. 21 Ibid, p. 4-9. 22 Interview with Karen Nelson, City of Portola Contract Project Engineer, March 14, 2011. CITY OF PORTOLA cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 52 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY Assuming no other limiting factors, the allowable river discharge combined with the evaporation and percolation inherent to a pond treatment system suggests that under the current permit limits, the Wastewater Treatment Plan reports that the plant may be able to operate without significant change until about the year 2017. As flows approach this limit, it is likely that permit modifications would allow for increased flow to the river during winter months as long as adequate treatment is achievable and background flows in the river provide for sufficient dilution.23 Challenges The City reports that it has had particular challenges in meeting required pH levels in the treatment ponds in the spring, as a result of algae blooms which drive up the pH. The City has been issued an Administrative Liability Order by RWQCB as result of pH levels in excess of permitted effluent requirements. In order to address this issue, the City can inhibit algae growth or lower discharges to surface water. Options identified thus far by a contract engineering firm include rock filtration and on-site reclamation improvements. The City will submit a plan for the proposed installation of spray irrigation facilities to the RWQCB in April 2011 and plans to begin implementation in summer 2011. The plans for rock filtration will be addressed as part of the Best Practical Treatment and Control report that is planned to be completed at the end of 2011. If approved by the RWQCB, rock filtration would be installed sometime in 2012 or 2013.24 Service Adequacy This section reviews indicators of service adequacy, including regulatory compliance, treatment effectiveness, sewer overflows and collection system integrity. The City has been issued two Administrative Civil Liability Orders between 2005 and 2010, and 33 recorded violations during the same time frame. In 2008, the City was fined $15,000 for exceeding coliform levels in treated effluent on eight occasions in 2005. The City made improvements to its system in order to address the effluent coliform violations, so the penalty was waived. Also in 2008, the City was issued another Civil Liability Order and fined $63,000 for violating effluent pH limitations on 24 occasions in 2004. In lieu of paying the fine, the City requested to complete a Compliance Project. The RWQCB waived the fine on the condition that the City conduct a full-scale pilot study to evaluate potential solutions to the pH issue. The City is in the process of completing this study, which is planned to be completed by the end of 2011. Of the City’s 33 recorded violations, none were considered priority violations. Thirty-three violations equates to approximately 16 violations per 1,000 population served. By comparison, other wastewater providers in the eastern region of the County had a median of 38 violations per 1,000 population served. 23 City of Portola, Wastewater Master Plan, 2007, p. 6-5. 24 Interview with Karen Nelson, City of Portola Contract Project Engineer, March 14, 2011. CITY OF PORTOLA cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 53 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY Figure 4-7: City of Portola Wastewater Service Adequacy Indicators Wastewater Service Adequacy and Efficiency Regulatory Compliance Record, 2005-10 Formal Enforcement Actions 1 Informal Enforcement Actions 15 Formal Enforcement Action Type Description of Violations Administrative Civil Liability Order 3/17/2008 Order conditions (1), other effluent violation (11) Administrative Civil Liability Order 12/9/2008 Other effluent violation (24) Total Violations, 2005-10 Total Violations 33 Priority Violations 0 Service Adequacy Indicators Treatment Effectiveness Rate2 89% Sewer Overflows 2009 - 20103 0 Total Employees (FTEs) 2 Sewer Overflow Rate4 0 MGD Treated per FTE 0.13 Customer Complaints CY 10: Odor (2), spills (0), other (0) Source Control and Pollution Prevention Practices Through the City's building code, grease traps are required in all commercial connections. There are no industrial connections that are considered high-pollutant dischargers. Collection System Inspection Practices The City smoke tests approximately 25 percent of the system annually. In addition, the entire system is flushed and visually inspected annully. Notes: (1) Order or Code Violations include sanitary sewer overflow violations. (2) Total number of compliance days in 2010 per 365 days. (3) Total number of overflows experienced (excluding those caused by customers) from 2008 to 2010 as reported by the agency. (4) Sewer overflows from 2009 to 2010 (excluding those caused by customers) per 100 miles of collection piping. (5) Agency policy, guidelines or goals for response time between service call and clearing the blockage. Wastewater treatment providers are required to comply with effluent quality standards under the waste discharge requirements determined by RWQCB. The City reported that in 2010, it was out of compliance with effluent quality requirements for total suspended solids during the months of March, April and December, or a total of 39 days. Other wastewater providers in the eastern region of Plumas County were out of compliance on average nine days in 2010. Wastewater agencies are required to report sewer system overflows (SSOs) to SWRCB. Overflows reflect the capacity and condition of collection system piping and the effectiveness of routine maintenance. The sewer overflow rate is calculated as the number of overflows per 100 miles of collection piping. The City reported no overflows during the period from 2008 thru 2010, and consequently the overflow rate is zero. Other providers in the region averaged an SSO rate of 3.8 per 100 miles of collection piping. There are several measures of integrity of the wastewater collection system, including peaking factors, efforts to address infiltration and inflow (I/I), and inspection practices. As discussed previously, the City has a high peaking factor of 7.4 resulting from significant I/I. Other wastewater providers in the region have an average peaking factor of 4.3. In order to address the I/I, the City has initiated a regular smoke testing program, and has identified some mains in need of replacement. CITY OF PORTOLA cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 54 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY Figure 4-8: City of Portola Wastewater Profile Wastewater Service Configuration and Demand Service Configuration Service Type Service Provider(s) Wastewater Collection City Wastewater Treatment City Wastewater Disposal City Recycled Water City (for use on a constructed wetland) Service Area Collection: City boundaries and 68 extra-territorial connections Treatment: City boundaries and 68 extra-territorial connections Recycled Water: Constructed wetland adjacent to the river Service Demand Connections (2010) Flow (mgd) Type Total Inside Bounds Outside Bounds Average Total 1,005 937 68 0.26 Residential 890 822 68 0.19 Commercial 115 115 0 0.05 Industrial 0 0 0 0 Historical and Projected Demand (ADWF in millions of gallons per day)2 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 0.24 0.20 0.26 0.33 0.42 Note: (1) NA: Not Applicable; NP: Not Provided. (2) Projections are based on the five percent annual average growth rate assumed in the City's Wastewater Master Plan and actual flows from 2010. continued CITY OF PORTOLA cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 55 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY Wastewater Infrastructure Wastewater Collection, Treatment & Disposal Infrastructure System Overview Treatment level: Secondary Disposal method: Stored in a storage pond and discharged to 1.8 acres of constructed wetland adjacent to the river from November 1st to August 15th. Facility Name Capacity Condition Year Built Portola WWTP 0.5 mgd (ADWF) Good NP 2 aeration ponds (1 emergency pond) 3.69 mg Good NP 5 stabilization ponds 23.15 mg Good NP Storage pond 7.5 mg Good NP North lift station 250 gpm Good NP South lift station 400 gpm Good NP Collection & Distribution Infrastructure Sewer Pipe Miles 1 6 Sewage Lift Stations 2 Treatment Plant Daily Flow (mgd) ADWF (mgd) % of ADWF Capacity in Use Peak Wet (mgd) Peaking Factor 0.2 40% 1.48 7.40 Infiltration and Inflow In the past, the City's collection system suffered from significant I/I, which resulted in improvements to the system in the late 90's. However, the system still suffers from a high peak wet weather flow which is mostly attributed to excessive inflow to the southern collection system during rain events. Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies The two issues that are currently threatening the wastewater system are: a)inflow and infiltration, and b)significantly diminished treatment pond capacity from sludge buildup and lack of regular maintenance. Wastewater Facility Sharing Facility Sharing Practices The City does not presently share wastewater facilities with other agencies or departments. Administration for the wastewater services are provided by the City's general government, which provides management efficiencies and cost minimization. In addition, the water and wastewater utilities operated by the City share employees. Facility Sharing Opportunities Regionalization of sewer services in the Delleker/Portola is a potential opportunity for facility sharing and regional collaboration. Joint efforts between the two agencies may maximize efficiencies, reduce costs, and aid the agency's to better leverage available resources. continued CITY OF PORTOLA cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 56 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY Wastewater Rates and Financing Wastewater Rates-Ongoing Charges FY 10-111 Avg. Monthly Rate Description Charges Demand2 Residential Flat monthly rate of $25.24 $25.24 250 gpd Rate Zones None Rate-Setting Procedures Last Rate Change 7/1/2010 Frequency of Rate Changes Every 2-3 years Wastewater Development Fees and Requirements Fee Approach Connection and facility fees are dependent on meter size Connection Fee Amount3 Residential: $1,100 Development Impact Fee Residential: $5,324 (5/8" meter) Wastewater Enterprise Revenues, FY 09-10 Operating Expenditures, FY 09-10 Source Amount Amount Total $469,267 100% Total $579,112 Rates & Charges $465,867 99% Administration $62,009 Property Tax $0 0% O & M $395,179 Grants $0 0% Capital Depreciation $93,230 Interest $3,400 1% Debt $28,694 Connection Fees $0 0% Other $0 Notes: (1) Rates include wastewater-related service charges and strength and flow charges. Average monthly charges calculated based on average consumption. Rates are rounded for presentation. (2) Wastewater use assumptions by customer type were used to calculate average monthly charges. Assumed use levels are 250 gallons per home per day, and are consistent countywide for comparison purposes. (3) Connection fee amount is calculated for a single-family home. CITY OF PORTOLA cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 57 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY WWAATTEERR SSEERRVVIICCEESS Service Overview Portola provides water for domestic consumption and fire flow. The City owns and operates the water storage, treatment and distribution system that serves the City. All services are provided directly by city staff. There are two FTEs dedicated to water services. As of 2011, the City provides water services to 1200 connections. Water services are provided within the City’s limits and to 113 connections just outside of the City’s boundaries to the north of Joy Road and portions of the Portola Heights neighborhood. Within the City’s limits, Teanna Ranch is the only area where water services are not available. There are no other lots that are unserved and rely on wells within the city limits. Facilities and Capacity Water Supplies Water Source and Rights The current sources of city water supply include 1) Willow Creek Springs and 2) groundwater pumped at two municipal wells. The City also has 3) rights to four separate spring sources, as well as 4) contract water from Lake Davis; however, these two supply sources are not presently in use. The City plans to resume use of water from Lake Davis in the summer of 2011. The City has appropriative water rights, dating from 1943, of up to 875.9 af of water from Willow Creek.25 In addition, the City has appropriative water rights of up to 600 af from “five unnamed springs tributary to an unnamed stream thence Willow Creek and seven unnamed springs tributary to Willow Creek...”26 Between the two licenses, the City may not divert more than 1.8 cubic feet per second from the springs and Willow Creek at any given time. The numerous spring outcrops at Willow Creek Springs are collected several feet below ground surface in collection galleries consisting of gravel embedded perforated plastic pipe or concrete masonry units laid on their sides. The water is conducted from the collection galleries to manholes along the transmission main through collecting branch pipelines. Production of the spring varies somewhat throughout the year. Flows were previously estimated to be between 200 gpm (summer months) and 300 gpm (winter months); 25 1.6 cubic feet per second from March 1 to December 1. 26 1.17 cubic feet per second all year round. CITY OF PORTOLA cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 58 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY however, with the closure of two springs due to high turbidity, recent estimates show that flows average about 150 gpm.27 The City pumps water from the Humbug Valley Groundwater Basin. The Department of Water Resources estimates storage capacity of the basin to be 76,000 acre-feet to a depth of 100 feet.28 Groundwater extraction for municipal and industrial uses is estimated to be 200 acre-feet. Deep percolation of applied water is estimated to be 200 acre-feet, meaning that the amount pumped by users is replaced by groundwater recharge. The City and Grizzly Lake Resort Improvement District are the only public users of the Humbug Valley Basin. Neither agency has a groundwater management plan. The City reported that there had been no periods of significant drawdown and there is little noticeable change in available water during droughts.29 The City has claimed water rights through Statements of Diversion and Water Use to four separate spring sources on Beckwourth Peak, south of the City—Turner, Malloy, Golden and Darby.30 The total estimated capacity of these springs is 170 gpm (270 acre-feet per year). The City stopped using the springs as a water source in 1971, after the Lake Davis water became available. At that time the Lake Davis water was considered more reliable and subject to fewer potential health hazards. The City has historically received water from Lake Davis through a contract with Plumas County Flood Control and Water Conservation District. The original allotment was made in 1968 and increases annually through 2027 to 1,350 acre feet. As of 2007, Portola’s contract reservation of water was 599.1 acre feet. The City ceased use of the Lake Davis supply when, in 1997, the California Department of Fish and Game (DFG) treated the lake in an attempt to remove the invasive Northern Pike fish. Although Lake Davis is not currently being used as a source by the City, the City intends to return to the use of Lake Davis water in the summer of 2011 following the completion of a new 1.5 mgd treatment plant. At that time, the City intends to take the wells offline and use them only in cases of emergency. Quality Willow Creek Springs generally has water of high quality that does not require treatment; however, the water has occasionally had high levels of turbidity during storm events and rapid snowmelt. The DPH has directed the City to continue daily turbidity samples. 27 Department of Public Health, Annual System Inspection Report, 2010, p. 3. 28 Department of Water Resources, California’s Groundwater Bulletin 118 – Humbug Valley Groundwater Basin, 2004, p. 1. 29 Interview with Todd Roberts, Portola Director of Public Works, March 17, 2011. 30 A Statement of Diversion and Use for Darby Springs is not on file with the Department of Water Resources. CITY OF PORTOLA cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 59 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY While the Humbug Valley Groundwater Basin is considered to have high quality water that does not require treatment, there have been arsenic levels that exceed the MCL at both of the City’s wells. The City reported that recent tests during the last half of 2010 and the beginning of 2011 had not detected arsenic.31 The City reports that although the four springs are not in use, the water quality is good. While there is some public concern regarding the quality of the lake water due to the previous treatments, the water will be treated to required national and state standards. Existing and Projected Water Use According the City’s Water Master Plan from 2007, the City had a sustained yield source capacity of approximately 950 gpm or 1.37 mgd and a short term ability to produce 1100 gpm or 1.58 mgd. This is composed of the Maintenance Yard Well, Commercial Street Well, and Willow Springs. However, given the arsenic levels in the Maintenance Yard Well, that well is only for emergency purposes, and due to the closure of two springs the estimated average flow of the springs has dropped to 150 gpm. Consequently, it is estimated that as of the drafting of this report the City had a sustained yield source capacity of 650 gpm or 0.94 mgd which is below the City’s maximum day demand. When the Lake Davis treatment plant comes online in 2011, the City will have a combined maximum source capacity of approximately 2.58 mgd, including the well capacity that will be used for emergency purposes. In 2010, city demand for water averaged 0.6 mgd, or 64 percent of the City’s sustainable yield water supply (less the Lake Davis WTP). Based on the City’s assumption of five percent annual average growth, and contingent upon the completion of the Lake Davis plant, the City should have sufficient source capacity to service demand through at least 2030. Treatment and Distribution Facilities The City owns a subterranean water collection system on 160 acres at Willow Creek Springs, located approximately four miles northwest of the City. Willow Creek was originally developed by the City in 1957. The source was further improved with the construction of underground galleries in 1974. The water is delivered to the City’s terminal facility through an a nine-mile steel line consisting of 8 inch pipe. A 1958 report by the state Department of Public Health reported the pipe capacity at 667 gpm, more than double the output of the springs. Though this has decreased markedly with age, the delivery system probably has some unused available capacity. Springs #5 and #6 are offline as they are the main sources of high turbidity in the system.32 While the water is of high quality, the water from the springs is chlorinated as a precautionary measure. Disinfection occurs at the Willow Springs metering point upstream from the 1,000,000 31 Interview with Todd Roberts, Portola Director of Public Works, March 17, 2011. 32 Department of Public Health, Annual Inspection Report, 2010, p. 2. CITY OF PORTOLA cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 60 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY gallon tank on the north side. The 1,000,000 gallon tank is used as contact time prior to entering the distribution system. The City operates two wells located on the south side of town. The Maintenance Yard Well, located in the Portola Corporation Yard at First and Main Streets was drilled in 1993 and fully improved as a municipal water supply in 1995. The well has consistently yielded 300 to 320 gpm. This well is presently offline due to historically high levels of arsenic, although recent tests, at the end of 2010 and beginning of 2011, have not detected arsenic. The Commercial Street Park Well, located at the intersection of Commercial Street and Gulling Street, was put in service in 1998. This well has an estimated sustained yield of 600 gpm. While this well has had levels of arsenic at certain times that exceed the MCL, this well is still online. Because the City currently relies primarily on groundwater sources of generally high quality, the well water is not routinely disinfected. The City plans to take the wells offline once the Lake Davis treatment plant becomes active, and maintain them for emergency purposes only. The City constructed a third well located at 6th and Pacific Streets in 2010, which is to be used only for emergency flows. The well has a capacity of 150 gpm. The City owns facilities that were previously operative when the Turner, Malloy, Golden and Darby springs were in use. Approximately 30,000 feet of antiquated and substandard water lines connect the spring sources with the City’s distribution system. Development of these springs for future use would require improvements to collect the water below ground (below root level) and a new delivery pipeline system. The cost of such improvements is unknown, but likely to be substantial relative to the amount of water that can be delivered. Due to the relatively high cost and the uncertainty surrounding the Golden Springs source, the City currently has no plans to pursue its development. The original Lake Davis Water Treatment Plant, currently not in service, was constructed as part of the State Water Project, and commenced deliveries to the City in 1970. A new water treatment plant is planned to be opened at Lake Davis in 2011. The Army Corps of Engineers is overseeing plant construction. Ownership of the plant will be transferred from the Plumas County Flood Control and Water Conservation District to the City after completion. The City’s distribution system is composed of steel (25 percent), C900 (14 percent), asbestos cement (55 percent), and iron (six percent) piping. DPH reported that the steel and iron piping were generally in fair condition, and the C900 and asbestos cement piping was in good condition. Storage Facilities and Emergency Supply All of the City’s supply and storage facilities are in good operating order and comply with current water supply standards. Water storage for the city is in three covered, above- ground steel tanks. The Northside tank is a 1 million-gallon facility installed in 1976. A 200,000 gallon tank and a 500,000 gallon tank located south of the high school serves the City south of the river. CITY OF PORTOLA cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 61 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY With a combined total storage of 1,700,000 gallons, the existing service area currently has sufficient storage. The only challenge with the current storage configuration is that the North-side tank provides limited functionality for diurnal storage purposes since there is no way currently to get water into the north side tank from the existing wells. Recovery rates for the North-side tank are limited to the output of Willow Springs. This condition will be remedied when the Lake Davis Treatment Plant is operable since the treated surface water will enter the City distribution system at the North-side tank.33 No redundancy is available in the system and a water shortage could exist on peak demand days if any existing sources were out of service. Once the Lake Davis plant comes online, the potential for a shortage will be eliminated. Infrastructure Needs This section discusses existing infrastructure needs not related to growth induced needs that are planned for in the City’s Water Master Plan. While the City needs additional water supply to meet maximum day demand,34 the Lake Davis Water Treatment Plant is anticipated to rectify this deficiency in 2011. The two other significant deficiencies that presently need to be addressed in the City’s water system are 1) the presence of arsenic in the well water, and 2) inadequate fire flow in several areas. Arsenic Removal Two of the City’s wells have exceeded arsenic MCLs on several occasions. The Maintenance Yard Well is presently offline, and is only used for emergency purposes. In order to continue utilizing these two sources, it will be necessary for the City to treat at least one of the sources for arsenic. It is anticipated that any treatment strategy would include a combination of arsenic treatment and blending to achieve the required objective. Consequently, a new pipeline will be required from the Commercial Street site to the Maintenance Yard site so that one treatment/blending process can be constructed to achieve the necessary arsenic levels. A portion of the existing maintenance yard could be used as a site for the treatment facility.35 The City does not presently have plans to address the arsenic issue, as the wells will be in standby after this summer and the arsenic has declined to undetectable levels over the last year. Fire Flow Most of the distribution system appears to have adequate fire flow with a few exceptions. Some weak areas are found on the north side of the highway near Rocky Point 33 City of Portola, Water Master Plan, 2007, p. 5-5. 34 Ibid, p. 7-8. 35 Ibid, p. 7-8. CITY OF PORTOLA cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 62 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY Road, Meadow Way, Ellen Avenue, Magnolia Avenue, and Cherry Circle. One will note a few other isolated areas that appear throughout the system with minimum fire flow. Questionable fire flow also exists within the commercial corridor along Highway 70. Much of this area along the south side of the highway is fed from a 4" steel pipe. The addition of a larger main line or replacement of the existing 4" pipe would be required to allow for the construction of a commercial building of significant size. Available fire flow should be at least 2,000 gpm in commercially designated areas. Commercial areas to the east of Gulling St. are also in need of improved fire flow. The current distribution system could not support the addition of a new commercial structure in this area. The high density apartments located near the intersection of Meadow Way and Highway 70 are significantly lacking in fire flow. Unfortunately, modeling results suggest that the only way to get adequate fire flow of at least 1,000 gpm to this area would require replacement of one of the pipelines along Highway 70 or additional looping of pipelines from the north.36 The Master Plan identifies several improvements to rectify the fire flow deficiencies. To date, none of these proposed improvements have been completed. Challenges The primary challenges to water services for the City are addressing arsenic levels in excess of maximum contaminant limits and ensuring sufficient fire flow in all areas of the City. Service Adequacy This section reviews indicators of service adequacy, including the Department of Public Health’s (DPH) annual system evaluation, drinking water quality, and distribution system integrity. The DPH is responsible for the enforcement of the federal and California Safe Drinking Water Acts and the operational permitting and regulatory oversight of public water systems. Domestic water providers of at least 200 connections are subject to inspections by DPH. During the Department of Public Health’s most recent annual inspection in 2010, DPH reports that the City’s system “appears to be well operated and maintained in professional manner that meets good waterworks practices.”37 Drinking water quality is determined by a combination of historical violations reported by the EPA since 2000 and the percent of time that the City was in compliance with Primary Drinking Water Regulations in 2010. Since 2000, the City has had 12 health violations due to arsenic exceedances at the wells. This equates to approximately 11 violations per 1,000 connections served. By comparison, the other water providers in the 36 Ibid, p. 5-6. 37 Department of Public Health, Annual Inspection Report, 2010, p. 8. CITY OF PORTOLA cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 63 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY eastern region of the County had a median of 21 violations per 1,000 connections served during that same time frame. Water service providers in the region were in compliance 96 percent of the time on average in 2010. The City was in compliance with drinking water regulations 50 percent of the time, which was below the regional average. It is noteworthy that the City was only out of compliance on two separate arsenic tests; however, as the tests are completed quarterly, if the City is out of compliance on one test that equates to being out of compliance for three months. Indicators of distribution system integrity are the number of breaks and leaks in 2010 and the rate of unaccounted for distribution loss. The City reported 49 breaks and leaks per 100 miles of pipe lines in 2010, while other providers in the region had a median rate of 12 breaks per 100 pipe miles. The City loses approximately 13 percent of water between the water source and the connections served, which was relatively high compared to other providers in the area that averaged seven percent distribution losses. Figure 4-9: City of Portola Water Service Adequacy Indicators Water Service Adequacy and Efficiency Indicators Service Adequacy Indicators Connections/FTE 511 O&M Cost Ratio1 $624,709 MGD Delivered/FTE 0.30 Distribution Loss Rate 13% Distribution Breaks & Leaks (2010) 12 Distribution Break Rate2 49.0 Water Pressure 20 to 120 psi Total Employees (FTEs) 2 Customer Complaints CY 2010: Odor/taste (4), leaks (0), pressure (0), other (0) Drinking Water Quality Regulatory Information3 # Description Health Violations 12 Exceedances of arsenic MCL (2007, 2008, 2009, 2010) Monitoring Violations 0 DW Compliance Rate4 50% Notes: (1) Operations and maintenance costs (exc. purchased water, debt, depreciation) per volume (mgd) delivered. (2) Distribution break rate is the number of leaks and pipeline breaks per 100 miles of distribution piping. (3) Violations since 2000, as reported by the U.S. EPA Safe Drinking Water Information System. (4) Drinking water compliance is percent of time in compliance with National Primary Drinking Water Regulations in 2010. CITY OF PORTOLA cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 64 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY Figure 4-10: City of Portola Water Service Tables Water Service Configuration & Infrastructure Water Service Provider(s) Water Service Provider(s) Retail Water Portola Groundwater Recharge Portola Wholesale Water PCFCD Groundwater Extraction Portola Water Treatment Portola Recycled Water None Service Area Description Retail Water The area within the City limits as well as 113 connections to the north of Joy Road, and portions of the Portola Heights neighborhood. Wholesale Water NA Recycled Water NA Water Sources Supply (Acre-Feet/Year) Source Type Average Maximum Safe/Firm Humbug Valley Basin Groundwater 356 1,453 200 2 Willow Creek Surface Water 0 875.9 12 unnamed springs that Groundwater 316 600 241.5 flow into Willow Creek Lake Davis Surface Water 0 1,682 Unknown Turner, Malloy, Golden and Groundwater 0 Unknown 274 Darby Springs System Overview Average Daily Demand 0.6 mgd Peak Day Demand 1.1 mgd Major Facilities Facility Name Type Capacity Condition Yr Built Northside Tank Storage 1 mg Good 1976 Southside Tank #1 Storage 0.5 mg Good 1987 Southside Tank #2 Storage 0.20 mg Good 1983 Willow Creek Springs Storage/Source 150 gpm3 Good 1957/1974 Underground Galleries Maintenance Yard Well Well 300 gpm Poor4 1993 Commercial Street Well Well 600 gpm Fair 1998 6th and Pacific Street Well Well 150 gpm Excellent 2010 Lake Davis Treatment Plant Treatment 1.5 mgd Excellent 2011 Other Infrastructure Reservoirs - Storage Capacity (mg) 1.70 mg Pump Stations 0 Pressure Zones 2 Production Wells 3 Pipe Miles 25 Facility-Sharing and Regional Collaboration Current Practices: The City does not presently share water facilities with other agencies or departments. Administration for the water services are provided by the City's general government, which provides management efficiencies and cost minimization. In addition, the water and wastewater utilities operated by the City share employees. Opportunities: The City did not identify any opportunities for future facility sharing related to water services. Notes: (1) NA means Not Applicable, NP means Not Provided, mg means millions of gallons, af means acre-feet. (2) Based on the groundwater recharge rate reported by the Department of Water Resources. (3) The capacity of the springs was recently reduced from 250 gpm to 150 gpm. (4) The well is presently offline due to high arsenic levels. CITY OF PORTOLA cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 65 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY Water Demand and Supply Service Connections Total Inside Bounds Outside Bounds Total 1,022 909 113 Irrigation/Landscape 8 8 0 Domestic 904 791 113 Commercial/Industrial/Institutional 110 110 0 Recycled 0 0 0 Other 0 0 0 Average Annual Demand Information (Acre-Feet per Year)1 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 Total 547 732 585 746 952 1,216 1,551 Residential 397 531 424 541 690 881 1,125 Commercial/Industrial 181 243 194 247 316 403 514 Irrigation/Landscape 79 106 84 108 137 175 224 Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Supply Information (Acre-feet per Year) 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 Total 629 841 672 858 1,095 1,397 1,783 Imported 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Groundwater 629 841 672 403 515 657 838 Surface2 0 0 0 455 580 741 945 Recycled 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Drought Supply and Plans Drought Supply (af)3 Year 1: Unknown Year 2: Unknown Year 3: Unknown Storage Practices Storage is for treatment and short-term emergency supply only. Drought Plan The City maintains a water rationing plan for odd and even days during periods of drought. Water Conservation Practices CUWCC Signatory No Metering Yes Conservation Pricing Yes Other Practices None Notes: (1) Annual demand estimated based on 13 percent distribution loss in 2010 reported by the City. (2) The projected use of surface water assumes that once the Lake Davis WTP is online it will replace all well production. (3) The City has not estimated available supply during a three year drought. During past droughts, the City reported that it has experienced little difference in groundwater and spring levels. CITY OF PORTOLA cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 66 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY Water Rates and Financing Residential Water Rates-Ongoing Charges FY 10-111 Avg. Monthly Rate Description Charges Consumption2 Base monthly rate $24.55 for 5,000 gallons Residential (5/8" meter), $2.39 per 1,000 gallons used $ 30.76 7,600 gal/month over base rate Rate-Setting Procedures Most Recent Rate Change 7/1/10 Frequency of Rate Changes Every 2-3 years Water Development Fees and Requirements Fee Approach Connection and facility fees are dependent on meter size and includes a meter fee to cover the equipment installed Connection Fee Amount $1,375/Single Family Unit Development Impact Fee $4,015/Single Family Unit Water Enterprise Revenues, FY 09-10 Operating Expenditures, FY 09-10 Source Amount % Amount Total $636,995 100% Total $663,150 Rates & charges $512,811 81% Administration $82,363 Property tax $0 0% O & M $374,825 Grants $0 0% Capital Depreciation $114,549 Interest $2,267 0.4% Debt $91,413 Connection Fees $0 0% Purchased Water $0 Other: Lake Davis Reimbursmnt $121,917 19% Other $0 Notes: (1) Rates include water-related service charges and usage charges. (2) Water use assumptions were used to calculate average monthly bills. Assumed use levels are consistent countywide for comparison purposes. CITY OF PORTOLA cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 67 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY FFIIRREE AANNDD EEMMEERRGGEENNCCYY SSEERRVVIICCEESS Service Overview City of Portola Fire Department provides fire suppression and Basic Life Support services. Ambulance and Advanced Life Support services are provided by the Eastern Plumas Healthcare District. Care Flight and My Life Flight provide air ambulance services. Fire helicopter is provided by USFS and CalFire. Collaboration City of Portola provides fire services to Gold Mountain CSD by contract. These services were previously provided through a LAFCo-approved Out-of-Area Service Agreement until 2010, when the OASA expired and the LAFCo Executive Officer advised the two agencies that an OASA was not necessary for an agreement between two public entities. The fire department has mutual aid agreements with Beckwourth Fire Protection District and Eastern Plumas Rural Fire Protection District. The City of Portola Fire Department staff participates in the Plumas County Fire Chiefs Association and the Fire Safe Council. Dispatch The County Sheriff is the Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP); consequently, most land line emergency calls (9-1-1 calls) are directed to the Sheriff. Most cell phone emergency calls (9-1-1 calls) are answered by CHP and redirected to the Sheriff. The Sheriff provides dispatching for most fire providers in the County except for the ones in northern part of the County, which are served by the CHP Susanville Dispatch Center. The Forest Service has its own dispatch. The sheriff dispatch center has a first responder map, which it uses to identify what provider to dispatch to an incident. All territory within the County has a determined first responder; although, many areas lie outside the LAFCo- approved boundary of the districts and lack an officially designated fire provider. The City reported that there had been recent improvements to the GIS mapping and consequently understanding of boundaries. The improvements have helped with confusion as to which parcels are in the City and which ones are in the County. There are occasional communication problems with dispatch. According to the City, dispatch times need to be provided more consistently. When multiple agencies respond to an incident, the responders are coordinated through a central incident command per OES. The incident commander is the highest ranking officer on site. Radio frequencies are shared with other fire providers in the County. CITY OF PORTOLA cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 68 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY Staffing City of Portola Fire Department has 16 sworn personnel—three Chief Officers, three Line Officers, and ten Firefighters. The Fire Department has no paid employees, but each firefighter gets paid $10 per service call. Fire personnel receive their compensation once a year at a holiday party. The City has 30 Volunteer Firefighter positions available. Although the fire department has never been fully staffed, it has been able to adequately provide the necessary services. The Department is currently staffed with 23 Firefighters, which is sufficient for the department’s current needs. The City continuously recruits for new and additional volunteers by making itself visible at community events (Portola Fire Department Beef Feed, Railroad Days, Concerts in the Park, etc.), hanging a “Volunteers Needed” banner when necessary, and providing information to new residents. According to the California State Fire Marshal, all volunteer and call firefighters must acquire Firefighter I certification; however, there is no time limit as to how long they may work before attaining certification. Firefighter I certification requires completion of the 259-hour Firefighter I course, which includes training on various fire ground tasks, rescue operations, fire prevention and investigation techniques, and inspection and maintenance of equipment. In addition to this course, Firefighter I certification also requires that the applicant have a minimum of six months of volunteer or call experience in a California fire department as a firefighter performing suppression duties.38 All three Chief Officers at the City’s Fire Department are trained at the FFI/FFII levels, with secondary certifications of wild land firefighting, command operations, hazmat operations and firefighting training certifications. They are also trained as paramedics to first responder level. Three Line Officers are trained at the FFI level and EMT to first responder. Ten Firefighters are trained at the FFI level, with secondary certifications of wild land firefighting, hazmat operations, confined space rescue and paramedic to first responder level. The Fire Department holds two-hour training sessions every week in the evenings. Additional trainings are held on the weekends as weather permits. Generally, the training sessions are attended by five to twenty volunteers. The City reports that it is a challenge to attain State-mandated training levels for volunteers since it is difficult to ensure that a volunteer has enough time to participate in training. Facilities and Capacity The City of Portola owns and operates two fire stations—North Side Fire Hall and South Side Fire Hall. North Side Fire Hall, which was built in 1984, was reported to be in fair condition. The station houses one Type I engine, one Type IV engine, a 3,500-gallon water tender, and a 38 State Fire Marshall, Course Information and Required Materials, 2007, p. 44 CITY OF PORTOLA cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 69 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY rescue squad truck. South Side Fire Hall, which was built in the 1940s, was also reported to be in fair condition. This station contains two Type II engines and one Type V utility wildland vehicle. There are no set hours when the stations are staffed. Volunteers are always on call. The goal of the fire department is to have personnel on the way within two to three minutes from 8am to 8pm and within five minutes from 8pm to 8am. The City’s water reserves are represented by three water storage tanks that provide a combined emergency water supply of 1.75 million gallons. As discussed previously in the Water section of this chapter, the City Engineer has identified a potential fire flow deficiency within portions of the City resulting from the elevation relative to, and the distance from, the south storage tank. This will be resolved by constructing a new water storage tank at a higher elevation on the south side of the city, and construction of new water distribution lines to serve the other areas. The City has not yet scheduled these improvements. Portola Fire Department identified no opportunities for service improvements and reported that it had adequate capacity to serve current and future developments in the City. Infrastructure Needs The City reported that both fire stations needed ADA accessibility improvements, which have not been completed due to financing constraints. There is also a need for a medical rescue truck with wildland fire suppression capabilities. There are currently no specific plans for facility improvements or vehicle acquisition. The City did not identify any possible additional financing sources to cover the costs of improvements. Challenges The City did not identify any difficult-to-serve areas or any other challenges to providing fire services. However, the following challenges were identified by the authors:  The City lacks adequate fire flow in certain high-density residential areas.  Delivering services to Gold Mountain CSD is a challenge due to its remoteness from the City. CITY OF PORTOLA cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 70 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY Service Adequacy While there are several benchmarks that may define the level of fire service provided by an agency, indicators of service adequacy discussed here include ISO ratings, response times, and level of staffing and station resources for the service area. Fire services in the communities are classified by the Insurance Service Office (ISO), an advisory organization. This classification indicates the general adequacy of coverage. Communities with the best fire department facilities, systems for water distribution, fire alarms and communications, and equipment and personnel receive a rating of 1. The City of Portola fire department has an ISO rating of 5/8B—5 within the city limits and 8B in Gold Mountain. The City did not provide the date of the last ISO evaluation. The guideline established by the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) for fire response times is six minutes at least 90 percent of the time, with response time measured from the 911-call time to the arrival time of the first-responder at the scene. The fire response time guideline established by the Center for Public Safety Excellence (formerly the Commission on Fire Accreditation International) is 5 minutes 50 seconds at least 90 percent of the time.39 Emergency response time standards vary by level of urbanization of an area: the more urban an area, the faster a response has to be. The California EMS Agency established the following response time guidelines: five minutes in urban areas, 15 minutes in suburban or rural areas, and as quickly as possible in wildland areas. Most of the City’s response zone is considered rural by the Local EMS Agency. The City reported that its fire department’s response time was between 10 and 20 minutes depending on volunteer response time and location of an incident. One area that the City can improve upon is tracking its fire department’s response time for each incident. The service area size40 for each fire station varies between fire districts. The median fire station in eastern Plumas serves approximately 20 square miles. Sierra Valley FPD serves the most expansive area, with 111 square miles served per station on average. Densely populated areas tend to have smaller service areas. For example, the average service area for the City of Portola is 3.8 square miles. The number of firefighters serving within a particular jurisdiction is another indicator of level of service; however, it is approximate. The providers’ call firefighters may have differing availability and reliability. An agency with more firefighters could have fewer resources if availability is restricted. Staffing levels in eastern Plumas vary from eight call firefighters per 1,000 residents in City of Portola service area to 42 in Beckwourth FD. 39 Commission on Fire Accreditation International, 2000. 40 Service area refers to the area that the agency will respond to, based on a first responder map used by the Sherriff’s office. CITY OF PORTOLA cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 71 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY Figure 4-11: City of Portola Fire Department Fire Profile Fire Service Facilities Firestation Location Condition Staff per Shift Vehicles North Side Fire Hall 420 North Fair Unstaffed Type I Engine, Type IV Engine, Water Gulling St., Tender, Rescue Squad Portola, CA South Side Fire Hall 301 First Ave., Fair Unstaffed 2 Type II Engines, Type V Engine Portola, CA Facility Sharing Current Practices: The City does not currently share its facilities with other agencies. Future opportunities: EPHCD may start to house its ambulance equipment and crew at the South Side Fire Hall. Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies The City identified a need for ADA accessibility improvements to both fire stations and a medical rescue truck with wildland fire supression capabilities. City Resource Statistics Service Configuration Service Demand Staffing Base Year 2010 Configuration Base Year 2010 Statistical Base Year 2010 Fire Stations in District 2 Fire Suppression Direct Total Service Calls 260 Stations Serving District 2 EMS Direct % EMS 78% Sq. Miles Served per Station1 3.8 Ambulance Transport EPHCD % Fire/Hazardous Materials 8% Total Staff2 16 Hazardous Materials Direct % False 3% Total Full-time Firefighters 0 Air Rescue/Ambulance Helicopter CareFlight % Misc. emergency 10% Total Call Firefighters 16 Fire Suppression Helicopter USFS, CalFire % Non-emergency 0.4% Total Sworn Staff per Station3 8 Public Safety Answering Point Sheriff % Mutual Aid Calls 2% Total Sworn Staff per 1,000 8 Fire/EMS Dispatch Sheriff Calls per 1,000 people 130 Service Adequacy Service Challenges Response Time Base Year 2010 No service challenges were identified. Median Response Time (min) NP Training Two hour training sessions are held weekly in the evenings. Additional 90th Percentile Response Time (min) NP trainings are held on weekends as weather permits. Generally, 5 to 20 volunteers participate in trainin sessions, depending on personel ISO Rating 5/8B availability. Mutual & Automatic Aid Agreements The City of Portola has mutual aid agreements with Beckwourth FPD and EPRFPD. Notes: 1) Primary service area (square miles) per station. 2) Total staff includes sworn and non-sworn personnel. 3) Based on ratio of sworn full-time and call staff to the number of stations. Actual staffing levels of each station vary. CITY OF PORTOLA cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 72 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY PPAARRKK AANNDD RREECCRREEAATTIIOONN SSEERRVVIICCEESS Service Overview The City of Portola owns and operates one community park, one neighborhood park, five pocket parks and the riverfront recreation corridor along the Feather River. The purpose of the City of Portola parks is to provide recreation amenities, space for public gatherings to attract visitors, space for music, exhibitions, craft fairs and other public events. With the community park to the south of the Feather River and the neighborhood park to the north of the river, there is a park within walking distance of all residents of the City.41 The City provides a series of parks within convenient walking distance of one another and linked by a pedestrian system consisting of sidewalks and trails through open space areas. The City collects a Parkland Development Fee and/or requires new residential developments to dedicate land for parks and recreation services and facilities.42 Staffing The parks and facilities are maintained directly by one FTE city employee and two seasonal personnel. Facilities and Capacity The City’s recreation infrastructure consists of seven parks and the riverfront recreation corridor. Details on each facility are discussed below. City Park City Park is a community park,43 which is located on South Gulling Street. It consists of approximately 14 acres and is divided into northern and southern parts. The northern grounds encompass: a community identification monument sign, a swimming pool, changing rooms, play structure, restrooms, a skate park, a pavilion, BBQ pits, a dance floor, pergolas, picnic tables, horseshoe pits, grass event space, and tennis courts.44 The southern 41 City of Portola General Plan, Public Services and Facilities Element, 2010, p. 6-17. 42 Wood Rodgers, City of Portola parks and Recreation Master Plan, Draft, 2010, Introduction, p. 1. 43 As described in the City of Portola Parks and Recreation Master Plan, a community park is a centrally located park that offers a wide range of recreational activities and appeals to all age groups. A community park is generally defined as being 10 to 30 acres in size. 44 Wood Rodgers, City of Portola Parks and Recreation Master Plan, Draft, 2010, Parks and Recreation Inventory, p. 1. CITY OF PORTOLA cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 73 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY portion of the park contains a little league field, a high school softball field, a practice softball/little league field, bleachers, a batting cage, and a snack bar. The City Park is in good overall condition. The little league and softball fields, swimming pool, safe fall surrounding the play structure, pavilion with the BBQ, buffet, dance floor, wind screens on the tennis courts, and the skate park are in good working order and are maintained on a regular basis. The City identified the following needed improvements to the park:  Parking and handicap accessible parking near the southern ball fields;  More parking near the northern portion of the park;  Improved restroom facilities at all parks;  Better pedestrian access around the ball fields;  Sign identifying the City Park;  Repair the cracks at the tennis courts;  Repair the batting cage;  Maybe demolition of the small ballfield in the center field area of the upper softball field.45 Baldwin Park Baldwin Park is a neighborhood park,46 which is located in the north-central part of the City of Portola on the southeast corner of Beckwith Street and Joy Way. The park, which is over five acres in size, includes the following facilities: a ball field and backstop, restrooms, basketball court, play structure and tot-lot, picnic tables, and BBQ pits.47 There was a fire at Baldwin Park in the summer of 2010, which resulted in the loss of the playground structure. The City is in the process of installing new ADA compliant playground equipment. The replacement cost of the equipment is covered by insurance. Other than the playground equipment, the park is considered to be in fair condition, but lacks identity and is underutilized, according to the City’s Parks and Recreation Master Plan. The ball fields, play area and basketball court are not well kept. Restrooms contain 45 Wood Rodgers, City of Portola Parks and Recreation Master Plan, Draft, 2010, Parks and Recreation Inventory, p. 2. 46 As described in the City of Portola Parks and Recreation Master Plan, Neighborhood Park is a park that serves the basic recreational needs of the City. The facilities and activities usually depend on the family type and needs of the residents. Neighborhood parks are usually three to ten acres in size. 47 Wood Rodgers, City of Portola Parks and Recreation Master Plan, Draft, 2010, Parks and Recreation Inventory, p. 4. CITY OF PORTOLA cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 74 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY graffiti. The basketball court has cracks in the asphalt with weeds growing through and does not have a hoop. The following improvements were identified in the Parks and Recreation Master Plan:  Landscaping to give the park more identity;  Park clean-up and weeding;  Internal pathway system to provide access from the street to park structures and facilities;  Additional safe fall material around the play structure;  Fix the broken basketball hoop and seal the cracks on the court;  Improve the ball field to make it suitable for tee-ball games or practice facility;  Consider additional park uses, such as a BMX bike park and dog park.48 Carmichael Elementary School Carmichael Elementary School is a ten acre neighborhood park located in the City of Portola, but is not owned by the City. It is owned and maintained by Plumas County in conjunction with the Plumas Unified School District. The park is divided into park and ball field areas. The ball field portion contains a large multi-use field area currently used for soccer, and baseball diamond with dugouts. The ball field part is considered in poor condition and not suitable for use by the City. The park has sufficient parking and could be developed into a multi-use soccer complex. The park is only available to the general public during non-school hours. Although this park is not owned by the City, it is made available for use by the public and as such is included here as an indicator of park service level in the City. The following needed improvements were identified for Carmichael Elementary School:  Better irrigation and overall maintenance of multi-use field area;  Development of pedestrian access from the parking lot to the fields;  Better dirt surface and weeding on western ball field to make it suitable for little league or softball practice;  Mow the small turf ball field with backstop to make it usable as a practice facility. 48 Wood Rodgers, City of Portola Parks and Recreation Master Plan, Draft, 2010, Parks and Recreation Inventory, p. 5. CITY OF PORTOLA cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 75 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY Bench Park Bench Park is a 3,000 square feet pocket park49 located on the southeast corner of Commercial and California Streets next to downtown center. The park contains a “Welcome to Old Town” sign and serves as a rest stop with turf grass, benches and trees. It is in good condition and is regularly maintained. One desired improvement identified by the City is to provide a hard surface path from the sidewalks to the benches.50 Clock Park Clock Park is a 10,000-square foot pocket park located at the entrance to downtown Portola at South Gulling and Commercial Streets. It serves as an identity-creating front door to the downtown area and functions as a town square. The park has a decorative clock, two pergolas, decorative lighting, and benches. No needed improvements were identified.51 Caboose Park Caboose Park is also a pocket park. It consists of about 12,000 square feet and is located on the south side of Commercial Street. The park includes a red caboose, a parking lot and a picnic table. It is underutilized because of limited access to the caboose. Identified improvements include landscaping around the caboose, sign for the park, and possible adaptation of the caboose for civic or retail use.52 Volleyball Park Volleyball Park is a pocket park located on South Gulling Street across from City Park. It contains a sand volleyball court with net and landscaping. The park is considered to be in good condition. Although no improvements were identified it is recommended to continue regular maintenance.53 City Hall Park City Hall Park is another pocket park. It is located at the corner of South Gulling Street and 4th Avenue next to city hall. The park consists of a half-court concrete basketball court, 49 As described in the City of Portola Parks and Recreation Master Plan, Pocket Park is a part that is usually less than one acre in size and is typically used for a specific purpose. Pocket Parks are designed to maximize available winter sun and are encouraged to become venues for public art. 50 Wood Rodgers, City of Portola Parks and Recreation Master Plan, Draft, 2010, Parks and Recreation Inventory, p. 3. 51 Wood Rodgers, City of Portola Parks and Recreation Master Plan, Draft, 2010, Parks and Recreation Inventory, p. 3. 52 Wood Rodgers, City of Portola Parks and Recreation Master Plan, Draft, 2010, Parks and Recreation Inventory, p. 4. 53 Wood Rodgers, City of Portola Parks and Recreation Master Plan, Draft, 2010, Parks and Recreation Inventory, p. 7. CITY OF PORTOLA cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 76 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY picnic table and message board. It has no landscaping, but is in good condition. No necessary improvements were identified.54 Riverwalk Riverwalk is a paved trail that connects downtown area to the National Forest picnic area just east of the City. The park is about 35 acres in size and is mostly vacant. It is a place for active recreation, quiet open space and river access. 55 The trail is in good condition. The identified infrastructure needs include elimination of weeds growing through the cracks.56 The City has plans to expand the riverfront recreation corridor and will provide additional parkland to keep pace with the growth of the City in compliance with the General Plan policies on parks and recreation. West City Park West City Park is a piece of City-owned land located on SR 70, around Veterans’ Memorial Hall. There are three parcels to the west of Veterans’ Memorial Hall and one parcel to the east of it. Currently, there is a sewer pump on the western portion of the property; the rest of the land is vacant. The possible future uses include:  Venue to support activities of the Veterans’ Memorial Hall;  Branding and marketing to travelers on SR 70;  Western trail extension of the Riverwalk;  Amphitheater for concerts and events;  River and fishing access;  Gateway signs on the highway; or  Gazebo.57 Visitor Center The Visitor Center is located on SR 70 at the eastern entrance to the City of Portola. It includes a tourist welcome center, museum, gazebo and a small play and picnic area. The only improvement identified was the repair or elimination of wooden steps to the river.58 54 Wood Rodgers, City of Portola Parks and Recreation Master Plan, Draft, 2010, Parks and Recreation Inventory, p. 8. 55 City of Portola General Plan, Public Services and Facilities Element, 2010, p. 6-18. 56 Wood Rodgers, City of Portola Parks and Recreation Master Plan, Draft, 2010, Parks and Recreation Inventory, p. 7. 57 Wood Rodgers, City of Portola Parks and Recreation Master Plan, Draft, 2010, Parks and Recreation Inventory, p. 8. 58 Wood Rodgers, City of Portola Parks and Recreation Master Plan, Draft, 2010, Parks and Recreation Inventory, p. 10. CITY OF PORTOLA cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 77 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY In addition to the individual needs identified for each park, the City also plans to replace some grass areas with water efficient landscaping. The City plans to complete this improvement sometime during this summer. Service Adequacy “Under the California Subdivision Map Act (the “Quimby Act”) a city or county can require the dedication of up to five (5) acres of park per one thousand residents. In lieu of dedication of land, a developer may pay a fee for dedication of land to the city.”59 The City’s General plan outlines the following criteria for recreation and Parks:  The City aims to provide five acres of parkland per 1,000 residents, three acres of neighborhood parks per 1,000 residents and two acres of community parks per 1,000 residents. Portola owns 54.4 acres of all categories of parkland, which equates to 24.7 acres per 1,000 residents. The City has approximately two acres of neighborhood parkland per 1,000 residents and six acres of community parkland per 1,000 residents.  The minimum size of a neighborhood park is supposed to be three acres. The only neighborhood park in the City, Baldwin Park, is five acres in size.  Another policy for a neighborhood park for a public street to front the park on at least two sides. Beckwith Street and Joy Way front Baldwin Park on two sides.  Portola’s policy is to provide space for outdoor events near Old Town and the Railroad Museum. The multiple pocket parks within the City fulfill this requirement.  Both the Riverwalk and the City Park, as is required by the General Plan, include picnic areas, restrooms and turf area.60 The City appears to meet or exceed the General Plan policies that have been adopted, with the exception of the ratio of neighborhood parkland to residents. The City needs an addition one acre of neighborhood parkland per 1,000 residents, or approximately 2 acres, in order to meet the General Plan policy of three acres of neighborhood parks per 1,000 residents. 59 City of Portola General Plan, Public Services and Facilities Element, 2010, p. 6-18. 60 City of Portola General Plan, Public Services and Facilities Element, 2010, pp. 6-18, 6-19. CITY OF PORTOLA cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 78 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY Figure 4-12: City of Portola Park and Recreation Profile Park and Recreation Services Park/Facility Type Location Condition Acres City Park Community S. Gulling St. Good 13.8 Bench Park Pocket Commercial & California St. Good 0.07 Clock Park Pocket S. Gulling & Commercial St. Good 0.2 Caboose Park Pocket South of Commercial St. Fair 0.3 Baldwin Park Neighborhood North-central part of City Fair 5 Riverwalk Trail From downtown to forest Good 35 Volleyball Park Pocket Across from City Park Good 0.05 City Hall Park Pocket S. Gulling & 4th Ave Good 0.05 West City Park N/A SR 70 by Veterans' Hall N/A N/A Service Configuration Park Maintenance: Direct Number of Parks Maintained: 8 Service Adequacy Acres per 1,000 residents 24.7 City Policy: 5 Park Acreage Community Parks: 13.8 Neighborhood Parks: 5 Pocket Parks: 0.7 Riverwalk: 35 Facility Needs/Deficiencies City Park Parking, signage, repairs to tennis courts & batting cage Bench Park Hard surface path from sidewalk to benches Clock Park None identified Caboose Park Landscaping, signage, caboose adaptation Baldwin Park Signage, clean-up, pathways, repairs to court and ballfields Riverwalk Expansion, weeding Volleyball Park None identified City Hall Park None identified West City Park Development Facility Sharing The City aims to initiate ongoing relationship with other agencies with common recreation interests, such as Plumas County, Plumas Unified School District, and Feather River College. Service Challenges The City did not report any particular challenges to providing park and recreation services. Developer Requiremnents It is requred that developers make a land dedcation or pay an in-lieu fee for park land dedication based on the City's policy of providing 5 acres per 1,000 residents. CITY OF PORTOLA cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 79 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY CCIITTYY OOFF PPOORRTTOOLLAA DDEETTEERRMMIINNAATTIIOONNSS Growth and Population Projections  The City experienced a decline in population between 2000 and 2010 with negative annual growth rates of between zero and two percent. The City has a population of approximately 1,997.  While the City’s historical growth rates and countywide growth rate projections by the Department of Finance and Plumas County Transportation Commission indicate minimal growth in the future, there are three planned developments within the city limits, which could add approximately 2,440 additional residents to the City, indicating the potential for significant growth. Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities and Adequacy of Public Services, Including Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies  While Average Dry Weather Flow (ADWF) is well within the City’s permitted capacity for the Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP), Peak Wet Weather Flows (PWWFs) have on occasion exceeded the treatment system’s permitted wet weather flow due to significant I/I. In 2010, the City’s PWWF was almost double its permitted PWWF capacity.  Assuming an aggressive annual growth rate of five percent, the existing WWTP should have the capacity to serve growth in demand through 2028; however, this is contingent upon the City addressing the I/I issues.  The sewer collection and treatment system in Portola has been constructed piece meal over a period of decades. The two issues that are currently threatening the wastewater system are: a) inflow and infiltration, and b) significantly diminished treatment pond capacity from sludge buildup and lack of regular maintenance.  In 2010, city demand for water averaged 0.6 mgd, or 64 percent of the City’s sustainable yield water supply (less the Lake Davis Water Treatment Plant). Based on the City’s assumption of five percent annual average growth, and contingent upon the completion of the Lake Davis plant, the City should have sufficient source capacity to service demand through at least 2030.  While the City needs additional water supply to meet maximum day demand, the Lake Davis Water Treatment Plant is anticipated to rectify this deficiency in 2011. The two other significant deficiencies that presently need to be addressed in the City’s water system are 1) the presence of arsenic in the well water, and 2) inadequate fire flow in several areas. CITY OF PORTOLA cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 80 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY  The Fire Department reportedly has the capacity to serve existing and anticipated growth in demand; although, significant growth will require augmentation of services to address an increase in demand for urban service levels.  Both fire stations require ADA accessibility improvements, which have not been completed due to financing constraints. There is also a need for a medical rescue truck with wildland fire suppression capabilities.  It is a recommended practice that the Fire Department track its response time for each incident.  The City greatly exceeds the General Plan standard of five park acres per 1,000 residents.  A majority of the park facilities were identified as being in good condition. Several park deficiencies and potential for development of additional facilities were identified, including improvements to landscaping, signage and sport courts at the various parks. Financial Ability of Agencies to Provide Services  The City reported that while financing levels were generally adequate to provide services, there had been a decline in revenues which had forced the City to find ways to trim expenditures.  Capital projects in the past have generally been funded through interest income on investments; however, project expenditures in recent years have started to exceed the City’s interest income due to declining interest rates.  Key fiscal challenges are a decline in sales tax revenues, a decline in assessed property values and a recent decrease in development activity and related fees.  The City does not have a citywide Capital Improvement Plan, but has outlined infrastructure needs in its water, wastewater and parks and recreation master plans. Capital planning is also completed annually in the budget. It is recommended that the City consider implementing a multi-year CIP to identify potential financing sources and timing for the capital improvements.  The City's water and wastewater rates were last updated in 2010. Water rates are lower than the regional median charged by other service providers. Similarly, wastewater rates are the second lowest among the providers in the region. Status of, and Opportunities for, Shared Facilities  The City does not presently share water, wastewater, fire or park facilities with other agencies. CITY OF PORTOLA cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 81 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY  The City does participate in joint financing of some facilities with Eastern Plumas Recreation District, such as the Portola swimming pool.  Administration for all city services are provided by the City's general government, which provides management efficiencies and cost minimization. In addition, the water and wastewater utilities operated by the same City employees.  Regionalization of sewer services in the Delleker/Portola area is a potential opportunity for facility sharing and regional collaboration. Joint efforts between Portola and Grizzly Lake Community Services District may maximize efficiencies, reduce costs, and aid the agency's to better leverage available resources.  There is an opportunity to share specialized equipment (i.e., CCTV) among other small wastewater providers in the area. Accountability for Community Service Needs, Including Governmental Structure and Operational Efficiencies  The City demonstrated full accountability through its disclosure of information as indicated by the City's cooperation in providing all requested information, meeting for interviews, and providing review and comments during the MSR process.  Accountability is best ensured when contested elections are held for governing body seats, constituent outreach is conducted to promote accountability and ensure that constituents are informed and not disenfranchised, and public agency operations and management are transparent to the public. The City of Portola demonstrated accountability with respect to all of these factors.  The City along with Beckwourth Fire District and Eastern Plumas Rural Fire Protection District (EPRFPD) have broached the discussion of consolidation; however there are concerns regarding liquidation of assets and varying property tax revenues among the agencies.  The City has considered the potential of transferring fire service provision in the Gold Mountain community to EPRFPD; however, this is dependent on the desire of the community. In 2008-2009, the District did a study and conducted a survey among its residents that among other options considered annexing its fire services into EPRFPD. The decision has not yet been made.  As the City of Portola and Grizzly Lake Community Services District serve adjacent communities, there is an opportunity to work closely together in joint efforts to provide services in the most efficient, safe and cost effective way. Potential governance options include regionalization of sewer services or a collaborative agreement to share specialized equipment and mutual aid resources. CITY OF PORTOLA cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 82 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY  The Portola Planning Commission has identified several areas outside of the City limits and SOI as areas of mutual interest for Portola and Plumas County. The communities include Lake Davis to the north, Grizzly Ranch to the east, Iron Horse and Gold Mountain to the south, and Delleker to the west. The City reports that these areas impact the City and City services, particularly related to fire, safety, traffic, aesthetics, and the environment.61 A governance structure option that may afford the City the planning involvement it desires may be designating the area an Area of Concern.  The City provides services to 113 utility connections outside of the city limits. Annexation of these extraterritorial service areas is an option that would promote logical boundaries. 61 Karen Downs, City of Portola Planner, Letter to the Plumas County Planning Commission, January 19, 2011. CITY OF PORTOLA cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 83 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY 5. B EC K WOU RT H COU N T Y S E RVI C E A R EA Beckwourth County Service Area (BCSA) provides wastewater collection and treatment. AAGGEENNCCYY OOVVEERRVVIIEEWW Background Beckwourth County Service Area (CSA) was formed in 196762 as a dependent special district of the County, governed by the Board of Supervisors. At that time, the community was served by deteriorating individual septic systems and leaching fields where leaching had surfaced in some areas and was running down ditches. In addition, some seepage was found from the leachfields in a few wells.63 The CSA was given the power to establish a sanitary sewer collection system, treatment plant and domestic water supply system; however, the CSA has not initiated water services.64 The principal act that governs the CSA is the County Service Area law.65 The principal act authorizes county service areas to provide a wide variety of municipal services, including street maintenance, fire protection, extended police protection, water and sewer services.66 A CSA may only provide those services authorized in its formation resolution unless the Board of Supervisors applies to and receives authorization from LAFCo for activation of a latent power.67 Under LAFCo law, districts must apply and obtain LAFCo approval to exercise latent powers or, in other words, those services authorized by the principal act but not provided by the district at the end of 2000.68 BCSA is located in the eastern part of Plumas County, and stretches to the east and west of Beckwourth Genessee Road and to the south of SR 70. The CSA is situated within the boundaries of Beckwourth FD. BCSA is the most eastern wastewater service provider in the 62 Board of Equalization. 63 Beckwourth CSA, Engineering Report, Sewer Collection and Treatment System, 1969, p. 1. 64 Board of Supervisors, Resolution 1790. 65 California Government Code §25210.1-25211.3. 66 California Government Code §25210.4 and 25210.4a. 67 California Government Code §25213.5. 68 Government Code §56824.10. BECKWOURTH CSA cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 84 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY County. The closest neighboring wastewater service provider to the west is Grizzly Ranch CSD. Boundaries BCSA’s boundary is entirely within Plumas County. The District’s boundaries encompass approximately 0.3 square miles. 69 There has been one annexation to the District since its formation. In 2003, BCSA annexed the Eicher property that consisted of about 40 acres. According to the annexation resolution, this annexation of uninhabited land was the logical extension of the boundary to the adjacent territories to which the District is already providing services.70 Sphere of Influence The District’s SOI was first established in 1976, and included an area beyond its boundaries where growth was anticipated. The area was a commercial zone along SR 70.71 The SOI was last updated in 1982. 72 It was extended eastward to accommodate commercial and industrial growth along SR 70 and include parcels that were previously split, and also includes a large area north of the boundaries along Beckwourth Genessee Road.73 The size of the current SOI is 0.9 square miles compared to 0.3 square miles of boundary area. Extra-territorial Services BCSA began providing extra-territorial services to one connection on the Hartwig property in 2004, a 54-acre territory at the end of Magpie Road, through an out-of-area service agreement (OASA). The District reported that it also provides services to nine additional industrial connections in that area along Industrial Way; although, there are no records on when services were extended there. The parcels where extra-territorial services are provided are shown in Figure 5-1. In addition, the District will provide services through an OASA to the Fire Center that is currently being constructed by the airport, outside of the District’s existing SOI. The facility will be a joint-use fire station located on County-owned and operated land. USFS will cover the costs of constructing a new main directly to the District’s treatment ponds. Due to fee negotiations between the District and USFS an agreement has not been completed yet. A requirement of the agreement to provide services is eventual annexation of the territory to the District. 69 Total agency area calculated in GIS software based on agency boundaries as of July 1, 2011. The data is not considered survey quality. 70 Resolution 2003-014. 71 Plumas County LAFCo, Sphere of Influence Study for Beckwourth CSA, 1976. 72 Resolution 82-07.08. 73 Notice of Public Hearing, Beckwourth CSA, 1982, Attachment. BECKWOURTH CSA cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 85 Beckwourth Community Services Area 23 24 d R e e s e n e G h tr u o w k c e B ·|þ} 70 25 26 35 36 htroN 32 pihsnwoT 5-1 Range 14 East Beckwourth CSA Parcel Location of ponds ² Legend Beckwourth CSA Beckwourth CSA Major Roads Parcels Beckwourth CSA (SOI) Resolution: 178 Adopted: 12/29/1967 ·|}þ Area Served Outside 70 CA State Highway Sectional Grid (MDB&M) of District Beckwourth CSA (SOI) Resolution: 82-08 Stream / River Waterbodies Adopted: 7/12/1982 0 330 660 1,320Feet Source: Plumas LAFCo Map Created 5/5/2011 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY Areas of Interest The District did not identify any areas of interest. Accountability and Governance BCSA is governed by the County Board of Supervisors. Board members are elected by supervisorial district and serve staggered four-year terms. Current Supervisors are Terry Swofford, Robert Meacher, Sherrie Thrall, Lori Simpson, and Jon Kennedy. The Board meets on the first three Tuesdays of every month at 10 in the morning in the Supervisor’s Board Room. Board meeting agendas are posted on the County’s website. Board meeting minutes are available on the County’s website. Figure 5-2: Beckwourth CSA Governing Body Beckwourth CSA District Contact Information Contact: Robert Perreault, Manager Address: 555 Main Street, Quincy, CA 95971 Telephone: 530-283-6222 Fax: N/A Email/website: bobperreault@countyofplumas.com Board of Directors Member Name Position Term Expiration Manner of Selection Length of Term Terry Swofford District 1 December 2012 Elected 4 years Robert Meacher District 2 December 2012 Elected 4 years Sherrie Thrall District 3 December 2014 Elected 4 years Lori Simpson District 4 December 2012 Elected 4 years Jon Kennedy District 5 December 2014 Elected 4 years Meetings Date: First three Tuesdays of every month at 10am. Location: Supervisors Board Room. Agenda Distribution: Posted on the County's website. Minutes Distribution: Posted on the County's website. The County makes available its budget, general plan, emergency operations plan and other documents on its website. Online CSA information includes financial information contained in the County budget and a webpage with a brief description on the County website. The County reported that development of a separate website for BCSA is a short- term goal. No other CSA public outreach efforts were identified. The County is not required to notify the public prior to performing necessary maintenance activities within a CSA. If a customer is dissatisfied with the District’s services, complaints may be submitted to the wastewater system operator or CSA manager. A majority of the complaints are regarding the age of the system, pump failures and sewer overflows; however, the District reported that they have had few complaints in the past. BECKWOURTH CSA cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 87 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY Beckwourth CSA demonstrated accountability and transparency in its disclosure of information and cooperation with Plumas LAFCo. The District responded to the questionnaires and cooperated with the document requests. Planning and Management Practices The District is managed by the County Engineering Department. The Director of Public Works acts as the District’s general manager. The day-to-day operations of the District are managed by three employees who contribute ten hours a month each. In addition, there is one operator who is employed by contract and compensated at a flat rate. County employees are evaluated at a minimum of once a year. The County employees track hours worked for BCSA in a timesheet. Performance and accountability of the system operator are measured by the operation of the wastewater system and timeliness of responses to requests. The workload of the contract operator is not tracked. Beckwourth CSA reports that it does not perform formal evaluations of overall District performance, such as benchmarking or annual reports. The District’s financial planning efforts include an annually adopted budget. The financial statements are done by the County. The District provided the adopted budget for FY 10-11 and financial statement for FY 09-10. In addition, BCSA plans its capital improvements through a required engineer’s report on present and future conditions. The District’s goal is to make it more comprehensive in the future. Existing Demand and Growth Projections Land uses within the District are primarily residential, suburban, and commercial.74 The area within the District’s boundaries is approximately 0.3 square miles. Population The District has a small system that serves 70 accounts, of which 54 are residential. Based on average household size throughout the County of 1.9 people, the estimated population of BCSA is 103. Existing Demand The District reported that it has observed no significant change in service demand in the last few years. Presently, the District provides services to 70 accounts.75 Between 2006 and 2010, the District has added one connection to the system. 74 Plumas County Parcel Application. 75 It was reported by the District that some parcels may have multiple connections, and at present the exact number of connections is unknown. BECKWOURTH CSA cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 88 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY Projected Growth and Development The District anticipates some growth in population and similarly in service demand in the next few years; however, no formal population projections have been made by the District. The State Department of Finance (DOF) projects that the population of Plumas County will grow by five percent in the next 10 years. Thus, the average annual population growth in the County is anticipated to be approximately 0.5 percent. Based on these projections, the District’s population would increase from 114 in 2010 to approximately 120 in 2020. It is anticipated that demand for service within the District will increase minimally based on the DOF population growth projections through 2020. Any new development in the area will likely require connection to the BCSA system. Private septic systems, in the form of septic tanks and leachfields have been allowed in the past. But due to the presence of high groundwater in the area, this type of disposal is now discouraged.76 The District staff reported that to their knowledge there are minimal planned developments that it anticipates serving. It is anticipated that growth within the CSA will be concentrated on Hawley Road, where there are plans for an industrial park. The District will also serve the Fire Center that is being built on North Industrial Way, outside of District’s SOI, through an OASA. As these development projects are constructed and connect to the wastewater system demand for BCSA services will increase. There is sufficient treatment capacity to serve the anticipated increase in demand, as the BCSA treatment facility has four treatment ponds, and presently, only one is in use. However, the District reported that there is a need for upgrade of the facilities to continue providing adequate services. Growth Strategies The District is not a land use authority, and does not hold primary responsibility for implementing growth strategies. The land use authority for unincorporated areas is the County. The potential for expansion of BCSA will largely depend on land use designations as defined in the General Plan update that is underway. The District reported that there may be the potential to annex the Nervino Airport property, including parcels south of SR 70, adjacent to Industrial Way and Hawley Road, and the industrial park.77 The District is also considering taking on water services in the community. The industrial park developers have expressed interest in getting water service from the CSA 76 USFS, OASA Application to LAFCO, 2004, p. 2. 77 BCSA, Application for Approval of an Out-of-Area Service Agreement, 2011, pp. 1-2. BECKWOURTH CSA cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 89 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY should it initiate water retail. Extension of water services to the industrial park would require annexation of the territory. Financing The District reports that its financing levels are not adequate to provide services to its existing territory. The wastewater treatment equipment, particularly the pumps, is aged and present revenues are not sufficient to finance needed improvements and updates. The District did not identify any impacts from the recent recession. The District’s total revenues for FY 09-10 were $15,330. Primary revenue sources were income from taxes (57 percent) and proceeds from fees (36 percent). Figure 5-3: Beckwourth CSA Revenues and Expenditures Income/Expenses FY 09-10 Budgeted FY 09-10 Actual FY 10-11 Budgeted Income Tax revenue $3,994 42% $8,788 57% $3,994 42% Use of Money $2,270 24% $916 6% $2,270 24% State & Federal Aid $11 0% $76 0% $11 0% Charges for Services $3,325 35% $5,551 36% $3,325 35% Total Income $9,600 100% $15,330 100% $9,600 100% Expenses Salaries & Benefits $12,000 13% $14,442 55% $12,000 13% Services & Supplies $77,821 87% $11,087 42% $77,821 87% Other charges $0 0% $761 3% $0 0% Total Expense $89,821 100% $26,290 100% $89,821 100% Net Income -$80,221 -$10,959 -$80,221 Based on the District’s budgets for FY 09-10 and FY 10-11, the District assumes the same expenditures each year for budgeting purposes, regardless of the previous year’s expenditures. The District charges its residents sewer fees that were last updated in 1983. BCSA rates for wastewater service are as follows:  $12.75 per quarter for private residences;  $33 per quarter for bars, restaurants and lodge halls;  $18 per quarter for grocery stores, gas stations and garages;  $3 per quarter per room at a hotel or per trailer space in a trailer park; and  $33 per quarter for public agencies. BECKWOURTH CSA cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 90 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY The District’s expenditures in FY 09-10 were $26,290. The District’s primary expenditures consisted of salaries and benefits (55 percent) and services and supplies (42 percent). In FY 09-10, the District’s expenditures exceeded revenues by $10,959. Reserve funds are used to cover any excess expenditures in any given year. Capital improvement projects are described in a required engineer’s report that gives an overview of present and future conditions. Funding for capital improvement projects is not adequate to fix or replace failing equipment. The District has no goal or policy regarding financial reserves, but has maintained a fund balance from year to year. There is $184,000 in the reserve fund, which is sufficient for operating contingencies, but inadequate to cover capital needs. The District does not participate in any joint power authorities (JPAs) or joint financing mechanisms. BECKWOURTH CSA cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 91 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY WWAASSTTEEWWAATTEERR SSEERRVVIICCEESS Service Overview BCSA provides wastewater collection and treatment through four oxidation ponds. Services are presently provided throughout the District’s boundary and to 10 connections outside of its bounds. There are no private septic systems within the District’s bounds. The system is operated by one contract employee who devotes seven hours per week to maintenance and operation activities and is on call at all times. The contract employee has a Wastewater Operator Grade 1 certification, which meets the requirements of the system. Facilities and Capacity The District operates and maintains four oxidation ponds and 2.8 miles of collection system. The oxidation ponds were built in 1973 and 1974 and consist of photosynthetic treatment and oxidation and evaporation in two ponds. The District operates primarily out of two ponds and uses the other two ponds as backup. Each pond has the capacity to hold one acre foot of effluent. The District reported that the ponds are generally in fair to poor condition. The District is subject to waste discharge requirements (Order No. 96-135) adopted by the RWQCB. According to the WDRs, the 30-day average daily dry weather flows may not exceed 20,000 gallons. Average dry weather flow to the system in 2010 was 5,016 gpd, which consists of 25 percent of the system’s permitted capacity. The peak week wet weather flow to the system in 2010 was 20,063 gpd. On average, flows are well below the capacity of the ponds, which allows for additional pond capacity during rain events. The collection system is composed of asbestos cement piping dating from 1969, which was identified as also being in fair to poor condition. Based on the peak wet weather flow in 2010, the system has a peaking factor of four, meaning the system has relatively weak structural integrity and there is a moderate to high rate of infiltration and inflow during rain events. Infrastructure Needs The District reported that the system is aged and the pumps occasionally fail and need to be replaced. Replacement of the pumps would reduce maintenance costs. The District has had several violations related to excessive weeds in the treatment ponds in 2005, 2006, and 2008. The excessive vegetation was removed from ponds 1 and 2 BECKWOURTH CSA cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 92 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY in August 2008. Vegetation in ponds 3 and 4 still needs to be removed; however these ponds are not in use. Based on the District’s peaking factor, infiltration and inflow increase significantly during rainy periods. As there are no records of an inspection of the collection system since it was constructed in 1969, it is recommended that the District complete an overall assessment of the system to determine the cause and extent of the infiltration and inflow and any other needs or deficiencies. There is a plan to construct 6,000 feet of new four-inch low pressure sewer main from the USFS facility to the District’s ponds. The main will be fed by septic tank effluent at the Fire Center. USFS is providing the necessary financing for the project. It is estimated that construction of the pipeline will occur over the spring and summer of 2011. Challenges The District reported that the most significant challenge to providing adequate services is the lack of sufficient funds for capital needs. There is also a concern that more stringent waste discharge requirements would be a financial drain on the District by putting more demand on staff for monitoring purposes. Service Adequacy This section reviews indicators of service adequacy, including regulatory compliance, treatment effectiveness, sewer overflows and collection system integrity. While the District has had no formal enforcement actions taken by RWQCB and no priority violations since 2005, the District has had seven non-priority violations during that time. The violations were a result of excess vegetation in the ponds and challenges with filing reports with the State, specifically, SSMP elements in 2010, the collection system questionnaire in 2007, and a no spill report in 2007. Seven violations equates to approximately 68 violations per 1,000 population served. By comparison, other wastewater providers in the eastern region of the County averaged 38 violations per 1,000 population served. Wastewater treatment providers are required to comply with effluent quality standards under the waste discharge requirements determined by RWQCB. The District reported that in 2010, it was never out of compliance with effluent quality requirements. Other wastewater providers in the eastern region of Plumas County were out of compliance on average nine days in 2010. Wastewater agencies are required to report sewer system overflows (SSOs) to SWRCB. Overflows reflect the capacity and condition of collection system piping and the effectiveness of routine maintenance. The sewer overflow rate is calculated as the number of overflows per 100 miles of collection piping. The District reported no overflows during BECKWOURTH CSA cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 93 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY the period from 2008 thru 2010, and consequently the overflow rate is zero. Other providers in the region averaged an SSO rate of 3.8 per 100 miles of collection piping. There are several measures of integrity of the wastewater collection system, including peaking factors, efforts to address infiltration and inflow (I/I), and inspection practices. As discussed previously, the District has a peaking factor of four resulting from moderate to high I/I. Other wastewater providers in the region have an average peaking factor of 4.3. Figure 5-4: Beckwourth CSA Wastewater Service Adequacy Indicators Wastewater Service Adequacy and Efficiency Regulatory Compliance Record, 2005-10 Formal Enforcement Actions 0 Informal Enforcement Actions 3 Formal Enforcement Action Type Description of Violations NA Total Violations, 2005-10 Total Violations 7 Priority Violations 0 Service Adequacy Indicators Treatment Effectiveness Rate2 100% Sewer Overflows 2009 - 20103 0 Total Employees (FTEs) 0.2 Sewer Overflow Rate4 0 MGD Treated per FTE 0.027 Customer Complaints CY 10: Odor (0), spills (0), other (0) Source Control and Pollution Prevention Practices The District does not practice any source control or pollution prevention, as there are no particularly large dischargers or dischargers with unique loads. Collection System Inspection Practices BCSA has no adopted inspection practices and there are no records of the system ever being inspected. Notes: (1) Order or Code Violations include sanitary sewer overflow violations. (2) Total number of compliance days in 2010 per 365 days. (3) Total number of overflows experienced (excluding those caused by customers) from 2008 to 2010 as reported by the agency. (4) Sewer overflows from 2009 to 2010 (excluding those caused by customers) per 100 miles of collection piping. BECKWOURTH CSA cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 94 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY Figure 5-5: Beckwourth CSA Wastewater Profile Wastewater Service Configuration and Demand Service Configuration Service Type Service Provider(s) Wastewater Collection BCSA Wastewater Treatment None Wastewater Disposal BCSA Recycled Water None Service Area Collection: Collection services are are provided throughout the District's bounds and to 10 connections outside of bounds. Treatment: NA Recycled Water: NA Service Demand Connections (2010) Flow (gpd) Type Total Inside Bounds Outside Bounds Average Total 70 62 8 4,658 Residential 54 54 0 Unknown Commercial 8 8 0 Unknown Industrial 8 0 8 Unknown Historical and Projected Demand (AADF in gallons per day)2 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 Unknown3 4,658 4,658 4,823 4,896 Note: (1) NA: Not Applicable; NP: Not Provided. (2) The District projects no growth through 2015, projections thereafter are based on the 0.05 percent annual average growth rate projected by DOF for the entire County. (3) The lift station was not metered until 2007. BECKWOURTH CSA cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 95 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY Wastewater Infrastructure Wastewater Collection, Treatment & Disposal Infrastructure System Overview Treatment level: Primary Facility Name Capacity Condition Year Built Four treatment ponds 20,000 gpd Fair to Poor 1973/1974 Collection & Distribution Infrastructure Sewer Pipe Miles 2.8 Sewage Lift Stations 1 Treatment Plant Daily Flow (mgd) ADWF (mgd) % of ADWF Capacity in Use Peak Wet (mgd) Peaking Factor 5,016 25% 20,063 4.00 Infiltration and Inflow Based on the District’s peaking factor, infiltration and inflow increase significantly during rainy periods. Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies The District reported that the system is aged and the pumps occasionally fail and need to be replaced. Replacement of the pumps would reduce maintenance costs. Vegetation from ponds 3 and 4 needs to be removed. Additionally, there is a need for an updated engineer's report for the entire system. Wastewater Facility Sharing Facility Sharing Practices Administration for the District is provided by the County Department of Engineering, which shares county facilities with other county departments. Facility Sharing Opportunities The District did not identify any further opportunities related to facility sharing. BECKWOURTH CSA cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 96 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY Wastewater Rates and Financing Wastewater Rates-Ongoing Charges FY 10-111 Avg. Monthly Rate Description Charges Demand2 Residential Flat quarterly fee of $12.75 for $4.25 250 gpd residnetial connections. Rate Zones None Rate-Setting Procedures Last Rate Change 7/6/1983 Frequency of Rate Changes Rates have not been updated for 30 years Wastewater Development Fees and Requirements Fee Approach There are no records to determine how the fee was adopted in 1983. Connection Fee Amount $5 per front foot of property to be served with a minimum charge of $500, and $250 per EDU Wastewater Enterprise Revenues, FY 09-10 Operating Expenditures, FY 09-10 Source Amount Amount Total $15,331 100% Total $26,290 Rates & Charges $5,434 35% Administration $14,442 Property Tax $8,788 57% O & M $11,087 Grants $0 0% Capital Depreciation NR Interest $916 6% Debt $0 Connection Fees $117 1% Other $761 Other $76 1% Notes: (1) Rates include wastewater-related service charges and strength and flow charges. Average monthly charges calculated based on average consumption. Rates are rounded for presentation. (2) Wastewater use assumptions by customer type were used to calculate average monthly charges. Assumed use levels are 250 gallons per home per day, and are consistent countywide for comparison purposes. (3) Connection fee amount is calculated for a single-family home. BECKWOURTH CSA cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 97 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY BBEECCKKWWOOUURRTTHH CCSSAA DDEETTEERRMMIINNAATTIIOONNSS Growth and Population Projections  The District’s estimated population is 103.  There has been no significant change in service demand in the last few years.  Minimal growth in population and similarly in service demand is expected in the next few years if planned developments are constructed. Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities and Adequacy of Public Services, Including Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies  There is sufficient treatment capacity to serve current needs and the anticipated increase in demand.  The system is aged and the pumps occasionally fail and need to be replaced.  BCSA plans its capital improvements through a required engineer’s report on present and future conditions, which needs to be updated, as it was last completed in 1969.  Based on the District’s peaking factor, infiltration and inflow increase significantly during rainy periods. As there are no records of an inspection of the collection system since it was constructed in 1969, it is recommended that the District complete an overall assessment of the system to determine the cause and extent of the infiltration and inflow and any other needs or deficiencies. Financial Ability of Agencies to Provide Services  The District’s financing levels are not adequate to provide services to its existing territory.  Funding for capital improvement projects is not adequate to fix or replace failing equipment.  Wastewater rates are the lowest of the providers in the region and were last updated in 1983. It is recommended that the District update its rates so that they are comparable to other service providers and in order to finance necessary capital improvements. BECKWOURTH CSA cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 98 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY Status of, and Opportunities for, Shared Facilities  The District operates out of county facilities with other county departments.  No further opportunities for facility sharing were identified. Accountability for Community Service Needs, Including Governmental Structure and Operational Efficiencies  BCSA demonstrated accountability and transparency by disclosing financial and service related information in response to LAFCo requests.  Development of a website for BCSA to keep its constituents better informed is a short-term goal.  There may be the potential to annex the Nervino Airport property, including parcels south of SR 70, adjacent to Industrial Way and Hawley Road, and the industrial park, but it will largely depend on land use designations as defined in the General Plan update that is underway.  Annexation of BCSA extraterritorial service areas is an option that would promote logical boundaries. The District currently provides service outside of its bounds to 10 industrial connections.  The District is considering taking on water services in the community. BECKWOURTH CSA cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 99 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY 6. BEC KWOURTH FIRE DIST RICT Beckwourth Fire District (Beckwourth FD) provides structural fire suppression, wildland fire suppression, emergency response, basic life support, advanced life support, rescue services and some limited fire prevention programs. A municipal service review was last completed for the District in 2010. Beckwourth FD is being included as part of this MSR to ensure consistency among the various fire service providers in the County. The District’s mission statement states that “the Beckwourth Fire District is committed to the protection of life and property using as our model; safety, teamwork and continuous education and training.”78 AAGGEENNCCYY OOVVEERRVVIIEEWW Background Beckwourth Fire Department was formed in 1948 and turned into a special district in 1949. The District started with “one 1937 Fire Engine and a small Fire House. The original Fire House has been improved and a second Fire Station was added in 2007. Beckwourth, sometimes erroneously listed as “Beckwith” on early census reports, was named for James “Jim” P. Beckwourth, an unsung, genuine American hero of mixed ancestry who created a lower, safer passage across the Sierra Nevada Mountains in the mid-1800s.”79 The District was formed to provide fire protection services to the residents of Beckwourth Township. Originally, its services were limited to structural fire and some brush fire. Now Beckwourth FD also has a large EMS force, more equipment and provides services on a larger scale, including wildland fires. The principal act that governs the District is the Fire Protection District Law of 1987.80 The principal act empowers fire districts to provide fire protection, rescue, emergency medical, hazardous material response, ambulance, and any other services relating to the protection of lives and property.81 Districts must apply and obtain LAFCo approval to exercise services authorized by the principal act but not already provided (i.e., latent powers) by the district at the end of 2000. 78 http://www.beckwourthfire.com/ 79 John Gullixson, Beckwourth Fire District Municipal Service Review and Sphere of Influence Update, 2010, p. 7. 80 Health and Safety Code §13800-13970. 81 Health and Safety Code §13862. BECKWOURTH FD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 100 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY Beckwourth FD is located in the eastern part of Plumas County, in the high Sierra Mountains. The District is adjacent to the City of Portola and Eastern Plumas Fire Protection District (EPRFPD) in the west and Sierra Valley Fire Protection District (SVVFD) in the east. Boundaries The Beckwourth FD boundary is entirely within Plumas County. The District’s boundary territory that consists of five non-contiguous areas encompasses approximately 13 square miles. 82 Plumas LAFCo, State Board of Equalization and tax records indicate that since its formation the District undertook five annexations. All recorded boundary changes are shown in Table 6-1. According to the Board of Equalization, the first annexation took place in 1954. The name of the annexation is unknown but the annexed territory included three tracts—a large area to the southwest of the original District and two smaller areas to the north and the east. The most recent annexation that started in 2003 and was recently finalized, included Sierra Health Foundation or Grizzly Creek Ranch. This was a complicated annexation process, because the SOI of the District had to be updated first to include the territory to be annexed. The SOI update took place in 2010 and annexation process has been finally completed. The Plank/Brenneman annexation of 2007 and the annexation of Sierra Health Foundation have also just been recently recorded by the BOE. Figure 6-1: Beckwourth FD Boundary History Sphere of Influence The SOI for Beckwourth FD was first adopted in 197683. In 198284 it was revised and again changed in 198385. It was then amended in 2003 after the completion of the abbreviated MSR. The second SOI update was initiated in 2008. The MSR and the SOI Project Name Type of Action Year Recording Agency Beckwourth Fire District Formation 1949 SBOE Unknown territory Annexation 1954 SBOE Schaffer (TRA 144) Annexation 1994 Tax records Grizzly Ranch Annexation 2003 LAFCo, SBOE Grizzly Road North/Sierra Valley Annexation 2005 LAFCo, SBOE Plank/Brenneman Annexation 2007 LAFCo, SBOE Sierra Health Foundation/Rocky Point Road Annexation 2011 LAFCo, SBOE 82 Total agency area calculated in GIS software based on agency boundaries as of July 1, 2011. The data is not considered survey quality. 83 LAFCo Resolution 76-44. 84 LAFCo Resolution 82-07.06. 85 LAFCo Resolution 83-33. BECKWOURTH FD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 101 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY update were completed and adopted in 2010. The new SOI includes territory to the north in Red Clover Valley, residences in Dixie Valley, borders Sierra Valley FPD in the east, EPRFPD in the west and Sierra County in the south. The sphere contains about 190 square miles compared to 13 square miles of boundary area. Extra-territorial Services The District provides services outside its boundaries through out-of-area service agreements. Currently, Beckwourth FD has agreements with Curtis Hartwig property and USFS for the Fire Center that is currently being built near the airport. The Fire Center initially needs an OASA to obtain a fire permit. The District will be sharing the Fire Center facility with USFS. The District also occasionally responds to wildland fires when requested. Response to a wildland fire in federal and state responsibility areas is reimbursed by the federal government. Fees are updated annually. Through an informal agreement with the Sheriff’s Office, which is discussed in more detail in the Fire Service Section of this chapter, the District responds outside of its boundaries to the areas to the north, south and east and encompasses approximately 79 square miles, which is about 6 times larger than the District’s boundary area. Areas of Interest One area of interest for the District is the Maddalena Tree Farm. Currently, the area is within the boundaries of SVVFD, but Beckwourth FD would like to annex the area. Beckwourth FD reported that its stations were in closer proximity to the tree farm than the SVVFD stations. In addition, SVVFD has to go through Beckwourth FD territory to access the Maddalena Tree Farm, which makes it even more of a challenge to serve this territory. BECKWOURTH FD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 102 Beckwourth Fire Protection District 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14 13 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 L a 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 k 27 26 25 30 29 28 e D a v is 27 26 G rizzly R 25 30 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25 d 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 B 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 6 5 4 3 G en e e c s k e w e o R urth 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 d 7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14 13 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25 ·|þ} 30 29 28 27 26 25 30 70 28 27 26 25 29 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 ·|þ} 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 3 2 1 6 5 4 70 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 15 14 13 18 17 Portola 1 McC 6 lears Rd 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14 13 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 0 0 0 0 0 24 19 20 21 22 23 h 19 20 21 22 23 24 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25 w o urt n e R d 30 29 28 27 26 B e ck C al pi 30 29 28 27 26 25 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 25 31 32 33 34 0 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 htroN 32 pihsnwoT htroN 22 pihsnwoT Range 12 East Range 13 East Range 15 East Legend Beckwourth FPD Beckwourth FPD ² Parcels Resolution: City of Portola Beckwourth FPD (SOI) Adopted: 11/9/1949 Local Responsibility Area Beckwourth FPD (SOI) State Responsibility Area Resolution: 2008-004 (Federal Responsibility lies Adopted: Fire Stations outside hatched area.) 0 0.5 1 2Miles Source: Plumas LAFCo Map Created 4/3/2011 htroN 52 pihsnwoT htroN 42 pihsnwoT 6-2 Range 14 East Major Roads ·|}þ 70 CA State Highway FPD Service Area Stream / River Waterbodies Sectional Grid (MDB&M) PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY Accountability and Governance The principal act orders that the governing body of a fire protection district must have an odd number of members, with a minimum of three and a maximum of 11 members. Directors may be appointed or elected.86 Beckwourth FD is governed by a five-member board of directors who are elected to staggered four-year terms. Four of the current board members were elected and one appointed. The last contested election took place in 2009. Board member names, positions, and term expiration dates are shown in Figure 6-3. The Board meets on the third Thursday of every month at seven in the evening at Fire Station 1 in Beckwourth. Agendas and minutes are posted on the website and at Fire Station 1. Figure 6-3: Beckwourth FD Governing Body Beckwourth Fire District District Contact Information Contact: Fire Chief, Greg McCaffrey RN Address: 180 Main St., Beckwourth, CA 96129 Telephone: (530)832-1008 Email/website: www.beckwourthfire.com, chiefmccaffrey@beckwourthfire.com Board of Directors Member Name Position Term Expiration Manner of Selection Length of Term George Bundy President November 2011 Elected 4 years Denisce Downs Vice President November 2011 Elected 4 years Dean Maddalen Member November 2011 Appointed 2 year Ralph Taylor Member November 2013 Elected 4 years Martin Schaefer Member November 2011 Elected 4 years Meetings Date: Third Thursday of every month at 7pm. Location: Beckwourth Station 1. Agenda Distribution: Posted at the Station 1 and on the website. Minutes Distribution: Posted at the Station 1 and on the website. In addition to the required agendas and minutes, the District does public outreach through its website and prevention programs that are described in more detail in the Fire and Emergency Services section of this chapter. If a customer is dissatisfied with the District’s services, the complaints may be submitted by calling the District. The two people who are responsible for handling complaints are the administrative secretary and the fire chief. According to the District, 86 Health and Safety Code §13842. BECKWOURTH FD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 104 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY there were no complaints in 2009 and 2010; however, there were many reports of appreciation from constituents. Beckwourth FD demonstrated accountability and transparency in its disclosure of information and cooperation with Plumas LAFCo. The District responded to the questionnaires and cooperated with the document requests. Planning and Management Practices Daily operations of the District are managed by the administrative secretary, while operations of the fire department are overseen by the chief. Beckwourth FD has five paid part-time personnel: an administrative secretary, an office assistant, a fire chief, a fire captain, and an engineer. In addition, there is one paid call staff member (a battalion chief) who gets called two to four times a month. The other 11 firefighters and a chaplain are volunteers. When volunteers respond to wildland fires they are entitled to reimbursement. The administrative secretary and the chief are accountable to the Board of Directors. The secretary oversees the office assistant. The rest of the personnel are accountable to the fire chief. There are two division chiefs who oversee two battalion chiefs who manage two captains. Two engineers report to the captains and supervise firefighters. The chief and the administrative secretary are to be evaluated by the Board of Directors; however, the Board currently does not do so. The chief evaluates his paid subordinates annually. Volunteers are not evaluated. Beckwourth FD reported that it does not perform formal evaluations of overall District performance, such as benchmarking or annual reports. However, it informally compares itself to other neighboring providers and considers itself to be performing as well or better than others. The District does not track its employees’ workload, but the chief does track the different tasks he has assigned to each his staff. In addition, maintenance logs are kept for the vehicles and equipment, and the District tracks the number of service calls to which it has responded. The District’s financial planning efforts include an annually adopted budget. The financial statements are done by the County and are audited once every two years. The latest audit took place for FY 09-10. The District provided the adopted budgets for FY 09- 10 and FY 10-11. Beckwourth FD does not adopt other planning documents, such as a capital improvement plan or master plan. BECKWOURTH FD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 105 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY Existing Demand and Growth Projections The land uses within the District include residential, suburban, industrial, commercial, agricultural and wildland.87 The area within the District’s boundaries is approximately 10 square miles. Population There are approximately 606 permanent residents within the District, based on census block population in the 2010 census.88 Census block numbers used to calculate the population are from within the existing boundary area of Beckwourth FD, as of September 2011. . The District’s population has grown in the last few years due to multiple annexations. It should also be noted that there is a significant seasonal variation in population. Existing Demand The District reports that the peak demand period for every service, including emergency medical, occurs during the summer months, due to the influx of tourists. The most service calls occur between noon and three in the afternoon. The District reported that it has observed no significant change in service demand since 2006, as can be seen in Figure 6-4. In 2006, Beckwourth FD hired paid personnel and because of that the number of its service calls dramatically increased about five times from 2005. Figure 6-4: Beckwourth FD Number of Calls (2006-10) 90 Projected Growth and 80 Development 70 The District anticipates 60 growth in population and 50 similarly in service demand 40 within the District in the next few 30 years if the economy recovers; 20 however, no formal population projections have been made by 10 the District. 0 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 The State Department of Finance (DOF) projects that the population of Plumas County will grow by five percent in the next 10 years. Thus, the average annual population growth 87 Plumas County Parcel Application. 88 Census Blocks 4412, 4428, 4572, 4570, 4434, 4471, 4435, 4763, 4569, 4575, 4567, 4560, 4692, 4441, 4432, 4440, 4430, 4439, 4443, 4463, 4442, 4446, 4455, 3002, 3048, 4556, 4732 in Tract 3, Block Group 4 in Plumas County. BECKWOURTH FD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 106 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY in the County is anticipated to be approximately 0.5 percent. Based on these projections, the District’s population would increase from 385 in 2010 to approximately 405 in 2020. It is anticipated that demand for service within the District will increase minimally based on the DOF population growth projections through 2020. The District reported that to their knowledge there are minimal planned developments within its boundaries. Grizzly Ranch has not reached its build out potential of 330 homes; empty lots are scattered throughout the community. There is a large planned development on Beckwourth-Genesee Road that consists of 280 potential homes and is currently on hold, due to the recession. Another area of potential development is located along County Road A-23. There are currently 50 homes, but there are plans to build more. It is not a single development, but instead multiple individually planned homes. Other potential growth areas consist of four to five lot zones that are scattered all over the District. The District expects its service demand to go up when the large planned developments are fully constructed. Currently, Beckwourth FD reported that it does not have the capacity to serve these large developments. It plans to negotiate with the developers to build a new station when the need arises. The District identified an area in its future growth area that will be difficult to serve—future homes along County Road A-23 are too far away from the District’s stations, which will lead to longer response times. Growth Strategies The District is not a land use authority, and does not hold primary responsibility for implementing growth strategies. The land use authority for unincorporated areas is the County. The County enforces the codes that it has enforcement power over, which does not encompass all State fire codes. The County ensures that new construction meets the requirements of the latest adopted edition of the California Building Standards. The County enforces the County codes that have been adopted in lieu of the California Fire Safe regulations. The County does not have authority to enforce PRC 4291, which requires defensible space around structures; however, the County does have some enforcement authority over vegetation removal around buildings that was adopted prior to PRC 4291. In addition, the Board of Supervisors, through the adoption of the General Plan and county codes, regulates development standards to be followed in processing subdivisions, including fire protection. The proposals for new developments are sent for review to the appropriate fire provider if a development is within district’s boundaries. The County reported that as SOI maps have not been digitized, is has been challenging to ensure that proposals go to the appropriate district if a proposed development was within that district’s SOI but outside its boundaries. The County and Plumas LAFCo are working together on a process to ensure that all appropriate districts are contacted for review of proposed developments. The County Board of Supervisors is discussing a possibility of hiring a fire marshal, part of BECKWOURTH FD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 107 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY whose responsibilities may be code enforcement and building inspections. However, thus far, no decision has been made on the responsibilities of the position.89 The County has several policies in the existing general plan, which impact the fire providers of new developments. 1) Turnouts are now required in every new development.90 2) The County encourages development to be located adjacent to or within areas where fire services already exist or can be efficiently provided.91 3) The County requires new developments within areas not currently served by a fire provider to be annexed into an existing fire district or create a funding mechanism, such as a CSD, to cover the costs of fire service provision.92 4) Sustainable timber and biomass production and harvesting as well as intensive forest management practices are encouraged to reduce the danger of catastrophic wildfires.93 5) There is a minimum requirement of two roadway access points, which are maintained on a year-round basis by the County or the State. 94 6) Minimum public and private road standards: roads providing access to two or more lots have to conform to a two-lane standard of no less than 16-foot traveled way.95 7) Bridges are required to be designed for an 80,000 pound vehicle load.96 8) All access roads must be marked with an approved sign; and all lots must be identified by an address.97 89 Correspondence with Becky Herrin, Plumas County Senior Planner, September 8, 2011. 90 Plumas County Code of Ordinances, Title 9 Section 9-4.604 (k). 91 Plumas County, General Plan, 1984, pp. 28 & 29. 92 Ibid., p. 28. 93 Ibid, p. 32. 94 Ibid., p. 16. 95 Ibid., 96 Ibid. 97 Ibid. BECKWOURTH FD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 108 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY 9) All developments within boundaries of a structural fire service provider may be required to contribute to the maintenance of the structural service proportionate to the increase in demand for fire service resulting from the development.98 10) As a condition of development it is required to provide long-term maintenance of private roads to the standards of original improvements, including roadside vegetation management.99 11) The County encourages biomass thinning programs in high fire risk areas.100 The District reported concerns that new developments in the County were not being required to comply with existing requirements.101 The County reported that only one agency had come to the County regarding these concerns, which were unfounded at the time. No conjecture is made by the authors of this report as to the accuracy of these statements. It should be noted that one of the purposes of the newly formed Emergency Service Feasibility Group is to address these concerns. The County is in the process of updating its general plan. The suggested new policies in the General Plan update that would impact fire service providers, but had not yet been adopted as of the drafting of this report, include: 12) The County shall review and update its Fire Safe ordinance to attain and maintain defensible space though conditioning of tentative maps and in new development at the final map or building permit stage. 13) The County will consult Fire Hazard Severity Zone Maps during the review of all projects. The Countywill work with fire protection agencies to develop community fire plans and require appropriate building setbacks and fuel modification requirements within fire hazard zones. 14) In order for the new development to be approved, the County must conclude that adequate emergency water flow, fire access and firefighters and equipment are available. 15) New developments have to show that they have adequate access for emergency vehicles to access the site and for private vehicles to evacuate the area. 16) New developments within high and very high fire hazard areas are required to designate fuel break zones that comply with fire safe requirements. 98 Ibid. 99 Plumas County Code of Ordinances, Title 9 Section 9-4.601. 100 Plumas County Code of Ordinances, Title 4 Section 4-2.101. 101 Profile comments from Chief Greg McCaffrey, May 3, 2011. BECKWOURTH FD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 109 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY 17) The County will work with Forest Service and fire districts in developing fire prevention programs, identifying opportunities for fuel breaks in zones of high and very high fire hazard and educating public. 18) Fire, law enforcement, EMS, resource management, and public health response partners are encouraged to conduct joint training exercises.102 The County has not adopted the new standards for development yet. The revised General Plan may be adopted towards the end of 2012. County zoning code will then go through a revision process in order for the zoning code to implement the General Plan. In 2007, the Board of Supervisors formed the Emergency Services Advisory Committee to “evaluate the funding feasibility of providing uniform and comprehensive emergency services to all of Plumas County.” The Committee attempted to look for opportunities to increase funding for emergency services, but faced a considerable challenge in the difficult economic times. Most recently, it focused on mitigating efforts through building and development standards improvements and the General Plan update process, and encouraging local fire service providers to share resources and realize economies of scale in preparing grant applications, conducting training and engaging in other joint programs. According to the District, the County sends Beckwourth FD plans for proposed construction for review and input, but only for existing subdivisions and not for new developments. The District reported that it was satisfied with its current SOI since it had been recently updated. But it would like to annex about eight more areas that are mainly located to the south of the boundary along SR 70 and on Beckwourth-Genesee road. The District is just starting to initiate the annexation process. In 2010, Beckwourth FD conducted a consolidation study in which it explored the possibility of consolidating with EPRFPD. The conclusion reached was that although consolidation is inevitable in the future, right now all parties are not agreeable on various terms. If EPRFPD were to take on parcel fees, consolidation may be financially sound, as reported by Beckwourth FD. Financing The District reports that current financing levels are adequate to deliver services; however, Beckwourth FD reported that it is constantly in search of more income to be able to provide better services. It was also reported that the recent recession had a negative impact on the District’s revenue streams, as planned developments within its boundaries are on hold and the growth in assessed values for property taxes has been low. 102 Plumas County General Plan, Draft Goals, Policies and Implementation Measures, 2010. BECKWOURTH FD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 110 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY The County keeps accounts for the District’s finances and tracks revenues and expenditures. The District’s total revenues for FY 09-10 were $307,577. Revenue sources include property taxes (38 percent), benefit assessments (25 percent), federal aid (32 percent), state aid (two percent), charges for services (two percent), use of money (one percent) and other revenue (one percent). Benefit assessments are charged on properties recently annexed into the District. The federal aid income is a FEMA staffing grant, which is to be used to augment staffing levels by supplementing salaries. FY 09-10 was the second year of the five year grant. Beckwourth FD charges fees for conducting inspections and responding to wildland fires. The District has a commercial, industrial and residential special inspection fee schedule. The service fees paid to the District for responding to wildland fires as a Cooperating Agency under Assistance by Hire are the same for all Districts that respond to a federal incident. The rates for the personnel responding to an incident are based on comparative salary survey of representative paid fire districts and departments and are updated annually. The District also charges for out-of-area service agreements. Sierra Health Foundation began contracting for services from the District at $10,000 per year; contract payments are increased two percent annually. Their 2011 annual payment is $11,486.86 quarterly. Hartwig pays $3,000 per year with a two percent annual increase. There are no charges for services related to the Fire Center, as it is intended to be a shared facility with Beckwourth FD. Figure 6-5: Beckwourth FD Revenues and Expenditures Income/Expenses FY 09-10 Budgeted FY 09-10 Actual FY 10-11 Budgeted Income Taxes $119,000 50% $116,483 38% $117,000 52% Benefit Assessments $76,000 32% $76,090 25% $73,000 32% Use of Money $2,500 1% $1,008 0% $2,000 1% Federal Aid $25,350 11% $99,964 33% $16,200 7% State Aid $600 0% $6,699 2% $600 0% Charges for Services $10,400 4% $5,975 2% $10,250 5% Other Revenue $5,200 2% $1,358 0% $6,200 3% Total Income $239,050 100% $307,577 100% $225,250 100% Expenses Salaries & Benefits $118,846 30% $110,753 34% $90,000 29% Services & Supplies $227,657 57% $165,074 50% $158,250 52% Capital Outlays $53,000 13% $44,743 14% $57,000 19% Other Expenditures $0 0% $9,951 3% $0 0% Total Expense $399,503 100% $330,521 100% $305,250 100% Net Income -$160,453 -$22,944 -$80,000 Notes: (1) While district budgets expenditures that exceed revenues, the District has historically spent signficantly less than was budgeted and has maintained a fund balance of between $65,000 and $144,000 over the last five fiscal years. BECKWOURTH FD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 111 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY Beckwourth FD expenditures were $330,521 in FY 09-10. Of this amount, 50 percent was spent on services and supplies, 27 percent on salaries and wages, 14 percent on fixed assets, six percent on employee benefits, and three percent on other expenditures. In FY 09-10, expenditures exceeded revenues by $22,944, which was covered by the District’s contingency fund balance. At the end of FY 09-10, the District’s fund balance was $81,997. The District does not have a capital improvement plan, but plans its expenditures for capital improvement projects on an annual basis in the annual budgets. Capital improvements are financed through capital reserves which are set aside for specific projects and occasionally through loans. The District also does some fundraising through selling T-shirts and reflective signs. Every year, Beckwourth FD puts aside money for capital improvements in two categories—fire engine replacement that is allocated about $20,000 a year and grounds improvements, which is allocated $5,000 per year. The District is currently paying back a loan for a new truck; the funds to pay back this loan come out of the $20,000 annually allocated to engine replacement capital savings; consequently, savings for future engine replacement have been lower. Once the loan is paid off in a few years, the engine replacement fund will continue receiving the full amount. The District does not have a formal emergency reserve policy. However, it has a practice of putting money away for contingencies. Beckwourth FD tries to keep a minimum of $50,000 in its contingency fund. As mentioned previously, the contingency fund balance at the end of FY 09-10 was approximately $80,000. The District uses this to cover excess expenditures in any given year. The District identified additional financing opportunities, one of which is to apply for more grants. Currently, Beckwourth FD has a pending grant application with CalFire for safety, fire and radio equipment and training. Additionally, the township of Beckwourth, Tax Rate Area 53-138, does not have a parcel rate attached to it, therefore, BFD is not receiving property tax revenue from this tax rate area, although it was part of the District’s original boundaries. The District is looking into the possibility of changing this situation. The District is also expecting extra income from future annexations. The County reported that only those areas that had existing taxes in place prior to 1977 contribute a share of the property tax base to the Districts. Before the passage of Proposition 13, Districts had the ability to set the tax rate at will. With the passage of Proposition 13, the tax rate was frozen as of a certain date. Therefore, some Districts had existing taxes and some didn’t. The County does not have a procedure for renegotiating tax sharing for existing developed areas, only for annexations on a case-by-case basis and only for a portion of any future tax increases, not for the base. Fire district law allows districts to hold parcel tax elections in order to raise tax revenue. The District does not participate in any joint power authorities (JPAs) or joint financing mechanisms. BECKWOURTH FD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 112 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY FFIIRREE AANNDD EEMMEERRGGEENNCCYY SSEERRVVIICCEESS Service Overview Beckwourth FD provides structural fire suppression, wildland fire suppression, emergency response, basic life support, advanced life support, rescue and limited fire prevention programs. Prevention programs include performing educational activities with children at a nearby summer camp, conducting inspections, issuing burn permits, patrolling and checking on burn permits, and putting up signs and warnings. Collaboration The District has mutual aid agreements with SVVFD, City of Loyalton FD, USFS, Sierra County FPD, EPRFPD, and EPHCD. It engages in joint trainings with fire departments from Plumas and other counties. The District is a member of the Fire Chief’s Association, Special District Association of Plumas County, California Special District Association, and National Fire Protection Association (NFPA). The District also was involved in the County General Plan update and provided its input into the discussions about a countywide fire warden position. Dispatch The County Sheriff is the Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP); consequently, most land line emergency calls (9-1-1 calls) are directed to the Sheriff. Most cell phone emergency calls (9-1-1 calls) are answered by CHP and redirected to the Sheriff. The Sheriff provides dispatching for most fire providers in the County except for the ones in the northern part of the County, which are served by the CHP Susanville Dispatch Center. The Forest Service has its own dispatch. The Sheriff Dispatch Center has a first responder map, which it uses to identify which provider to dispatch to an incident. All territory within the County has a determined first responder; although, many areas lie outside the LAFCo approved boundary of the districts and lack an officially designated fire provider. The District reported that there were problems in the past with incorrect fire departments being paged quite frequently. Beckwourth FD started producing incident reports and sending them to the dispatch center. The County Board of Supervisors also became involved in the problem. The issue got resolved and currently dispatch mistakes occur only from time to time. There are also a few issues with dispatch that are of concern to Beckwourth FD. The dispatchers need an updated ESNmap; fire districts should work with the Sheriff’s Office to resolve any dispatch issues around the Lake Davis area. Another issue is that Beckwourth FD usually gets dispatched to Grizzly Way Avenue in the City of Portola, due to the fact that multiple streets within the District’s service area contain the word Grizzly in their names. Beckwourth FD also sometimes gets mistakenly dispatched to the area west of Portola, although the territory belongs to either EPRFPD or Portola service areas; as a result, all BECKWOURTH FD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 113 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY three providers arrive to an incident location. Another dispatch need includes the capability to detect a location from a cell phone call. More people are expected to start using cell phones instead of land lines over the next few years, and this detection capability will become increasingly more important. The District reports that currently radio frequencies are shared with other providers in Plumas County, but Beckwourth FD is in the process of acquiring its own frequency. When multiple providers respond to an incident in Beckwourth FD’s service area, they use the incident command model. The chief assigns other service providers tasks as needed. Staffing Beckwourth FD has 16 sworn personnel—one fire chief, two division chiefs, two battalion chiefs, two captains, two engineers, one chaplain, and eight firefighters. Fire chief, fire captain and an engineer are paid personnel. One of the battalion chiefs is a call staff member who gets paid per call. The rest of the firefighters are entitled to compensation when they respond to wildland fires. The median age of the fire fighters is 50, with a range from 23 to 77. The District reports that its staffing levels have not changed significantly in the last few years. Beckwourth FD tries to recruit more volunteers through word of mouth, banners on road sides and advertising at its booth at an annual event in Portola. According to the California State Fire Marshal, all volunteer and call firefighters must acquire Firefighter I certification; however, there is no time limit as to how long they may work before attaining certification. Firefighter I certification requires completion of the 259-hour Firefighter I course, which includes training on various fireground tasks, rescue operations, fire prevention and investigation techniques, and inspection and maintenance of equipment. In addition to this course, Firefighter I certification also requires that the applicant have a minimum of six months of volunteer or call experience in a California fire department as a firefighter performing suppression duties.103 Beckwourth FD has seven Firefighter I, five Firefighter II, one fire officer and 15 BLS I certified personnel. The District conducts weekly trainings. On the first Monday of each month there is a business meeting, on the second and third Mondays there are fire trainings, and on the fourth they conduct EMS training. The District does not have a minimum required amount of training hours, but if a firefighter misses three months of training he or she becomes inactive. 103 State Fire Marshall, Course Information and Required Materials, 2007, p. 44 BECKWOURTH FD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 114 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY Facilities and Capacity Beckwourth FD operates two fire stations. Station 1 is located in Beckwourth and was built in 1948. The last addition to the station was done in 2003-04. Station 2, on Grizzly Road, was built in 2006. The District owns both stations. Station 1 is staffed from eight in the morning to five in the afternoon. There are always two to three people at a time staffing the station, including administrative personnel. Station 2, shared with USFS, is staffed from nine in the morning till seven in the afternoon in summer months and from eight in the morning to five in the afternoon during the rest of the year. Five people, all of whom are USFS personnel, usually staff the station. Station 2 is also operated by Beckwourth FD volunteers who typically respond from their work or residence. Station 1, which is the main station, was reported to be in good condition. It is used to house vehicles, for training purposes and as an administrative office. Station 2 was reported to be in excellent condition.104 It is shared with USFS, which has a small office and a wildland engine there. Station 1 houses one Type 1 engine, two Type 3 engines, two Type 4 engines, and one Type 1 water tender. Station 2 is used to store one Type 1 engine, one Type 4 engine, and one Type 3 engine that belongs to USFS. There is also a command vehicle, which is used by the chief and is usually kept at his place of residence. “The Beckwourth Fire District has access to fire flows of 1,000 gpm from fire hydrants. The water pressure for the service area is 60 psi. The total water storage accessible to the District for fire suppression is two million gallons.”105 Currently, the District has the capacity to provide adequate services within its boundary area. However, it is anticipated that as large planned developments are completed, Beckwourth FD will need additional stations.106 Infrastructure Needs Station 1 requires upgrades. It needs new asphalt that would cost approximately $80,000-$100,000 and replacement of a portion of the roof that is estimated to be about $10,000. There are currently no specific plans to address these needs. A new facility (the Fire Center) is currently being constructed near the airport. The facility will be shared by Beckwourth FD with USFS. Other new facilities will be constructed in the future as needed. 104 Facility condition definitions: Excellent-relatively new (less than 10 years old) and requires minimal maintenance. Good- provides reliable operation in accordance with design parameters and requires only routine maintenance. Fair- operating at or near design levels; however, non-routine renovation, upgrading and repairs are needed to ensure continued reliable operation. Poor- cannot be operated within design parameters; major renovations are required to restore the facility and ensure reliable operation. 105 John Gullixson, Beckwourth Fire District Municipal Service Review and Sphere of Influence Update, 2010, p. 18. 106 Interview with Beckwourth FD fire chief, 4/26/2011. BECKWOURTH FD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 115 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY Station 2 is brand new and does not require any upgrades. The District does not have any vehicle needs. A majority of the vehicles have been replaced recently. The command vehicle is aging, but there are currently no plans to replace it. Challenges The District reported several challenges to providing adequate services:  A residence on Cub Lane is extremely difficult to get to during an incident. There is an easement instead of a driveway, and only a pickup truck is able drive up to the house.  A similar challenge exists at a residence off of Grizzly Road. The driveway is at a 45 degree angle and none of the larger engines can drive up to the house.  The District does not have the ability to provide full hazardous materials service. It is only able to contain a threat and wait for the hazmat team.  Due to the recession, the District’s tax income has been reduced and planned developments are presently on hold. Some of the opportunities for service improvement mentioned by the District include looking for additional grants and pursuing possible consolidation with other fire providers in the future. Service Adequacy While there are several benchmarks that may define the level of fire service provided by an agency, indicators of service adequacy discussed here include ISO ratings, response times, and level of staffing and station resources for the service area. Fire services in the communities are classified by the Insurance Service Office (ISO), an advisory organization. This classification indicates the general adequacy of coverage. Communities with the best fire department facilities, systems for water distribution, fire alarms and communications, and equipment and personnel receive a rating of 1. Beckwourth FD has an ISO rating of 5/7/10. Grizzly Ranch, Grizzly Creek Ranch and Crocker Estates have a rating of 5, the southern area of County Road A-23 has a rating of 10, and the remainder of the District has a rating of 7. The ISO rating was last updated in 2010. The rating of 5 is achieved in the mentioned communities because of the three water service providers operating within them, Grizzly Ranch CSD, Grizzly Creek Ranch/Sierra Health Foundation and Grizzly Lake CSD, and consequently the additional water supply.107 107 Telephone interview with the chief, 4/26/2011. BECKWOURTH FD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 116 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY The guideline established by the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) for fire response times is six minutes at least 90 percent of the time, with response time measured from the 911-call time to the arrival time of the first-responder at the scene. The fire response time guideline established by the Center for Public Safety Excellence (formerly the Commission on Fire Accreditation International) is 5 minutes 50 seconds at least 90 percent of the time.108 Emergency response time standards vary by level of urbanization of an area: the more urban an area, the faster a response has to be. The California EMS Agency established the following response time guidelines: five minutes in urban areas, 15 minutes in suburban or rural areas, and as quickly as possible in wildland areas. The District’s response zones includes the rural and wilderness classifications. The District tracks each incident’s response time. Sometimes it takes a minute to respond, but other times it may take more than ten depending on the time of day and the area. The average response time is five minutes. An area that Beckwourth FD can improve upon is calculating its median and 90th percentile response times. The service area size109 for each fire station varies between fire districts. The median fire station in eastern Plumas serves approximately 20 square miles. Sierra Valley FPD serves the most expansive area, with 111 square miles served per station on average. Densely populated areas tend to have smaller service areas. For example, the average service area for the City of Portola is 3.8 square miles. By comparison, each fire station in Beckwourth FD serves approximately 39.5 square miles. The number of firefighters serving within a particular jurisdiction is another indicator of level of service; however, it is approximate. The providers’ call firefighters may have differing availability and reliability. A district with more firefighters could have fewer resources if scheduling availability is restricted. Staffing levels in eastern Plumas vary from eight call firefighters per 1,000 residents in City of Portola service area to 42 in Beckwourth FD. 108 Commission on Fire Accreditation International, 2000. 109 Service area refers to the area that the agency will respond to, based on a first responder map used by the Sherriff’s office. BECKWOURTH FD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 117 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY Figure 6-6: Beckwourth Fire District Fire Profile Fire Service Facilities Firestation Location Condition Staff per Shift Vehicles Station 1 180 Main Good 2-3 District staff including 1 Type 1 engine, 2 Type 3 engines, 2 Type Street, administrative personnel 4 engines, 1 Type 1 water tender. Beckwourth CA Station 2 4076 Grizzly Excellent 5 USFS staff 1 Type 1 engine, 1 Type 4 engine, 1 Type Road, Portola, 3 engine that belongs to USFS. CA 96122 Facility Sharing Current Practices: The District shares Station 2 with USFS. Its meeting hall is used by various groups for community events. The hospital uses the meeting hall for an annual vaccination clinic. Future opportunities: The District will share the Fire Center facility near the airport. Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies Station 1 needs new asphalt and roof repairs. Command vehicle needs to be replaced in the near future. District Resource Statistics Service Configuration Service Demand Staffing Base Year 2010 Configuration Base Year 2010 Statistical Base Year 2010 Fire Stations in District 2 Fire Suppression Direct Total Service Calls 65 Stations Serving District 2 EMS Direct % EMS 50% Sq. Miles Served per Station1 40 Ambulance Transport EPHCD % Fire/Hazardous Materials 31% Total Staff2 18 Hazardous Materials Direct % False 6% Total Full-time Firefighters 0 Air Rescue/Ambulance Helicopter CareFlight % Misc. emergency 5% Total Call Firefighters 16 Fire Suppression Helicopter USFS, CalFire % Non-emergency 8% Total Sworn Staff per Station3 8 Public Safety Answering Point Sheriff % Mutual Aid Calls 18% Total Sworn Staff per 1,000 42 Fire/EMS Dispatch Sheriff Calls per 1,000 people 169 Service Adequacy Service Challenges Two houses have limited access. The District does not perform hazmat Response Time Base Year 2010 services. The recent recession negatively affected the District's finances. Median Response Time (min) NP Training Firefighters train every Monday. On the first Monday of each month they 90th Percentile Response Time (min) NP have a business meeting, on the second and third Mondays they conduct fire trainings and on the fourth Mondya is EMS training. If a firefighter ISO Rating 5/7/10 misses three months of training he or she becomes inactive. Mutual & Automatic Aid Agreements The District has mutual aid agreements with SVVFD, City of Loyalton FD, USFS, Sierra County FPD, and EPHCD. Notes: 1) Primary service area (square miles) per station. 2) Total staff includes sworn and non-sworn personnel. 3) Based on ratio of sworn full-time and call staff to the number of stations. Actual staffing levels of each station vary. BECKWOURTH FD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 118 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY BBEECCKKWWOOUURRTTHH FFPPDD DDEETTEERRMMIINNAATTIIOONNSS Growth and Population Projections  Over the past few years the District has experienced an increase in population due to multiple annexations.  Despite economic difficulties and stalled developments, the population of the District is expected to grow if the planned annexations of eight more territories go through. Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities and Adequacy of Public Services, Including Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies  The District’s current facilities have the capacity to adequately serve current demand, but not future growth. When planned developments are constructed, the District will need additional stations.  It is recommended that the County Sheriff’s Office work with the fire districts to update the ESN map that is used for dispatching, in order to adequately address any communication concerns and recent boundary changes.  The District identified a need for new asphalt and replacement of a portion of the roof at Station 1. The command vehicle will need to be replaced in the near future.  Currently, capital improvement projects are identified in the annual budget. The District should consider adopting a capital improvement plan to identify financing needs and sources for these needs.  An area that Beckwourth FD could improve upon is tracking and calculating its median and 90th percentile response times. Financial Ability of Agencies to Provide Services  The District reports that current financing levels are adequate to deliver services.  Beckwourth FD is searching for additional revenue sources to provide enhanced service levels.  The District hopes to increase its funding by applying for grants, ensuring all parcels are contributing property taxes and annexing additional territories. BECKWOURTH FD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 119 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY Status of, and Opportunities for, Shared Facilities  Beckwourth FD collaborates with other fire providers in Plumas County, and outside of it, through mutual aid agreements and memberships in the Fire Chiefs Association, Special District Association of Plumas County, California Special District Association, and NFPA.  The District shares its Station 2 with USFS, and provides its meeting hall for community and hospital events.  The District will be sharing the Fire Center facility with USFS, which is being constructed near the airport. Accountability for Community Service Needs, Including Governmental Structure and Operational Efficiencies  Beckwourth FD demonstrated accountability and transparency by disclosing financial and service related information in response to LAFCo requests.  The County of Plumas is considering hiring a countywide fire marshal whose responsibilities may include enforcing fire code and conducting building inspections.  A governmental structure option is consolidation with other neighboring fire service providers, which offers opportunities for shared resources and finances.  Beckwourth FD conducted a consolidation study, which explored the possibility of consolidation with EPRFPD. The conclusion reached was that although consolidation is inevitable in the future, presently, all parties are not agreeable on various terms.  The District is currently initiating the annexation of eight more territories.  The District hopes to improve its operational efficiency through applying for more grants. BECKWOURTH FD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 120 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY 7. C L I O P U B L I C U T I L I T Y D I STR I CT Clio Public Utility District (CPUD) supplies domestic water to the township of Clio. A Municipal Service Review and Sphere of Influence update were initiated in 2008, but never completed.110 This is the first Municipal Service Review for CPUD. AAGGEENNCCYY OOVVEERRVVIIEEWW Background CPUD was formed in 1950 as an independent special district.111 It was organized to provide water services to the residents of the township of Clio. The principal act that governs the District is the Public Utility District Act.112 The principal act empowers the District to acquire, construct, own, operate, control, or use works for supplying light, water, power, heat, transportation, telephone service, or other means of communication, or means for the disposal of garbage, sewage, or refuse matter.113 In addition, the District may acquire, construct, own, complete, use, and operate a fire department, street lighting system, public parks and other recreation facilities, and provide for the drainage of roads, streets, and public places.114 Districts must apply and obtain LAFCo approval to exercise services authorized by the principal act but not already provided (i.e., latent powers) by the district at the end of 2000.115 CPUD is located in the eastern part of Plumas County. Clio is situated in Mohawk Valley about five miles southeast of Graeagle, on SR 89; it is bordered by the Middle Fork Feather River to the south and west. Adjacent service providers include Graeagle FPD and C-Road CSD. 110 LAFCo Resolution 2008-003. 111 State Board of Equalization. 112 Public Utilities Code §15501-17501. 113 Public Utilities Code §16461. 114 Public Utilities Code §16463. 115 Government Code §56824.10. CLIO PUD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 121 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY Boundaries CPUD boundary is entirely within Plumas County. The District’s boundaries encompass approximately 212 acres or 0.3 square miles. 116 In 1990, the detachment of Valley Ranch Investments property was initiated but later discontinued.117 There have been no annexations to or detachments from the District since its formation. Sphere of Influence The Sphere of Influence for the District was adopted in 1976 and last updated in 1983.118 The SOI area is significantly larger than the boundary area constituting seven square miles versus 0.3 square miles with the bounds. The District’s SOI extends outside of the District’s bounds south to the Sierra County border, and does not include territory within the District’s bounds in the north, as shown in Figure 7-1. The present SOI indicates that LAFCo intended eventual detachment of the area outside the SOI but inside the District’s bounds. Extra-territorial Services There are no connections outside of the District’s boundaries and the District does not provide any extra-territorial services. Areas of Interest One area of interest for the District is the part of its boundary area in the north that is outside of its SOI. As previously mentioned, this issue will be reviewed during the current cycle of SOI updates. Although CPUD has latent powers to provide fire services, it currently does not do so. Graeagle FPD provides extra-territorial fire services in Clio and charges service fees for responding to incidents outside of its bounds. There is the potential the Clio area to be annexed by GFPD; in the meantime, GFPD is currently working on an out-of-area service agreement with Clio. 116 Total agency area calculated in GIS software based on agency boundaries as of July 1, 2011. The data is not considered survey quality. 117 LAFCo Resolution 1990-3. 118 LAFCo Resolution 83-31. CLIO PUD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 122 Clio Public Utility District ·|þ} 70 15 14 13 C ROAD 18 17 16 22 23 24 19 20 Portola McClears Rd 21 C R O 89 A D Clio State 40A Rd 27 26 25 30 29 28 89 34 35 36 31 32 33 3 2 1 6 5 4 htroN 22 pihsnwoT Range 12 East Range 13 East Legend Clio Public Utility District CSD Clio Public Utility District ·|}þ Major Roads Parcels Resolution: 70 CA State Highway Clio Public Utility District (SOI) Adopted: 9/25/1950 ² Streets Sectional Grid (MDB&M) Clio Public Utility District (SOI) Stream / River Resolution: 83-31 Waterbodies 0 0.25 0.5 1Miles Adopted: Source: Plumas LAFCo Map Created 5/4/2011 htroN 12 pihsnwoT 7-1 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY Accountability and Governance CPUD is governed by a five-member board of directors who are to be elected at-large to staggered four-year terms. There hasn’t been a contested election in at least the last eight years. There are currently five members. Current board member names, positions, and term expiration dates are shown in Figure 7-2. Board meetings are held as needed; there is not set date or time. The members meet at least three times a year at the President’s house. Agendas are posted at the post office. Minutes are available upon request. The District does not have a website, so its documents are not available online. Figure 7-2: Clio PUD Governing Body Clio Public Utility District District Contact Information Contact: Bob Raymond, President Address: 250 Main Street, Clio, CA 96106 Telephone: 530-836-1339 Email/website: brpaints@hotmail.com Board of Directors Member Name Position Term Expiration Manner of Selection Length of Term Bob Raymond President December 2013 Elected 4 years Ken Newsted Director December 2013 Elected 4 years Mark Callahan Director December 2011 Elected 4 years Matt Williams Director December 2013 Appointed 4 years Phil Kaznowski Director December 2011 Appointed 4 years Meetings Date: Three times a year and as needed. No exact schedule. Location: President's place of residence. Agenda Distribution: Posted at the post office. Minutes Distribution: Available upon request. In addition to the required agendas and minutes, the District does public outreach through annual newsletters. The District also contacts its constituents on an as-needed basis (i.e. in case of a drought). In the event of an emergency, there is a telephone tree to contact all CPUD customers. The District does not have an official system through which complaints may be submitted. If a customer is dissatisfied with the District’s services, they may contact a board member or bring it to the Board’s attention at a meeting. Any board member can handle a routine repair or emergency item. If an issue is more serious, the Board votes on its resolution. A majority of complaints are about leaky pipes at the main water box. The District reported that there were four complaints in 2009. CLIO PUD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 124 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY Clio PUD demonstrated accountability and transparency in its disclosure of information and cooperation with Plumas LAFCo. The District responded to the questionnaires and cooperated with the document requests. Planning and Management Practices CPUD is primarily a volunteer District. All administrative tasks are fulfilled by the Board of Directors. There is one unpaid operator who is also a member of the Board; he holds an operator’s license and volunteers about eight hours of his time per month. The District contracts with an outside company for water testing. The District does not track its staff workload or evaluate its personnel or the contractor. CPUD does not perform formal evaluations of overall district performance, such as benchmarking or annual reports. The District’s financial planning efforts include an annually adopted budget. The District’s financial statements are not audited. The District provided a balance sheet and the Special Districts Financial Transactions Report for FY 09-10. Capital improvement projects are planned for on an annual basis. The District adopts a Water Quality Emergency Notification Plan, which was last updated in 2005. Existing Demand and Growth Projections Designated land uses within the District are primarily residential.119 The District’s boundary area is approximately 0.03 square miles. Population The District has a small system that serves 49 connections. Based on an average household size throughout the County of 1.9 people, the estimated population of CPUD is 93. A majority of the population is full-time residents. Existing Demand The District reported that it had observed little change in the level of service demand in the last few years. Only one connection has been added between 2006 and 2011. Projected Growth and Development The agency anticipates little or no growth in population and similarly in service demand within the District in the next few years; however, no formal population projections have been made by the District. 119 Plumas County Parcel Application. CLIO PUD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 125 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY The State Department of Finance (DOF) projects that the population of Plumas County will grow by five percent in the next 10 years. Thus, the average annual population growth in the County is anticipated to be approximately 0.5 percent. Based on these projections, the District’s population would increase from 93 in 2010 to approximately 98 in 2020. It is anticipated that demand for service within the District will increase minimally based on the DOF population growth projections through 2020. CPUD reports that there is little potential for development within its boundaries or in the areas adjacent to the District. There is only one 13-acre block that is undeveloped, but there are currently no potential developers in the area. Presently, CPUD is reportedly using approximately 60 percent of its water source capacity, and since there is little anticipated growth this capacity should be sufficient for some time. The District did not identify any areas within its future growth area to which it would be difficult to provide an adequate level of service with regards to potable water service; however, the District did identify the need to improve fire flows to serve any growth in demand. Growth Strategies The District is not a land use authority, and does not hold primary responsibility for implementing growth strategies. The land use authority for unincorporated areas is the County. CPUD proposes that its Sphere of Influence be coterminous with its boundaries. There is the potential for annexation into Graeagle FPD for fire services. Financing The District reported that the current financing level was adequate to deliver services. No constraints or challenges to financing were identified. The District’s total revenues for FY 09-10 were $27,653. Revenue sources included income from rates (56 percent), income from property taxes (43 percent) and interest income and homeowners property tax relief (one percent). The District charges water rates of $25 per connection per month regardless of water use. The District’s expenditures in FY 09-10 were $10,311. Expenditures were composed of transmission and distribution (90 percent) and administration (ten percent). CPUD has minimal expenses since it is operated by volunteers. Capital improvements are planned for on an annual basis. CPUD reported that it addressed much the system’s deferred maintenance in 2010. The District does not have a formal or informal reserve policy at this time. However, at the end of FY 09-10, it had a fund balance equivalent to ten years of operating expenses. The District does not participate in any joint power authorities (JPAs) or joint financing mechanisms. CLIO PUD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 126 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY WWAATTEERR SSEERRVVIICCEESS Service Overview The District provides retail water services in the form of groundwater extraction and conveyance to connections. While CPUD does not presently provide treatment, the District has the capability to chlorinate the groundwater. An independent company provides water testing to the District through a contract. CPUD’s water system is operated by one of the board members who volunteers approximately eight hours of his time every month. The operator holds a D1 certification for distribution systems, which meets the needs of the system. Facilities and Capacity District water system facilities include a water tank, a chlorination system, and four miles of distribution pipelines. The District relies entirely on groundwater from two points of diversion from the Mohawk Chapman Springs. At this time, only one of the two diversion points (the lower spring) is being utilized. This is due to bacteriological problems associated with the upper spring. The lower spring is estimated to have a flow rate of approximately 250 gpm. The District maintains water rights to natural groundwater springs, commonly referred to as the Mohawk Chapman Springs. The District’s rights are reportedly pre-1914 water rights. There is no documentation that limits the District’s use of the spring water. The springs are on U.S. Forest Services land. Water flows two miles from the springs to the 12,000-gallon water tank. From the storage tank, water flows two miles into town. During the Plumas County Public Health Agency’s most recent inspection of the District’s system in 2005, the storage tank was identified as being in good condition. While the storage tank provides adequate storage capacity for the daily demands on the system, the storage is insufficient to sustain adequate fire flows. Located next to the storage tank is a chlorination station that was built as a result of several coliform MCL exceedances between 2001 and 2003. It was discovered that the upper spring was the source of previous bacteriological failures; consequently, the upper spring has been taken off-line. The spring is to remain off-line until either additional repairs of the spring eliminate the bacterial intrusion or the system is able to continuously disinfect the water supply, which is the purpose of the chlorinator. As flows from one spring are sufficient to provide adequate water to cover demand, both the chlorinator and second spring are offline. Bacteriological samples in 2010 were negative for coliform. The District does not track the amount of water from the spring or the amount delivered to the connections, as there are no flow meters throughout the system. Flow CLIO PUD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 127 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY meters were installed at the new chlorine injection site; however, the chlorine injector is offline and the flow meters are not in use. Consequently, the District was unable to provide the amount of water supplied or provided in 2010. The District owns and maintains four miles of pipelines that were identified as being generally in good condition. The actual age of the distribution system is unknown, but parts of the distribution system are estimated to be approximately 50 years old. The distribution system has a mix of both PVC (20 percent) and Transite (80 percent) pipeline. As a section breaks, the Transite portions are replaced by PVC. The District reported that loss from the distribution system itself is assumed to be minimal in lieu of flow meters to accurately calculate what actual losses are. Infrastructure Needs The residents in Clio are considering annexation into a fire district; however prior to annexation, the water system needs to be improved to meet fire flow requirements. In order to meet fire flow needs for a residential fire, the District needs to be able to provide 750 gpm for a period of two hours and meet domestic water demands. A commercial fire requires 1,250 gpm for two hours and the ability to meet domestic water demands at the same time. The District is unable to meet either of these requirements. Plans to increase fire flow include enlarging the four inch pipe into town to a six inch pipe and additional storage tanks. The District has no plans to install the pipe presently, and has not estimated the approximate cost of the improvement. Challenges The District reported that the most significant challenge to service was access to the system during the winter, as snow limits access. Service Adequacy This section reviews indicators of service adequacy, including the Plumas County Public Health Agency system evaluation, drinking water quality, and distribution system integrity. CLIO PUD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 128 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY Figure 7-3: CPUD Water Service Adequacy Indicators Water Service Adequacy and Efficiency Indicators Service Adequacy Indicators Connections/FTE 980 O&M Cost Ratio1 $41,977 MGD Delivered/FTE 4.4 Distribution Loss Rate Unknown Distribution Breaks & Leaks (2010) 0 Distribution Break Rate2 0 Water Pressure 60+ psi Total Employees (FTEs) 0.05 Customer Complaints CY 2010: Odor/taste (0), leaks (0), pressure (0), other (4) Drinking Water Quality Regulatory Information3 # Description Health Violations 4 Exceedance of Coliform MCL (2001, 2002 and 2003) Monitoring Violations 1 Violation of routine monitoring for coliform (2002) DW Compliance Rate4 100% Notes: (1) Operations and maintenance costs (exc. purchased water, debt, depreciation) per volume (mgd) delivered. (2) Distribution break rate is the number of leaks and pipeline breaks per 100 miles of distribution piping. (3) Violations since 2000, as reported by the U.S. EPA Safe Drinking Water Information System. (4) Drinking water compliance is percent of time in compliance with National Primary Drinking Water Regulations in 2010. The County Public Health Agency is responsible for the enforcement of the federal and California Safe Drinking Water Acts, and the operational permitting and regulatory oversight of public water systems of 199 connections or less. These systems are subject to inspections by the County Public Health Agency. During the Agency’s most recent inspection in 2005, the Agency noted that CPUD was behind on a significant number of chemical tests as well as lead and copper tap sampling. Drinking water quality is determined by a combination of historical violations reported by the EPA since 2000 and the percent of time that the District was in compliance with Primary Drinking Water Regulations in 2010. Since 2000, the District has had four health violations due to coliform exceedances in 2001, 2002 and 2003, and one monitoring violation for coliform in 2002. This equates to approximately 102 violations per 1,000 connections served. By comparison, the other water providers in the eastern region of the County had an average of 21 violations per 1,000 connections served during that same time frame. The median water service provider in the region was in compliance 96 percent of the time in 2010. The District was in compliance with drinking water regulations 100 percent of the time, which was above the regional average. Indicators of distribution system integrity are the number of breaks and leaks in 2010 and the rate of unaccounted for distribution loss. The District reported approximately zero breaks and leaks per 100 miles of pipe lines in 2010, while other providers in the region had a median rate of 12 breaks per 100 pipe miles. The District estimated that it loses approximately 10 percent of water between the water source and the connections served; although this is only an approximation as the District does not have any flow meters to track the amount of water flowing into and out of the system. By comparison, other providers in the area averaged seven percent distribution losses. CLIO PUD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 129 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY Figure 7-4: CPUD Water Service Tables Water Service Configuration & Infrastructure Water Service Provider(s) Water Service Provider(s) Retail Water CPUD Groundwater Recharge None Wholesale Water None Groundwater Extraction CPUD Water Treatment CPUD Recycled Water None Service Area Description Retail Water The District serves all developed lots within the boundaries of the District. Wholesale Water NA Recycled Water NA Water Sources Supply (Acre-Feet/Year) Source Type Average2 Maximum3 Safe/Firm Mohawk Chapman Springs Groundwater 150 gpm 250 gpm Unknown System Overview Average Daily Demand 0.04265 mgd Peak Day Demand Unknown Major Facilities Facility Name Type Capacity Condition Yr Built Storage Tank Storage 12,000 gpm Good 1960s Chlorine Injection Building Treatment 400 gpm Excellent 2006 Other Infrastructure Reservoirs - Storage Capacity (mg) 0.012 Pump Stations 0 Pressure Zones 1 Production Wells 0 Pipe Miles 4 Facility-Sharing and Regional Collaboration Current Practices: The District does not presently practice faclity sharing with other agencies or organizations. Opportunities: There may be an opportunity for the District to share equipment with other nearby water providers. Notes: (1) NA means Not Applicable, NP means Not Provided, mg means millions of gallons, af means acre-feet. (2) District reported that it is using approximately 60 percent of the system's capacity. (3) Maximum reported flow from the springs by the District. CLIO PUD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 130 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY Water Demand and Supply Service Connections Total Inside Bounds Outside Bounds Total 49 49 0 Irrigation/Landscape 0 0 0 Domestic 47 47 0 Commercial/Industrial/Institutional 2 2 0 Recycled 0 0 0 Other 0 0 0 Average Annual Demand Information (Acre-Feet per Year)1 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 Total Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Supply Information (Acre-feet per Year)2 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 Total Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Imported 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Groundwater Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Surface 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Recycled 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Drought Supply and Plans Drought Supply (af)3 Year 1: No Change Year 2: No Change Year 3: No Change Storage Practices Storage is for short-term emergency supply only. Drought Plan The District does not have a drought plan. Water Conservation Practices CUWCC Signatory No Metering No meters Conservation Pricing No Other Practices None Notes: (1) Connections are not metered. (2) The District does not track the flow from the springs. (3) The District has not estimated available supply during a three year drought. During past droughts, the District reported that it has experienced little difference in spring levels. CLIO PUD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 131 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY Water Rates and Financing Residential Water Rates-Ongoing Charges FY 10-111 Avg. Monthly Rate Description Charges Consumption2 Flat monthly fee regardless of amount or Residential $ 25.00 7,600 gal/month type of use. Rate-Setting Procedures Most Recent Rate Change 4/1/06 Frequency of Rate Changes As needed Water Development Fees and Requirements Fee Approach Fees are set to cover operations, but do not cover major capital expenditures. Connection Fee Amount $1,500 per single family home Water Enterprise Revenues, FY 09-10 Operating Expenditures, FY 09-10 Source Amount % Amount Total $27,653 100% Total $10,311 Rates & charges $15,405 56% Administration $1,076 Property tax $11,825 43% O & M $9,235 Grants $0 0% Capital Depreciation NR Interest $303 1.1% Debt $0 Connection Fees $0 0% Purchased Water $0 Other $120 0% Other $0 Notes: (1) Rates include water-related service charges and usage charges. (2) Water use assumptions were used to calculate average monthly bills. Assumed use levels are consistent countywide for comparison purposes. CLIO PUD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 132 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY CCLLIIOO PPUUDD DDEETTEERRMMIINNAATTIIOONNSS Growth and Population Projections  The estimated population of CPUD is 93. A majority of the population is full-time residents.  There has been minimal growth and little change in the level of service demand in the last few years.  Similarly, minimal change in service demand is anticipated in the next few years.  There is one small undeveloped block, but currently no potential developers. Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities and Adequacy of Public Services, Including Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies  The District does not track the amount of water from the spring or the amount delivered to the connections, as there are no flow meters throughout the system. Consequently, there is no way to determine what percent of the system’s capacity is presently in use. To date, there have reportedly been no issues with demand exceeding available flows.  It is recommended that the District install meters to track flows from the water supply, as well as the amount delivered to customers.  The residents in Clio are considering annexation into a fire district; however prior to annexation, the water system needs to be improved to meet fire flow requirements. Plans to enhance fire flow include enlarging the four inch pipe into town to a six inch pipe and additional storage tanks.  Capital improvement projects are planned for on an annual basis. Financial Ability of Agencies to Provide Services  The current financing level is adequate to deliver services. No constraints or challenges to financing were identified.  CPUD has minimal expenses since it is operated by volunteers. The District should be prepared to cover costs of personnel should volunteers no longer be able to staff the system.  CPUD’s rates for water service were last updated in 2006 and are the lowest in the region among other water providers. It is recommended that CPUD evaluate and CLIO PUD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 133 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY update its rates to ensure that they are sufficient to cover operating and capital costs. Status of, and Opportunities for, Shared Facilities  The District currently does not share its facilities with other service providers.  There may be an opportunity for the District to share specialized equipment with nearby water providers. Accountability for Community Service Needs, Including Governmental Structure and Operational Efficiencies  CPUD demonstrated accountability and transparency by disclosing financial and service related information in response to LAFCo requests. However, as the District does not track water flows, it was unable to provide related requested information.  The District could enhance accountability and transparency to its constituents by holding board meetings at a public meeting space and building a website; however, given the small number of district constituents and its location, these options may not be feasible.  A governmental structure option for Clio PUD is annexation into Graeagle FPD for fire services. CLIO PUD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 134 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY 8. C-ROA D COMM U N ITY SE RVI CES DISTRICT C-Road Community Services District (C-Road CSD) provides fire suppression, emergency medical services, and road maintenance and snow removal on C-road. This is the first municipal service review for C-Road CSD. AAGGEENNCCYY OOVVEERRVVIIEEWW Background C-Road CSD was formed in 1989 as an independent special district.120 It was organized to provide road maintenance and fire protection for residents and land owners in the vicinity of C Road.121 The principal act that governs the District is the State of California Community Services District Law.122 CSDs may potentially provide a wide array of services, including water supply, wastewater, solid waste, police and fire protection, street lighting and landscaping, airport, recreation and parks, mosquito abatement, library services; street maintenance and drainage services, ambulance service, utility undergrounding, transportation, abate graffiti, flood protection, weed abatement, hydroelectric power, among various other services. CSDs are required to gain LAFCo approval to provide those services permitted by the principal act but not performed by the end of 2005 (i.e., latent powers).123 C-Road CSD is located in the eastern part of Plumas County. The District borders Graeagle FPD in the south and in the west, and the community of Mohawk Vista in the north. Boundaries C-Road CSD boundary is entirely within Plumas County. The District’s boundaries encompass approximately two square miles. 124 There have been no annexations to or detachments from C-Road CSD since its formation. 120 State Board of Equalization, LAFCo resolution 2-F-87. 121 Blomberg & Griffin Accountancy Corporation, Independent Auditor’s Report, Notes to Financial Statements, 2009, p. 11. 122 Government Code §61000-61226.5. 123 Government Code §61106. 124 Total agency area calculated in GIS software based on agency boundaries as of July 1, 2011. The data is not considered survey quality. C-ROAD CSD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 135 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY Sphere of Influence An SOI for C-Road CSD was never adopted. Plumas LAFCo will need to adopt an SOI for C-Road CSD during the SOI updates following the completion of this MSR. Extra-territorial Services The District reports that it does not provide any extra-territorial services; however through an informal agreement with the Sheriff’s Office, which is discussed in more detail in the Fire Service Section of this chapter, C-Road CSD responds outside its boundaries. The first responder area used by Sheriff dispatch for C-Road CSD extends slightly beyond its boundaries in the south and west. Its fire service area is somewhat larger than its boundary area constituting approximately 2.3 square miles compared to 1.9 square miles of boundary area. Areas of Interest The District did not identify any areas of interest. C-ROAD CSD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 136 C Road Community Services District 11 12 7 ·|þ} 70 MOHAWK VISTA DR 18 14 ·|þ} 13 70 D A O R C 19 23 24 H IG H W A Y 8 9 C R O A D A RD O STATE 40 26 25 CLI 30 htroN 22 pihsnwoT 8-1 Range 12 East Range 13 East Legend C Road CSD Parcels C Road CSD LAFCo File: 2-F-87 ·|}þ 70 M CA a jo S r t a R te o a H d i s ghway State Responsibility Area C Road (Currently no SOI)² R Ad e o s p o t lu e t d io : n 4 : / 3 8 /1 9 9 -4 8 3 9 4 9 (Federal Responsibility lies Streets FPD Service Area outside hatched area.) C Road (Currently no SOI) Stream / River Sectional Grid (MDB&M) Fire Stations Resolution: Waterbodies 0 0.125 0.25 0.5Miles Adopted: Source: Plumas LAFCo Map Created 4/4/2011 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY Accountability and Governance C-Road CSD is governed by a five-member board of directors who are to be elected to staggered four-year terms. In practice, however, board members are appointed by the Board of Supervisors, as the positions are generally uncontested. There are currently four members, three of whom were elected and one appointed. Director, Barbara Cox who was appointed, resigned in March 2011. The President, Dennis Doyle will resign effective June 30, 2011 to take a position on the Grand Jury. He is planning to be back on the District’s Board in a year. With two vacancies and three acting board members with term expiration dates in 2011, all board seats are up for re-election this year. There has never been a contested election. Current board member names, positions, and term expiration dates are shown in Figure 8-2. The Board meets quarterly when needed at the Mohawk Community Resource Center. Board meeting agendas are posted at the fire house, Clio post office and Graeagle post office. Minutes are emailed to the existing email list or otherwise are available upon request. Figure 8-2: C-Road CSD Governing Body C-Road Community Services District District Contact Information Contact: Edward Harrison, Director Address: P.O. Box 344, Blairsdon, CA 96103 Telephone: 530-836-2184 Email/website: ed.harrison@digitalpath.net Board of Directors Member Name Position Term Expiration Manner of Selection Length of Term Dennis Doyle President Resigning 06/30/2011 Elected 4 years Dick Bright Director December 2011 Elected 4 years Barbara Cox Director Resigned Appointed 4 years Joan Zurawski Director December 2011 Appointed 4 years Ed Harrison Director December 2011 Elected 4 years Meetings Date: Quarterly as needed Location: Mohawk Community Resource Center Agenda Distribution: Posted at the fire house, Clio post office and Graeagle post office Minutes Distribution: Emailed to email list and provided upon request In addition to the required agendas and minutes, the District does public outreach through newsletters released once or twice a year and occasional fundraisers. If a customer is dissatisfied with District’s services, the complaints may be submitted to the Board of Directors. These complaints would be addressed at a board meeting. There was one complaint about the District that was submitted to California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (CalOSHA) in 2009. The complaint, which concerned fire C-ROAD CSD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 138 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY extinguishers, was addressed and resolved. The District reported that there have been no other complaints in the last six years. C-Road CSD demonstrated accountability and transparency in its disclosure of information and cooperation with Plumas LAFCo. The District responded to the questionnaires and cooperated with the document requests. Planning and Management Practices Daily operations of the fire department are managed by the chief. There are five staff, none of whom are paid. All five are firefighters. Firefighters are accountable to the chief, and the chief is accountable to the Board. Since the chief is not paid, he is not formally reviewed and does not make any formal reports to the Board. The District reported that the chief was constantly aware of the satisfaction of constituents and volunteer firefighters. The District does not track its staff workload or evaluate its personnel. C-Road CSD does not perform formal evaluations of overall district performance, such as benchmarking or annual reports. The District reports that because service demand is very low that there is no need for formal review, particularly given that the firefighters are all volunteers. The District contracts with a private company, called Folchi Logging and Construction, for road maintenance. A contractor is usually chosen by bid. There was only one bid in the last year for road maintenance and snow removal. The work of the contractor is evaluated on an annual basis before contract renewal. The District’s financial planning efforts include an annually adopted budget. The financial statements were last audited for FY 08-09. This was the first audit for the District. The District provided the adopted budget for FY 10-11, audited financial statements for FY 08-09, and financial statements for FY 09-10. C-Road CSD does not adopt other planning documents, such as a capital improvement plan or master plan. Existing Demand and Growth Projections Designated land uses within the District are suburban in the northern area and residential in the southern territory.125 The District’s boundary area is approximately two square miles. Population The District reported that it provided services to approximately 50 to 60 houses. Most of the District’s population is seasonal. 125 Plumas County Parcel Application. C-ROAD CSD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 139 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY There are approximately 152 residents within the District, based on the census designated place population in the 2000 census.126 Population information at the census designated place level was not yet available for the 2010 census, as of the drafting of this report; however, based on the lack of growth experienced throughout the County over the last decade, and in some cases population decline, it can be assumed that the approximate population has not changed significantly since 2000. Existing Demand The District reported having peak demand from spring to fall during wildfire and burn pile season. The District reported that it had observed little change in the level of service demand in the last few years. Only one or two houses have been constructed within the District during that time. The highest number of calls occurred in 2007. From 2007 to 2008 it decreased from 12 to six. In 2009 it slightly went up to nine. Year 2010 experienced the lowest number of service calls in the last few years. Figure 8-3: C-Road CSD Number of Calls (2006-10) 14 Projected Growth and Development 12 The agency anticipates 10 little or no growth in 8 population and similarly in service demand within the 6 District in the next few years; 4 however, no formal population projections have 2 been made by the District. The District believes that 0 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 there is little need to forecast potential growth in light of the possible consolidation discussed at the end of the Growth Strategies section in this chapter. The State Department of Finance (DOF) projects that the population of Plumas County will grow by five percent in the next 10 years. Thus, the average annual population growth in the County is anticipated to be approximately 0.5 percent. Based on these projections, the District’s population would increase from 152 in 2010 to approximately 160 in 2020. It is anticipated that demand for service within the District will increase minimally based on the DOF population growth projections through 2020. The District reports that to their knowledge there are no planned or proposed developments within its boundaries. Due to the absence of central water or sewer there is 126 Census designated place – C-Road. C-ROAD CSD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 140 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY little interest in developing the area. Currently, the agency appears to have the capacity to serve the possible limited growth in the area. C-Road CSD did not identify any areas within its future growth area to which it would be difficult to provide an adequate level of service. Growth Strategies The District is not a land use authority, and does not hold primary responsibility for implementing growth strategies. The land use authority for unincorporated areas is the County. The County enforces the codes that it has enforcement power over, which does not encompass all State fire codes. The County ensures that new construction meets the requirements of the latest adopted edition of the California Building Standards. The County enforces the County codes that have been adopted in lieu of the California Fire Safe regulations. The County does not have authority to enforce PRC 4291, which requires defensible space around structures; however, the County does have some enforcement authority over vegetation removal around buildings that was adopted prior to PRC 4291. In addition, the Board of Supervisors, through the adoption of the General Plan and county codes, regulates development standards to be followed in processing subdivisions, including fire protection. The proposals for new developments are sent for review to the appropriate fire provider if a development is within district’s boundaries. The County reported that as SOI maps have not been digitized, is has been challenging to ensure that proposals go to the appropriate district if a proposed development was within that district’s SOI but outside its boundaries. The County and Plumas LAFCo are working together on a process to ensure that all appropriate districts are contacted for review of proposed developments. The County Board of Supervisors is discussing a possibility of hiring a fire marshal, part of whose responsibilities may be code enforcement and building inspections. However, thus far, no decision has been made on the responsibilities of the position.127 The County has several policies in the existing general plan, which impact the fire providers of new developments. 1) Turnouts are now required in every new development.128 2) The County encourages development to be located adjacent to or within areas where fire services already exist or can be efficiently provided.129 127 Correspondence with Becky Herrin, Plumas County Senior Planner, September 8, 2011. 128 Plumas County Code of Ordinances, Title 9 Section 9-4.604 (k). 129 Plumas County, General Plan, 1984, pp. 28 & 29. C-ROAD CSD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 141 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY 3) The County requires new developments within areas not currently served by a fire provider to be annexed into an existing fire district or create a funding mechanism, such as a CSD, to cover the costs of fire service provision.130 4) Sustainable timber and biomass production and harvesting as well as intensive forest management practices are encouraged to reduce the danger of catastrophic wildfires.131 5) There is a minimum requirement of two roadway access points, which are maintained on a year-round basis by the County or the State. 132 6) Minimum public and private road standards: roads providing access to two or more lots have to conform to a two-lane standard of no less than 16-foot traveled way.133 7) Bridges are required to be designed for an 80,000 pound vehicle load.134 8) All access roads must be marked with an approved sign; and all lots must be identified by an address.135 9) All developments within boundaries of a structural fire service provider may be required to contribute to the maintenance of the structural service proportionate to the increase in demand for fire service resulting from the development.136 10) As a condition of development it is required to provide long-term maintenance of private roads to the standards of original improvements, including roadside vegetation management.137 11) The County encourages biomass thinning programs in high fire risk areas.138 The District reported concerns that new developments in the County were not being required to comply with existing requirements.139 The County reported that only one 130 Ibid., p. 28. 131 Ibid, p. 32. 132 Ibid., p. 16. 133 Ibid., 134 Ibid. 135 Ibid. 136 Ibid. 137 Plumas County Code of Ordinances, Title 9 Section 9-4.601. 138 Plumas County Code of Ordinances, Title 4 Section 4-2.101. C-ROAD CSD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 142 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY agency had come to the County regarding these concerns, which were unfounded at the time. No conjecture is made by the authors of this report as to the accuracy of these statements. It should be noted that one of the purposes of the newly formed Emergency Service Feasibility Group is to address these concerns. The County is in the process of updating its general plan. The suggested new policies in the General Plan update that would impact fire service providers, but had not yet been adopted as of the drafting of this report, include: 12) The County shall review and update its Fire Safe ordinance to attain and maintain defensible space though conditioning of tentative maps and in new development at the final map or building permit stage. 13) The County will consult Fire Hazard Severity Zone Maps during the review of all projects. The Countywill work with fire protection agencies to develop community fire plans and require appropriate building setbacks and fuel modification requirements within fire hazard zones. 14) In order for the new development to be approved, the County must conclude that adequate emergency water flow, fire access and firefighters and equipment are available. 15) New developments have to show that they have adequate access for emergency vehicles to access the site and for private vehicles to evacuate the area. 16) New developments within high and very high fire hazard areas are required to designate fuel break zones that comply with fire safe requirements. 17) The County will work with Forest Service and fire districts in developing fire prevention programs, identifying opportunities for fuel breaks in zones of high and very high fire hazard and educating public. 18) Fire, law enforcement, EMS, resource management, and public health response partners are encouraged to conduct joint training exercises.140 The County has not adopted the new standards for development yet. The revised General Plan may be adopted towards the end of 2012. County zoning code will then go through a revision process in order for the zoning code to implement the General Plan. In 2007, the Board of Supervisors formed the Emergency Services Advisory Committee to “evaluate the funding feasibility of providing uniform and comprehensive emergency services to all of Plumas County.” The Committee attempted to look for opportunities to increase funding for emergency services, but faced a considerable challenge in the difficult 139 Profile comments from Chief Greg McCaffrey, May 3, 2011. 140 Plumas County General Plan, Draft Goals, Policies and Implementation Measures, 2010. C-ROAD CSD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 143 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY economic times. Most recently, it focused on mitigating efforts through building and development standards improvements and the General Plan update process, and encouraging local fire service providers to share resources and realize economies of scale in preparing grant applications, conducting training and engaging in other joint programs. With regard to possible governance structure alternatives, the District reported that it is considering consolidating with EPRFPD or GFPD. C-Road had a couple of meetings with EPRFPD, but felt that Eastern Plumas Rural FPD was not in adequate financial shape at that time. The District has also been holding meetings with GFPD regarding the potential for consolidation. Financing The District reports that existing financing levels are adequate to deliver services at the current level. Financing levels have dramatically improved after the second assessment was passed for road services in the last four years. Although the District reports that financing levels are adequate, it is unable to achieve efficiencies of scale due to the small size of the District and minimal demand. C-Road CSD cannot finance facility upgrades and believes that a merger with another fire district is strongly advisable due to a lack of call volume. The District reports that there are limited funds to make all necessary improvements to the Fire Department and the C-Road as required by the District charter. The District’s priority goals are to install all the necessary street and home/property ID signs for safety and to clear vegetation overgrowth in order to ensure fire safety. C-Road CSD expects it to take a few years for it to accomplish these goals. The District’s total revenues for FY 09-10 were $93,644. Revenue sources include assessment revenue (47 percent) donations (one percent), state grants and federal funds (52 percent). These grants and funds were received to update equipment for the Fire Department. Now that this goal has been accomplished, the District’s emphasis is on improving the roads for personal transportation as well as for Fire Safe protection. The District does not receive revenue from property taxes, but receives approximately $55,000 per year in assessments The District has two benefit assessments. The first assessment was passed in 1999 and is $50 per property owner per year. This assessment does not increase annually. The assessment is designated for road maintenance and snow removal and will expire should the District stop providing road maintenance services. The second assessment, for road and fire services, was approved by property owners in 2006 and is $253 per parcel per year that increases by two percent annually and expires 17 years after its approval. There are seven parcels on the east side of the District, which have a separate access road. These parcels receive fire services, and not road services, and are assessed $90.80 per year. 141 141 Email from Barbara Cox providing information from Plumas County, 03/16/2011. C-ROAD CSD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 144 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY The District has an auxiliary that raises money for the Fire Department. Its fundraising activities are currently limited to setting up a Beer Booth once a year at the Independence Day celebration and an open house. The Beer Booth made a record of $830 in 2010. Figure 8-4: C-Road CSD Revenues and Expenses Income/Expenses FY 09-10 Budgeted FY 09-10 Actual FY 10-11 Budgeted Income Property Tax $54,400 100% $44,258 47% $40,000 74% Auxiliary/Donations $0 0% $880 1% $500 1.0% Grants/Federal Funds $0 0% $48,506 52% $3,750 7.0% Total Income $54,400 100% $93,644 100% $44,250 100% Expenses Administration & Supplies $6,172 13% $9,815 15% $9,500 82% Fire Department $10,900 23% $25,326 38% $9,750 18% Streets $30,000 64% $31,909 47% $35,000 Total Expenses $47,072 100% $67,050 100% $54,250 100% Net Income $7,328 $26,594 -$10,000 The District’s expenditures in FY 09-10 were $67,050. Expenditures were composed of administrative (15 percent), road maintenance (47 percent) and fire department operations (38 percent). In the past, the District has financed capital improvements through grants and donations. C-Road CSD keeps applying for grants and occasionally organizes fundraising events in an effort to finance infrastructure and equipment needs. The District performs no capital improvement planning. C-Road CSD has a reserve account that was just created last year by a motion of the Board. This new reserve practice is not a formal policy. At the beginning of FY 10-11, the District had $10,000 in the reserve fund. The District participates in the Special Districts Association JPA (CSDA). CSDA provides education and training, insurance programs, legal advice, litigation and public relations support, legislative advocacy, capital improvement and equipment funding, collateral design services, and current information relevant to special district management and operational efficiency. Regular membership dues range from $490 to $4,088 depending on a district’s operating budget. C-ROAD CSD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 145 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY FFIIRREE AANNDD EEMMEERRGGEENNCCYY SSEERRVVIICCEESS Service Overview C-Road CSD provides wildland and structural fire, and emergency medical services. Ambulance is provided by Eastern Plumas Healthcare District. CareFlight provides ambulance helicopter, and CalFire provides fire helicopter. Collaboration C-Road CSD has informal mutual aid agreements with nearby fire districts and a formal mutual aid agreement with the Forest Service. USFS responds to wildland fires within the District. The District also collaborates with other fire service providers through regional grants and joint training. Dispatch The County Sheriff is the Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP); consequently, most land line emergency calls (9-1-1 calls) are directed to the Sheriff. Most cell phone emergency calls (9-1-1 calls) are answered by CHP and redirected to the Sheriff. The Sheriff provides dispatching for most fire providers in the County except for the ones in northern part of the County, which are served by the CHP Susanville Dispatch Center. The Forest Service has its own dispatch. The sheriff dispatch center has a first responder map, which it uses to identify what provider to dispatch to an incident. All territory within the County has a determined first responder; although, many areas lie outside the LAFCo approved boundary of the districts and lack an officially designated fire provider. C-Road CSD shares the same dispatch and radio frequencies with adjacent providers. The District reported that it was generally satisfied with dispatch services. Staffing C-Road CSD has five sworn personnel. None of the personnel are paid. The median age of a fire fighter is 52, with a range from 25 to 54. According to the California State Fire Marshal, all volunteer and call firefighters must acquire Firefighter I certification; however, there is no time limit as to how long they may work before attaining certification. Firefighter I certification requires completion of the 259-hour Firefighter I course, which includes training on various fireground tasks, rescue operations, fire prevention and investigation techniques, and inspection and maintenance of equipment. In addition to this course, Firefighter I certification also requires that the applicant have a minimum of six months of volunteer or call experience in a California fire department as a firefighter C-ROAD CSD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 146 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY performing suppression duties.142 C-Road CSD has two Firefighter I certified personnel, one BLS I certified personnel and three First Responder certified firefighters. The District recruits new volunteers through word of mouth. Training is available every week at the nearby Graeagle FPD facility. The GFPD chief conducts classes for medical certification. Other trainings are held by C-Road CSD. All volunteers are requested to complete Emergency Medical Responder Training. All but one firefighter have completed the training. The District reports that it is very difficult to get volunteers to commit to sufficient training hours, due to their schedules and work needs. Facilities and Capacity C-Road CSD operates one fire station, which is owned by the District. The station was described to be in good condition.143 The C-Road Fire Department has one water tender, one structure engine and one wildland/rescue engine. The water reserves are represented by a water tender and a 10,000-gallon non-pressurized tank. There are no set hours when the station is staffed. Volunteers are always on call. Infrastructure Needs The station requires a new exhaust system, an improved bathroom and other upgrades. There are currently no specific plans for facility upgrades or construction, due to a lack of funds. In addition, C-Road CSD reported that it needed a new structure engine, as the one the District has is too old. Challenges The District reported several constraints to providing adequate services:  Poor road conditions (especially when it is snowing), which often necessitates mutual aid assistance to provide additional resources,  Most private roads are inadequate to meet County and Fire Safe standards,144 142 State Fire Marshall, Course Information and Required Materials, 2007, p. 44. 143 Facility condition definitions: Excellent-relatively new (less than 10 years old) and requires minimal maintenance. Good- provides reliable operation in accordance with design parameters and requires only routine maintenance. Fair- operating at or near design levels; however, non-routine renovation, upgrading and repairs are needed to ensure continued reliable operation. Poor- cannot be operated within design parameters; major renovations are required to restore the facility and ensure reliable operation. C-ROAD CSD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 147 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY  Low call volume,  Lack of sufficient personnel, and  With such low call volume, it is difficult to recruit qualified volunteers and keep them trained and up to speed. The District believes that due to low call volume and size of the department, a reorganization with another fire district would be appropriate. Service Adequacy While there are several benchmarks that may define the level of fire service provided by an agency, indicators of service adequacy discussed here include ISO ratings, response times, and level of staffing and station resources for the service area. Fire services in the communities are classified by the Insurance Service Office (ISO), an advisory organization. This classification indicates the general adequacy of coverage. Communities with the best fire department facilities, systems for water distribution, fire alarms and communications, and equipment and personnel receive a rating of 1. C-Road CSD has an ISO rating of 9. The date of the completed rating is unknown. The guideline established by the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) for fire response times is six minutes at least 90 percent of the time, with response time measured from the 911-call time to the arrival time of the first-responder at the scene. The fire response time guideline established by the Center for Public Safety Excellence (formerly the Commission on Fire Accreditation International) is 5 minutes 50 seconds at least 90 percent of the time.145 Emergency response time standards vary by level of urbanization of an area: the more urban an area, the faster a response has to be. The California EMS Agency established the following response time guidelines: five minutes in urban areas, 15 minutes in suburban or rural areas, and as quickly as possible in wildland areas. The District’s response zone is entirely classified as wildland. The District reported that its estimated response time was 15 minutes. An area that C-Road CSD could improve upon is tracking its response time for each incident. The service area size146 for each fire station varies between fire districts. The median fire station in eastern Plumas serves approximately 20 square miles. Sierra Valley FPD serves the most expansive area, with 111 square miles served per station on average. 144 Comment from Larry Fites, 06/26/2011. 145 Commission on Fire Accreditation International, 2000. 146 Service area refers to the area that the agency will respond to, based on a first responder map used by the Sherriff’s office. C-ROAD CSD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 148 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY Densely populated areas tend to have smaller service areas. For example, the average service area for the City of Portola is 3.8 square miles. By comparison, a fire station in C- Road CSD serves approximately 2.3 square miles. The number of firefighters serving within a particular jurisdiction is another indicator of level of service; however, it is approximate. The providers’ call firefighters may have differing availability and reliability. A district with more firefighters could have fewer resources if scheduling availability is restricted. Staffing levels in eastern Plumas vary from eight call firefighters per 1,000 residents in City of Portola service area to 42 in Beckwourth FD. By comparison, C-Road CSD has approximately 33 firefighters per 1,000 residents. C-ROAD CSD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 149 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY Figure 8-5: C-Road Community Services District Fire Profile Fire Service Facilities Firestation Location Condition Staff per Shift Vehicles C-Road Fire Department 1508 C Road, Good Unstaffed 1 Water Tender, 1 Structure Engine, 1 Clio, CA Wildland/Rescue Engine. Facility Sharing Current Practices: The District does not currently share its facilities with other agencies. Future opportunities: The District does not see any opportunities to share facilities with other agencies. Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies The District identified a need for an exhaust system, improved bathroom and new structure engine. District Resource Statistics Service Configuration Service Demand Staffing Base Year 2010 Configuration Base Year 2010 Statistical Base Year 2010 Fire Stations in District 1 Fire Suppression Direct Total Service Calls 4 Stations Serving District 1 EMS Direct % EMS 75% Sq. Miles Served per Station1 2.3 Ambulance Transport EPHCD % Fire/Hazardous Materials 25% Total Staff2 5 Hazardous Materials Direct % False 0% Total Full-time Firefighters 0 Air Rescue/Ambulance HelicopterCareFlight % Misc. emergency 0% Total Call Firefighters 5 Fire Suppression Helicopter CalFire % Non-emergency 0% Total Sworn Staff per Station3 5 Public Safety Answering Point Sheriff % Mutual Aid Calls 0% Total Sworn Staff per 1,000 33 Fire/EMS Dispatch Sheriff Calls per 1,000 people 28 Service Adequacy Service Challenges Poor road conditions, especially when snowing. Lack of call volume and Response Time Base Year 2010 sufficient personnel. Median Response Time (min) NP Training All volunteers are requested to do Emergency Medical Responder 90th Percentile Response Time (min) NP Training. Currently, all but one have completed it. Weekly trainings are available via Graeagle Fire. The District reports that it is difficult to get ISO Rating 9 (year unknown) volunteers to commit to sufficient training hours due to their schedules. Mutual & Automatic Aid Agreements C-Road CSD has informal mutual aid agreements with nearby fire districts and a formal mutual aid agreemnt with Fire Service. Notes: 1) Primary service area (square miles) per station. 2) Total staff includes sworn and non-sworn personnel. 3) Based on ratio of sworn full-time and call staff to the number of stations. Actual staffing levels of each station vary. C-ROAD CSD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 150 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY SSTTRREEEETT MMAAIINNTTEENNAANNCCEE SSEERRVVIICCEESS Service Overview C-Road CSD provides road maintenance and snow removal on C-Road. The District does not provide services on the private roads within its bounds. Staffing The District provides all road related services through contractors. The District contracts with a private company, called Folchi Logging and Construction. A contractor is usually chosen by bid. There was one bid in the last year for road maintenance and snow removal for lack of available contractors. Facilities and Capacity There are approximately 2.6 miles of road, to which the District provides services. The District reported that condition of C-Road has improved; it is now in good condition. The District does not own equipment related to road maintenance or snow removal. All necessary equipment is provided by the contractor. Infrastructure Needs The District reported that although the road is mostly in good condition, C-Road CSD is steadily improving the situation. The long winter takes its toll each year, but the District expects to have to the total length of C-Road resurfaced in two years. The District can only afford to have 0.4 miles resurfaced each year. C-ROAD CSD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 151 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY CC--RROOAADD CCSSDD DDEETTEERRMMIINNAATTIIOONNSS Growth and Population Projections  There are approximately 152 residents within the District. Most of the District’s population is seasonal.  Over the past decade the District has experienced a little or no growth in population.  Continued no or slow growth is expected within the District, as there are no planned or proposed developments. Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities and Adequacy of Public Services, Including Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies  The District’s current facilities have the capacity to adequately serve current demand and potential short-term growth.  The District identified a need for an exhaust system, improved bathroom and new structure engine. C-Road CSD applies for grants and organizes occasional fundraisers to try to address these needs.  It is recommended that the County Sheriff’s Office work with the fire districts to update the ESN map that is used for dispatching, in order to adequately address any communication concerns and recent boundary changes.  The District does not do any capital improvement planning. Due to its small size and limited resources, capital improvement planning poses a challenge.  It is a recommended practice that the Fire Department track its response time for each incident. Financial Ability of Agencies to Provide Services  The District reports that current financing levels are adequate to deliver services at the current level, however, it does not have enough funds for significant capital improvements.  Although the District reports that financing levels are adequate, it is unable to achieve efficiencies of scale due to the small size of the District and minimal demand. C-ROAD CSD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 152 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY  The District requires increased revenues to finance upgrades to the station and acquisition of a new structure engine.  C-Road is in good condition, requires continued resurfacing.  The District hopes to increase funding by applying for grants and organizing fundraising events. Status of, and Opportunities for, Shared Facilities  C-Road CSD collaborates with other fire providers in Plumas County through mutual aid agreements.  The District currently does not share its facilities with other agencies.  The District does not see opportunities for shared facilities with other agencies. Accountability for Community Service Needs, Including Governmental Structure and Operational Efficiencies  C-Road CSD demonstrated accountability and transparency by disclosing financial and service related information in response to LAFCo requests.  Governmental structure options include possible consolidation with EPRFPD or GFPD. Consolidation with other fire districts offers opportunities for shared resources and finances.  The County of Plumas is considering establishing a countywide fire marshal whose responsibilities may include enforcing fire code and conducting building inspections. C-ROAD CSD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 153 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY 9. EASTE R N P LU M AS R EC R EAT I O N DISTRICT Eastern Plumas Recreation District (EPRD) provides recreational opportunities by making funding available to various recreational facilities and programs in the surrounding area. This is the first Municipal Service Review for the District. AAGGEENNCCYY OOVVEERRVVIIEEWW Background When an attempt to form the Eastern Plumas Recreation District was first made in 1991, the application was disapproved by LAFCo.147 In 2002, a second attempt was approved by the Commission and later by the voters.148 The District was formed to promote recreation and provide facilities for recreational activities to residents and landowners within its boundaries.149 The principal act that governs the District is the Recreation and Park District Law.150 The principal act empowers Recreation and Park Districts to 1) organize, promote, conduct, and advertise programs of community recreation, including, but not limited to, parks and open space, parking, transportation, and other related services that improve the community’s quality of life, 2) establish systems of recreation and recreation facilities, including, but not limited to, parks and open space, and 3) acquire, construct, improve, maintain, and operate recreation facilities, including, but not limited to, parks and open space, both inside and beyond the district’s boundaries.151 Districts must apply and obtain LAFCo approval to exercise latent powers, that is, those services authorized by the principal act but not provided by the district by the end of 2000.152 EPRD is located in the eastern part of Plumas County. It borders Sierra County in the south, Lassen County in the east and north, and Cromberg, Greenhorn and National Forest in the west. The incorporated territory of the City of Portola, as it existed at the end of 147 LAFCo Resolution 1-F-90. 148 LAFCo File Number 1-F-00. 149 Blomberg & Griffin Accountancy Corporation, Eastern Plumas Recreation District Financial Statements and Independent Auditor’s Report for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2009, 2009, p. 11. 150 California Public Resources Code §5780-5791 151 California Public Resources Code §5786. 152 Government Code §56824.10. EPRD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 154 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY 2003, is excluded from the District.153 The City’s territory was excluded in the formation resolution, and two subsequent annexations (2003) to the City were processed with applicable detachments from EPRD; however, it appears that city annexations that were processed after 2003 did not result in detachments from the District. Boundaries EPRD is entirely within Plumas County. The initial boundaries of the District were the same as they existed for Eastern Plumas Healthcare District on August 15, 2000, excluding the legal boundaries of the City of Portola.154 The District’s boundaries encompass approximately 541,946 acres or 847 square miles. 155 Since formation, there have been two detachments from the District—North Joy Parcels156 and Teanna Ranch157. Both detachments took place in 2003; the territory was detached from both EPRD and Eastern Plumas Rural Fire Protection District, and simultaneously annexed by the City of Portola. Sphere of Influence Based on LAFCo archives, it appears that an SOI for the District was never adopted. LAFCo will adopt an SOI for EPRD during the upcoming cycle of SOI updates for the eastern region of Plumas County. Extra-territorial Services The District provides services outside of its boundaries within the City of Portola where it has donated financing for pool equipment and benches. The District has an MOU with the City for this cooperative effort. In addition, non-residents may use district-financed facilities and programs. Areas of Interest The District did not identify any areas of interest where there are particular challenges to providing services or where the District would like to extend its boundaries. 153 LAFCo Resolution 2001-006. 154 1-F-00. 155 Total agency area calculated in GIS software based on agency boundaries as of July 1, 2011. The data is not considered survey quality. 156 2002-ANNX-004 and State Board of Equalization. 157 2002-ANNX-001 and State Board of Equalization. EPRD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 155 Eastern Plumas Recreation District 7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 18 17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14 13 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 30 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 18 17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14 13 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 30 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 31 32 33 34 035 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 10 18 17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 30 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 18 17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14 13 18 17 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 30 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 1 1 3 7 6 9 8 0 1 2 2 8 5 7 0 9 1 2 2 4 9 6 1 8 1 1 2 2 3 0 5 2 7 1 1 2 2 2 1 4 3 6 1 1 2 2 1 2 3 4 5 1 1 3 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 2 8 5 7 0 9 1 2 2 4 9 6 1 8 1 1 2 2 3 0 5 2 7 1 1 2 2 2 1 4 6 3 1 1 2 2 1 2 3 4 5 1 1 3 6 7 9 8 0 2 2 1 5 8 0 9 7 2 2 1 4 9 8 1 6 1 2 2 1 3 0 2 7 5 26 1 G 1 2 r 2 1 iz 4 3 zly Rd Be 1 2 2 c 1 k 3 4 5 w 1 o 2 u 7 1 1 3 r 6 t 9 8 0 h Ge 1 2 2 n 5 7 e 0 9 s 8 ee Rd 2 2 4 9 1 8 16 1 1 2 2 3 0 5 7 2 1 1 2 2 2 1 4 3 6 1 2 1 2 1 2 4 3 5 1 1 3 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 2 5 8 7 0 9 1 2 2 4 9 6 1 8 1 1 2 3 2 0 5 2 7 1 1 2 2 2 1 4 3 6 1 1 2 2 1 2 3 4 5 1 1 3 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 2 5 8 7 0 9 1 2 2 4 9 6 1 8 1 1 2 2 3 0 5 2 7 1 1 2 2 2 1 4 3 6 1 1 2 2 2 3 4 5 1 1 3 7 8 9 0 29 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 1 7 8 1 8 7 1 9 6 1 1 0 5 1 11 4 1 1 2 3 1 7 8 1 8 7 1 9 6 1 1 0 5 1 1 1 4 1 1 3 2 1 7 8 1 8 7 1 9 6 1 1 0 5 1 1 1 4 1 1 2 3 1 6 7 8 1 5 8 7 1 4 9 6 1 1 3 0 5 1 1 2 1 4 1 1 1 2 3 1 6 7 8 1 5 8 7 1 4 9 6 1 1 3 0 5 1 1 2 1 4 1 1 1 2 3 1 6 7 8 1 5 8 7 1 4 9 6 3 1 1 0 5 S 1 ta 1 t 1 e R 4 oute 284 1 1 1 3 2 1 6 7 8 5 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 30 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26·|}þ 25 30 29 28 27 26 25 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 70 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 3 3 1 1 6 7 1 0 9 8 3 2 1 2 5 8 2 9 7 0 1 2 2 3 4 9 6 1 8 3 1 1 2 2 3 3 0 5 2 7 4 1 1 2 2 2 3 1 4 3 6 5 1 1 2 2 1 3 2 3 4 5 6 1 1 3 6 3 7 8 9 0 1 1 2 2 5 3 8 7 0 9 2 2 1 2 4 3 9 1 6 8 3 1 2 1 2 3 3 0 2 5 7 4 23 1 1 2 3 2 1 4 6 5 89 1 1 2 2 1 3 2 3 4 5 6 ·|}þ 1 7 1 6 3 7 3 8 0 9 0 1 29 1 2 5 P 8 3 7 0 o 2 rtola 2 M 1 1 c 4 9 2 3 C 6 8 3 lear 1 s 5 R 1 d 3 2 2 3 0 7 2 4 1 1 2 2 2 3 1 4 3 6 5 1 1 2 2 1 3 2 3 4 5 6 1 1 3 3 6 7 8 9 0 1 1 2 2 3 5 8 7 0 9 2 1 2 2 3 9 4 6 1 8 3 1 1 2 2 3 3 0 5 2 7 4 1 1 2 2 2 0 1 4 3 6 1 1 3 2 Beck wourth Calpine 3 Rd 1 6 2 2 5 0 4 1 1 3 3 6 7 8 9 0 1 0 1 2 2 3 5 8 7 0 9 2 0 1 2 2 3 4 9 6 1 8 3 0 1 1 2 2 3 3 0 5 2 7 4 0 1 1 2 3 2 2 1 4 3 5 6 1 1 2 3 2 1 2 3 4 6 5 0 1 1 3 3 7 9 6 8 0 1 State Route 49 2 3 5 8 2 9 2 1 0 7 0 1 2 2 3 4 9 6 8 1 3 0 1 1 2 2 3 3 0 5 7 2 4 2 3 2 1 1 2 1 6 5 3 4 2 1 2 1 1 5 2 4 3 1 6 7 8 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 0 11 12 0 0 7 8 0 13 18 170 htroN 52 pihsnwoT htroN 22 pihsnwoT Range 11 East Range 12 East Range 13 East Range 14 East Range 15 East Range 16 East Range 17 East PLUMAS COUNTY Eastern Plumas Recreation District Location Map (Not to Scale) ² Eastern Plumas Recreation District Legend Resolution: 2001-003 ·|}þ Adopted: 5/30/2002 70 CA State Highway Eastern Plumas Recreation District (SOI) Major Roads Resolution: Adopted: 0 1.5 3 6Miles Source: Plumas LAFCo Map Created 5/1/2011 htroN 82 pihsnwoT htroN 72 pihsnwoT htroN 62 pihsnwoT htroN 42 pihsnwoT htroN 32 pihsnwoT 9-1 Eastern Plumas Parcels Recreation District Waterbodies Sectional Grid (MDB&M) Roads Stream / River PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY Accountability and Governance EPRD is governed by a five-member board of directors who are to be elected at-large to staggered four-year terms. The initial Board was appointed by the Board of Supervisors.158 There are currently four members, three of whom were elected. One member was appointed for two years and is up for election in November 2011. The Board has one vacancy. There has never been a contested election. Current board member names, positions, and term expiration dates are shown in Figure 9-2. The Board meets once a month at the Chalet View Lodge, which is owned by one of the board members. Board meeting agendas are posted at the post offices in Portola and Graeagle. Minutes are available upon request. Figure 9-2: EPRD Governing Body Eastern Plumas Recreation District District Contact Information Contact: Mark Smith, Treasurer Address: P.O. Box 879, Graeagle, CA 96103 Telephone: 530-836-0444 Email/website: marksmith@psln.com Board of Directors Member Name Position Term Expiration Manner of Selection Length of Term Robert Murrey President November 2011 Elected 4 years Jennifer Condliffe Secretary December 2013 Elected 4 years Mark Smith Treasurer December 2013 Elected 4 years Robert Hickman Director November 2011 Appointed 2 years Vacancy Meetings Date: Once a month. Location: Chalet View Lodge. Agenda Distribution: Posted at the post offices in Portola and Greaegle. Minutes Distribution: Availble upon request. Besides the required agendas and minutes, the District does not do any additional public outreach activities. If a customer is dissatisfied with District’s services, the complaints may be submitted to the Board of Directors by means of a letter. The person responsible for handling complaints is the President of the Board. The District reported that there were no complaints in 2009 and 2010. 158 John M. Gullixson, Impartial Analysis for the Formation for the Eastern Plumas Recreation and Park District. EPRD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 157 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY EPRD demonstrated accountability and transparency in its disclosure of information and cooperation with Plumas LAFCo. The District responded to questionnaires and interview requests. Planning and Management Practices The District has no employees and is managed by the volunteer Board of Directors, as such, the District does not conduct employee evaluations or tracking of employee productivity. The District reported that it does not conduct formal evaluations of district performance as a whole, such as benchmarking or annual reports. The District tracks its financial contributions to recreational facilities and activities through Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs) with the City of Portola, Graeagle Community Services District, Plumas Corporation and Plumas Ski Club. The District’s financial planning efforts include an annually adopted budget. The financial statements are audited once a year. The District provided an audited financial statement for FY 08-09. The District’s FY 10-11 budget and financials for FY 09-10 were provided by the County to Plumas LAFCo for review. The District does not adopt other planning documents, such as a capital improvement plan or master plan. Existing Demand and Growth Projections Designated land uses within the District are primarily wildland and agricultural with some residential, suburban and recreational uses around the communities of Chilcoot, Beckwourth, Lake Davis, Delleker, Iron Horse, Whitehawk Ranch, Valley Ranch, Clio, Mohawk Vista, C-Road, Blairsden, Graeagle, Johnsville and Plumas Eureka.159 The total boundary area of EPRD is about 847 square miles. Population There are approximately 4,242 residents within the District, based on census tract population in the 2000 census.160 Population information at the census tract level was not yet available for the 2010 census, as of the drafting of this report; however, based on the lack of growth experienced throughout the County over the last decade, and in some cases population decline, it can be assumed that the approximate population has not changed much since 2000. 159 Plumas County Parcel Application. 160 Census Tracts 3 and 2.01 in Plumas County. EPRD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 158 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY Existing Demand The District reported that it had observed no population growth in the last few years. Projected Growth and Development The agency anticipates little or no growth in population and similarly in service demand within the District in the next few years; however, no formal population projections have been made by the District. The State Department of Finance (DOF) projects that the population of Plumas County will grow by five percent in the next 10 years. Thus, the average annual population growth in the County is anticipated to be approximately 0.5 percent. Based on these projections, the District’s population would increase from 4,242 in 2010 to approximately 4,459 in 2020. It is anticipated that demand for service within the District will increase minimally based on the DOF population growth projections through 2020. The District reported that to their knowledge there were no anticipated developments within the boundaries; however, based on reports from the County, there is one approved development that has been approved but is currently on hold due to financial constraints. The development consists of 99 lots and is located in Graeagle. According to other districts there are a number of other potential developments: one small 21-home development within Sierra Valley FPD, three areas in Whitehawk Ranch that will add over 40 dwellings, Village of Plumas Pines in Plumas-Eureka, empty lots throughout the Gold Mountain subdivision, and Willow Creek development located three and a half miles west of Delleker that would consist of 210 residential units. Due to the unpredictable nature of the existing economy and housing market, these areas will likely not be developed within the short- term; however, they may be indicative of the long-term potential for growth. Growth Strategies The District is not a land use authority, and does not hold primary responsibility for implementing growth strategies. The land use authority for unincorporated areas is the County. The District does not take part in reviewing plans for proposed developments. A governance option for the District is its dissolution, if a permanent funding source cannot be found. However a downside of the dissolution would be lack of a recreation agency in the area and elimination of the services that it presently provides. Financing According to the District, the current financing levels are not adequate to deliver services, due to a lack of funding sources and reduced funding from the County. The District does not receive property tax revenue, nor is there a special tax or benefit assessment on the land within the District. EPRD was expected to be funded by user fees, grants and State money available to recreation districts; however EPRD does not charge its residents any fees because it does not own or operate any recreational facilities, and EPRD was not EPRD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 159 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY formed in time to receive grant money from a 2000 Parks Bond Act.161 At present, the only regular revenue is from the County. The District reported that the funding from the County has slowly declined, particularly after the recent recession hit. Currently, EPRD receives an annual donation of $2,500 from the County. EPRD is contemplating dissolution of the District, if reoccurring and sustainable revenue sources cannot be established to support the development of recreational opportunities in eastern Plumas County by the District.162 At the beginning of 2010, the District applied for Proposition 84 (passed in 2006) funds as part of an MOU group that consists of over 20 public and private agencies and is led by the Plumas Ski Club.163 The application was still pending, as of the drafting of this report. The County keeps accounts for the District’s finances and tracks revenue and expenditures. The District’s total revenues for FY 09-10 were $45,139. Revenue sources include unspecified state funds (93 percent), Plumas County donations (six percent), and interest income (one percent). The District’s expenditures in FY 09-10 were $53,128, of which, the entire amount was spent on services and supplies. The District does not have a financial reserve or reserve policy. The District had a balance of $32,285 at the end of FY 09-10. EPRD does not have any long-term debt. The District does not participate in any joint power authorities (JPAs) or joint financing mechanisms outside of the contributions to the recreation facilities and programs discussed in the next section. 161 Plumas LAFCo Staff Report, Public Hearing for Formation of Eastern Plumas Recreation and Park District (LAFCo file No. 1-F-00), 2001, p. 2. 162 Interview with Mark Smith, EPRD Treasurer, January 5, 2011. 163 Proposition 84 Bond Grant Application, Plumas Eureka Ski Bowl Upgrade, 2010, pp. 6-7. EPRD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 160 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY PPAARRKK AANNDD RREECCRREEAATTIIOONN SSEERRVVIICCEESS Service Overview EPRD provides recreational opportunities by making funding available to recreational facilities and programs. Staffing The District has no staff. It is run by a volunteer Board of Directors. Facilities and Capacity The District does not own or operate any facilities. It donates money to the following facilities and entities:  City of Portola swimming pool;  Benches and shade in the City of Portola;  Little league;  Plumas Ski Club; and  Plumas Corporation – the nonprofit economic development entity. The current primary project for EPRD is the opening of a ski hill. The District, in cooperation with Plumas Corporation and Plumas Ski Club, is working towards signing a full operating agreement with the State for the ski hill, and raising money for the development of the slope. Infrastructure Needs No infrastructure needs were identified by the District. Challenges The District reports that its biggest challenges to adequate service provision are the financial constraints described previously in the Financing Section. Service Adequacy Indicators for evaluating the EPRD’s service adequacy are limited as the District does not own or operate any facilities, and does not directly offer any recreation programming. EPRD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 161 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY The District operates purely as a financing mechanism for projects and programs managed by other agencies, by providing a conduit service for other agencies who wish to apply for and obtain funding from bond and grant initiatives, by applying for and distributing funds to partner agencies, and providing donations to support recreational activities. At present, the District has limited financing to be used for this purpose. In order to improve the District’s level of service, EPRD is searching for additional revenue sources. If this fails, the District will consider dissolution, as effective programming and capital improvements cannot be adequately financed with the District’s existing budget. EPRD could improve upon its public outreach activities, in order to keep constituents informed about the activities of the District. It is recommended that all districts maintain a website where public documents are made available to the public to enhance transparency and accountability. EPRD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 162 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY EEAASSTTEERRNN PPLLUUMMAASS RREECCRREEAATTIIOONN DDIISSTTRRIICCTT DDEETTEERRMMIINNAATTIIOONNSS Growth and Population Projections  There are approximately 4,242 residents within the District.  Over the past few years, the District has experienced little or no growth in population.  Minimal growth is expected within the District over the next 10 years. Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities and Adequacy of Public Services, Including Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies  The District does not own or operate any facilities.  EPRD reports that current financing levels are inadequate to deliver services. If additional financing sources are not identified, the District will consider dissolution.  The District, in cooperation with Plumas Corporation and Plumas Ski Club, is working towards signing a full operating agreement with the State for the ski hill, and raising money for the development of the slope. Financial Ability of Agencies to Provide Services  The District reports that current financing levels are inadequate to deliver services.  The District requires increased revenues to continue operating. Status of, and Opportunities for, Shared Facilities  While EPRD does not share facilities with other districts, it does participate in joint financing of some facilities, such as the Portola swimming pool.  The District is collaborating with the Plumas Corporation and Plumas Ski Club to jointly develop and operate a ski slope. EPRD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 163 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY Accountability for Community Service Needs, Including Governmental Structure and Operational Efficiencies  The District does not conduct outreach efforts except for the required activities. It is recommended that all agencies maintain websites where public documents are made available.  The District provides services outside of its boundaries within the City of Portola where it has donated financing for pool equipment and benches. The District has an MOU with the City for this cooperative effort. A governance structure option may be including the City within the District’s boundaries.  Dissolution of the District is a possibility if a permanent financing source cannot be found. EPRD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 164 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY 10. EAST E RN PLU MAS HEALTHCARE DISTRICT Eastern Plumas Healthcare District (EPHD) is a small, non-profit, critical access hospital district, providing comprehensive medical services in eastern Plumas County through a hospital and five clinics. This is the first Municipal Service Review for the District. AAGGEENNCCYY OOVVEERRVVIIEEWW Background EPHD was formed in 1964 as an independent special district.164 The District was formed to provide local health care and emergency medical services to residents in eastern Plumas County. The principal act that governs the District is the Local Health Care District Law.165 The principal act empowers healthcare districts to provide medical services, emergency medical, ambulance, and any other services relating to the protection of residents’ health and lives.166 Districts must apply and obtain LAFCo approval to exercise services authorized by the principal act but not already provided (i.e., latent powers) by the district at the end of 2000. Boundaries EPHD is located in the eastern part of Plumas County, in the high Sierra Mountains. The EPHD boundary is entirely within Plumas County, and includes the City of Portola and the communities of Graeagle, Beckwourth, Vinton, and Chilcoot, among others. The District’s boundaries extend to the Lassen County line in the northeast and east, and to the Sierra County line in the south. The District’s boundaries encompass approximately 545,443 acres or 852 square miles. 167 There have been no annexations to or detachments from EPHD since its formation. 164 Plumas Board of Supervisors, Resolution No. 1499. 165 Health and Safety Code §32000-32492. 166 Health and Safety Code §32121(j). 167 Total agency area calculated in GIS software based on agency boundaries as of July 1, 2011. The data is not considered survey quality. EPHD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 165 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY Sphere of Influence The District’s SOI is coterminous with its boundaries. The SOI was originally adopted in 1976,168 with no updates or amendments since that time. Extra-territorial Services The District provides services outside of its boundaries at a clinic in Loyalton through an "out-of'-area service agreement" (OASA) with Sierra Valley Healthcare District (SVHD). Also, the District is running Indian Valley Health Clinic for Indian Valley Healthcare District (IVHD) through an OASA. Both SVHD and IVHD are currently in financial distress. SVHD filed for Chapter 9 bankruptcy on June 28, 2002, and EPHD began services to SVHD in November 2003.169 IVHD also filed for Chapter 9 bankruptcy in November 2004, and had severe challenges with cash flows prior to closing the clinic in 2006. EPHD began providing services to Indian Valley Medical Clinic began in November 2007.170 171 The District reported that there is a potential to consolidate with Sierra Valley Healthcare District (in Sierra County). SVHD desires to consolidate with EPHD due to its recent bankruptcy. EPHD plans to convene a study group to assess pros and cons of consolidating with SVHD. EPHD reported that it is not considering consolidation with Indian Valley Healthcare District, as EPHD would like to return all services to IVHD in the future. The District provides services to residents and non-residents alike. The District does not have separate fees based on residency. No proof of residency is required for hospitals and clinics within EPHD. Areas of Interest With the exception of the potential for consolidation with Sierra Valley Healthcare District mentioned above, the District did not identify any other areas of interest. 168 Plumas LAFCo Resolution No. 76-08. 169 Sierra County, Grand Jury Report 2008-2009. 170 Plumas County News, Directors consider selling Indian Valley hospital, June 17, 2010. 171 Sierra Institute for Community and Environment/Plumas County Public Health Agency. Re-visioning Rural Healthcare Service Delivery and Addressing the Needs of the Underserved in Plumas County, May 2008, 2. EPHD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 166 Eastern Plumas Healthcare District 7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 18 17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14 13 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 30 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 18 17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14 13 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 30 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 31 32 33 34 035 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 10 18 17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 30 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 18 17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14 13 18 17 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 30 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 1 1 3 7 6 9 8 0 1 2 2 8 5 7 0 9 1 2 2 4 9 6 1 8 1 1 2 2 3 0 5 2 7 1 1 2 2 2 1 4 3 6 1 1 2 2 1 2 3 4 5 1 1 3 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 2 8 5 7 0 9 1 2 2 4 9 6 1 8 1 1 2 2 3 0 5 2 7 1 1 2 2 2 1 4 6 3 1 1 2 2 1 2 3 4 5 1 1 3 6 7 9 8 0 2 2 1 5 8 0 9 7 2 2 1 4 9 8 1 6 1 2 2 1 3 0 2 7 5 26 1 G 1 2 r 2 1 iz 4 3 zly Rd Be 1 2 2 c 1 k 3 4 5 w 1 o 2 u 7 1 1 3 r 6 t 9 8 0 h Ge 1 2 2 n 5 7 e 0 9 s 8 ee Rd 2 2 4 9 1 8 16 1 1 2 2 3 0 5 7 2 1 1 2 2 2 1 4 3 6 1 2 1 2 1 2 4 3 5 1 1 3 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 2 5 8 7 0 9 1 2 2 4 9 6 1 8 1 1 2 3 2 0 5 2 7 1 1 2 2 2 1 4 3 6 1 1 2 2 1 2 3 4 5 1 1 3 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 2 5 8 7 0 9 1 2 2 4 9 6 1 8 1 1 2 2 3 0 5 2 7 1 1 2 2 2 1 4 3 6 1 1 2 2 2 3 4 5 1 1 3 7 8 9 0 29 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 1 7 8 1 8 7 1 9 6 1 1 0 5 1 11 4 1 1 2 3 1 7 8 1 8 7 1 9 6 1 1 0 5 1 1 1 4 1 1 3 2 1 7 8 1 8 7 1 9 6 1 1 0 5 1 1 1 4 1 1 2 3 1 6 7 8 1 5 8 7 1 4 9 6 1 1 3 0 5 1 1 2 1 4 1 1 1 2 3 1 6 7 8 1 5 8 7 1 4 9 6 1 1 3 0 5 1 1 2 1 4 1 1 1 2 3 1 6 7 8 1 5 8 7 1 4 9 6 3 1 1 0 5 S 1 ta 1 t 1 e R 4 oute 284 1 1 1 3 2 1 6 7 8 5 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 30 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26·|}þ 25 30 29 28 27 26 25 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 70 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 3 3 1 1 6 7 1 0 9 8 3 2 1 2 5 8 2 9 7 0 1 2 2 3 4 9 6 1 8 3 1 1 2 2 3 3 0 5 2 7 4 1 1 2 2 2 3 1 4 3 6 5 1 1 2 2 1 3 2 3 4 5 6 1 1 3 6 3 7 8 9 0 1 1 2 2 5 3 8 7 0 9 2 2 1 2 4 3 9 1 6 8 3 1 2 1 2 3 3 0 2 5 7 4 23 1 1 2 3 2 1 4 6 5 89 1 1 2 2 1 3 2 3 4 5 6 ·|}þ 1 7 1 6 3 7 3 8 0 9 0 1 29 1 2 5 P 8 3 7 0 o 2 rtola 2 M 1 1 c 4 9 2 3 C 6 8 3 lear 1 s 5 R 1 d 3 2 2 3 0 7 2 4 1 1 2 2 2 3 1 4 3 6 5 1 1 2 2 1 3 2 3 4 5 6 1 1 3 3 6 7 8 9 0 1 1 2 2 3 5 8 7 0 9 2 1 2 2 3 9 4 6 1 8 3 1 1 2 2 3 3 0 5 2 7 4 1 1 2 2 2 0 1 4 3 6 1 1 3 2 Beck wourth Calpine 3 Rd 1 6 2 2 5 0 4 1 1 3 3 6 7 8 9 0 1 0 1 2 2 3 5 8 7 0 9 2 0 1 2 2 3 4 9 6 1 8 3 0 1 1 2 2 3 3 0 5 2 7 4 0 1 1 2 3 2 2 1 4 3 5 6 1 1 2 3 2 1 2 3 4 6 5 0 1 1 3 3 7 9 6 8 0 1 State Route 49 2 3 5 8 2 9 2 1 0 7 0 1 2 2 3 4 9 6 8 1 3 0 1 1 2 2 3 3 0 5 7 2 4 2 3 2 1 1 2 1 6 5 3 4 2 1 2 1 1 5 2 4 3 1 6 7 8 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 0 11 12 0 0 7 8 0 13 18 170 htroN 52 pihsnwoT htroN 22 pihsnwoT Range 11 East Range 12 East Range 13 East Range 14 East Range 15 East Range 16 East Range 17 East PLUMAS COUNTY Eastern Plumas Healthcare District Location Map (Not to Scale) Eastern Plumas Healthcare District Legend Resolution: 1499 ·|}þ Adopted: 12/7/1964 70 CA State Highway Major Roads ² Eastern Plumas Healthcare District (SOI) Stream / River Resolution: 76-08 Adopted: 0 1.5 3 6Miles Source: Plumas LAFCo Map Created 5/1/2011 htroN 82 pihsnwoT htroN 72 pihsnwoT htroN 62 pihsnwoT htroN 42 pihsnwoT htroN 32 pihsnwoT 10-1 Parcels Eastern Plumas Healthcare District Waterbodies Eastern Plumas Healthcare District (SOI) Sectional Grid (MDB&M) v® Eastern Plumas Clinics District Hospital PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY Accountability and Governance The principal act orders that the governing body of a healthcare district must have five members. Directors may be appointed or elected, pending circumstances.172 EPHD is governed by a five-member Board of Directors who are elected to staggered four-year terms. The board members were elected at large, and there are currently no vacancies. There has never been a contested election. Current board member names, positions, and term expiration dates are shown in Figure 10-2. The Board meets once a month on the fourth Thursday (except November and December) at the Portola Education Center. Board meeting agendas are posted at the post office, at the District’s clinics and on the website. Minutes of board meetings are passed out at subsequent meetings after approval by the administrative office. The District has upcoming and past agendas and board meeting minutes available on its website. Figure 10-2: Eastern Plumas Healthcare District Governing Body Eastern Plumas Healthcare District District Contact Information Contact: Jeri Nelson, Chief Financial Officer Address: 500 First Ave., Portola, CA 96122 Telephone: (530) 832-6500 Email/website: www.ephc.org Board of Directors Member Name Position Term Expiration Manner of Selection Length of Term Gail McGrath Chairman December 2014 Elected 4 years Larry Fites Vice-Chairman December 2016 Elected 4 years Lucy Kreth Secretary December 2014 Elected 4 years Janie McBride Director December 2014 Elected 4 years Jay Skutt Director December 2014 Elected 4 years Meetings Date: Fourth Thursday of every month, except November - December Location: Portola Education Center Agenda Distribution: Posted at the post office, clinics, and on the website. Minutes Distribution: Distributed at meetings after approval, and posted on website. In addition to the required agendas and minutes, EPHD does public outreach through presence at fairs, charity events, and through advisory groups. The EPHD also maintains a website and newspaper space, as well as social networking site accounts such as Facebook and Twitter. 172 Health and Safety Code §32100. EPHD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 168 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY If a customer is dissatisfied with the District’s services, complaints may be submitted to the District or reported directly to the State. Complaints are also submitted on patient satisfaction forms. There is one staff member who is responsible for financial inquiries. EPHD’s complaints are mostly related to bills and timing. Patient complaints are reviewed every Wednesday. If the complaints have merit, then the Utilization Committee will review them with other healthcare providers through a “peer review” process. EPHD demonstrated accountability and transparency in its disclosure of information and cooperation with Plumas LAFCo. The District participated in an interview and cooperated with the document requests. Planning and Management Practices The District is one of the largest employers in the County with 235 employees or approximately 195 full-time equivalents. The District contracts for services with physicians, speech therapists, occupational therapists, physical therapists, and for snow removal, among others. There are six main departments: Financial Services, Human Resources, Hospital Operations, IT Management, Plant Operations, and Outpatient Clinics. The heads of these departments report to the CEO, who in turn reports to the Board of Directors. The agency performs staff evaluations annually. Each department head conducts the evaluations for employees within the relevant department, and the Human Resources Department reviews the evaluations after a 525-hour probation period. The Agency is implementing a biometric system that uses fingerprints to track employee log-in and log- out times. Timesheets are broken down by department. The District evaluates its own performance during monthly management and staff meetings, and assesses preparedness during emergency drills. EPHD performance is also gauged by benchmarking with other providers on the Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (OSHPD) website. With regard to financial planning, the District adopts an annual budget; financial statements are audited by an independent auditor annually. A monthly financial report is submitted to the Board and department heads. Capital improvements are planned for on an annual basis during each budget process. The District’s planning efforts include an operations plan. In the 2010-2011 Operations Plan, EPHD planned for facility needs and set goals related to financing, quality, community outreach, operations, and all clinics. The 2010-2011 Operations Plan indicates that a strategic plan will be developed for EPHD. Existing Demand and Growth Projections Designated land uses within the District are primarily agricultural and wildland, with some residential, suburban and recreational uses around the City of Portola and the EPHD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 169 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY communities of Chilcoot, Beckwourth, Lake Davis, Delleker, Iron Horse, Whitehawk Ranch, Valley Ranch, Clio, Mohawk Vista, C-Road, Blairsden, Graeagle, Johnsville and Plumas Eureka.173 The total boundary area of EPHD is approximately 852 square miles. Population There are approximately 6,239 residents within the District, based on census tract population in the 2000 census.174 Population information at the census tract level was not yet available for the 2010 census, as of the drafting of this report; however, based on the lack of growth experienced throughout the County over the last decade, and in some cases population decline, it can be assumed that the approximate population has not changed much since 2000. Existing Demand The District reported that from 2005 to 2008 service demand was on the rise, but in 2009 and 2010, service demand in basic healthcare and preventative treatment slightly declined. It was reported at the end of 2010 demand was starting to pick up again. Figure 10-3: Total Patient Days, in Thousands (2007 - 2010) The District’s number of 24 total patient days was 20,694 21 in 2010,175 which equates to an 18 estimated population served of about 673 patients.176 The 15 estimated population served 12 by EPHD in 2010 was 9 approximately 40 percent 6 more than the estimated 3 population served by EPHD in 2009, meaning that more 0 2007 2008 2009 2010 individual patients were served 2010. While there were only four less total patient days in 2009 than in 2010, the average length of stay was longer in 2009 than it was in 2010. There were less patient days in 2009 than in 2010 for all types of care except for skilled nursing. 173 Plumas County Parcel Application. 174 Census Tracts 3 and 2.01 in Plumas County and Table DP-1 for Portola city, California. 175 EPHD, Comprehensive Audited Financial Statement, September 10, 2010, p. 4. 176 Author’s estimate based on average lengths of stay in days per type of care. EPHD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 170 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY Projected Growth and Development No formal population projections have been made by the District. The State Department of Finance (DOF) projects that the population of Plumas County will grow by five percent in the next 10 years. Thus, the average annual population growth in the County is anticipated to be approximately 0.5 percent. Based on these projections, the District’s population would increase from 6,239 in 2010 to approximately 6,551 in 2020. It is anticipated that demand for service within the District will increase minimally based on the DOF population growth projections through 2020. There are several potential developments throughout the District that may lead to significant population growth in the future. Based on reports from the County, there is one development that has been approved but is currently on hold due to financial constraints. The development consists of 99 lots and is located in Graeagle. According to other districts there are a number of other potential developments: one small 21-home development within Sierra Valley FPD, three areas in Whitehawk Ranch that will add over 40 dwellings, Village of Plumas Pines in Plumas-Eureka, empty lots throughout the Gold Mountain subdivision, and Willow Creek development located three and a half miles west of Delleker that would consist of 210 residential units. Due to the unpredictable nature of the existing economy and housing market, these areas will likely not be developed within the short- term; however, they may be indicative of the long-term potential for growth. Additionally, there are three planned developments within the Portola city limits, which have the potential to add an additional 1,220 dwelling units, or approximately 2,440 additional residents to the District. The District appears to have the capacity to serve existing and near-term growth areas, but will need to address the challenge of hiring appropriate physicians and maintaining sufficient physician staffing levels. Growth Strategies The District is not a land use authority, and does not hold primary responsibility for implementing growth strategies. The land use authority for unincorporated areas is the County. The District does not take part in reviewing plans for proposed developments. With regard to future growth opportunities, EPHD identified the potential to consolidate with Sierra Valley Healthcare District as previously mentioned in the Background Section of this chapter. Financing While the District has historically had financial challenges resulting in bankruptcy in the late 90’s, the District has been able to resurrect itself by coming out of bankruptcy in 2004, and presently reports that current financing levels are adequate to deliver services. While financing levels appear to be adequate, the District faces the challenge of meeting mounting requirements and standards with decreased revenue. Declining revenues are the EPHD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 171 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY result of 1) a reduction in property tax income, 2) a decline in clients during the recent recession, and 3) an increase in unpaid medical bills, which have increased from four to six percent of billings. As a result of these revenue reductions, the District has been forced to downsize and discontinue obstetrician services to stay within its means. Rates charged to patients for services the District’s primary income. The District’s rates are determined based on competitive rates and need. The District also has “charity care,” or a sliding scale for fees based on income. The District’s total revenues for FY 09-10 were approximately $24.7 million.177 Revenue sources include patient service revenue (95 percent), property taxes (two percent), other operating and non-operating revenue (two percent), and grants and contributions (one percent). Figure 10-4: EPHD Revenues and Expenditures (FYs 10 & 11) Income/Expenses FY 09-10 Actual FY 10-11 Budgeted Income Property Taxes $590,333 2% $590,000 2% Other Operating Revenue $136,290 1% $94,000 0% Other Non-operating Revenue $238,970 1% $895,960 4% Charges for Services $23,584,228 95% $21,962,429 93% Contributions and grants $211,296 1% $100,000 0% Total Income $24,761,117 100% $23,642,389 100% Expenses Salaries & Benefits $12,392,754 52% $12,944,050 59% Services & Supplies $7,743,652 32% $7,418,562 34% Other charges $2,651,932 11% $297,717 1% Depreciation $785,801 3% $900,830 4% Interest $431,342 2% $396,000 2% Total Expense $24,005,481 100% $21,957,159 100% Net Income $755,636 $1,685,230 The District’s operating expenses in FY 09-10 were about $24 million.178 Expenditures were composed of employee compensation (52 percent), and services and supplies (32 percent). Debt repayments were approximately 10 percent of the total expenditures. The District’s capital expenses (rental and leases) in FY 09-10 were $89,299. The District’s operating expenses amounted to $1,160 per patient day, or $35,669 per patient. With regard to capital financing, the District strives to finance its capital improvements through USDA loans, auxiliary donations, grants, and operating capital, as well as other unidentified sources. The District adequately covers depreciation of capital assets as part of 177 EPHD, Comprehensive Audited Financial Statement, September 10, 2010, p. 8. 178 EPHD, Comprehensive Audited Financial Statement, September 10, 2010, p. 8. EPHD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 172 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY its budgeted capital expenditures. The District conducts capital improvement planning in the annual budget. The District had long-term debt of $6.6 million as of the end of FY 09-10. The debt consisted of notes payable and capital lease obligations, the details for which are shown in Figure 10-5. Figure 10-5: EPHD Loans and Leases Balance Monthly Payee Purpose Maturity Date June 30, 2010 Payment Loans Plumas Bank SVDH Purchases $526,263.59 $3,708.45 11/15/2033 CHFFA-Ca Health Facilities EMR & Endo Equip $290,119.99 $6,828.10 3/1/2014 Western Tile Company Evergreen Note Services $387,740.25 $5,211.66 11/29/2013 USDA #1 Unknown $3,431,146.35 $20,787.00 12/21/2031 USDA #2 Unknown $418,432.51 $2,535.00 12/21/2031 USDA #3 Unknown $167,716.27 $4,613.00 9/25/2013 USDA #5 Loyalton/Portola Equipment $369,396.47 $8,248.00 7/14/2014 USDA #6 Improvements/Defeasance $806,669.00 $15,285.00 11/3/2015 Total $6,397,484.43 $67,216.21 Leases Philips Medical Capital PCR Compano Basic Unit $8,965.75 $1,515.87 12/1/2010 Philips Medical Capital Bucky Diagnostic $10,264.54 $1,735.46 12/1/2010 Philips Medical Capital GE Ultraound $14,799.73 $1,514.10 12/1/2010 Philips Medical Capital Surgery C Arm $1,771.91 $181.25 4/15/2011 Philips Medical Capital CT Modular Suite $60,809.45 $4,192.32 9/15/2011 Philips Medical Capital CT Scanner $109,517.85 $9,521.67 6/1/2011 Philips Medical Capital CT Foundation $17,973.49 $1,854.13 4/1/2011 Philips Medical Capital Dry View Laser Imager $2,754.72 $465.75 12/1/2010 Beckman Coulter ACL 7000 $2,639.51 $273.88 4/29/2011 West America Bank Canon Copiers $9,046.42 $917.62 4/13/2011 Total $238,543.37 $22,172.05 The District currently does not have a reserve policy, but has a goal to maintain 180 days of operating revenue. At the end of FY 09-10, the District had an unrestricted net asset balance of $1.9 million, or approximately one month in operating expenditures. The District participates in several joint power authorities (JPAs), including a JPA for worker’s compensation, the Association of California Healthcare Districts (ACHD), and CHR Optima for insurance. HHEEAALLTTHHCCAARREE SSEERRVVIICCEESS Service Overview EPHD runs a hospital with two campuses, and five clinics. Hospital services provided include emergency and ambulance services, full service laboratories, diagnostic imaging (with the exception of MRIs), respiratory therapy, inpatient and outpatient surgery, and outpatient therapy such as endoscopies. Clinic services provided include dental, medical, nutrition, gastroenterology, pediatrics, chiropractics, orthopedics, podiatry, cardiology, EPHD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 173 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY gynecology, internal medicine, family practice, occupational testing, and occupational medicine. The District also provides durable medical equipment (DME) and home oxygen services. Staffing EPHD has four family nurse practitioners and 21 doctors that provide services directly to patients. There are 16 general practice physicians, and five physicians with specialties— one in dentistry, two in chiropratics, one in obstetrics, and two in podiatry. All doctors, nurses, and practitioners are expected to have appropriate certifications, and licenses as mandated by law in order to practice in EPHD, or oversee hospitals and clinics. EPHD partners with Feather River College (FRC) to provide clinical education training in FRC’s Vocational Nursing Program. Facilities and Capacity The District operates the following health care facilities: Eastern Plumas Hospital, Portola Dental Clinic, Portola Medical Clinic, Graeagle Medical Clinic, Loyalton Medical Clinic, and Indian Valley Medical Clinic. EPHD owns Eastern Plumas Hospital, Portola Dental Clinic and Portola Medical Clinic; Sierra Valley Healthcare District owns Loyalton Medical Clinic; and Indian Valley Healthcare District owns Indian Valley Medical. The Eastern Plumas Hospital has two campuses, one in Portola and one in Loyalton. Each campus provides basic inpatient services. The Loyalton campus has 39 long-term beds available, while the Portola campus has 27 long-term beds and nine acute beds available. There is always an on-call doctor available for emergencies. Hospital services available at the Portola campus include regional ambulance services, a 24-hour emergency room, a full service laboratory, diagnostic imaging (x-ray, ultrasound, CT, and mammogram), respiratory therapy, scheduled inpatient and outpatient surgery, outpatient procedures, skilled nursing, surgical ward, and keeping of medical records. Hospital services available at the Loyalton campus include skilled nursing and keeping of medical records. Loyalton Medical Clinic provides family practice, pediatrics, nutrition counseling, and podiatry. This clinic is operated by EPHD through an OASA with Sierra Valley Healthcare District. Portola Medical Clinic provides family practice, gastroenterology, general surgery, nutrition, orthopedic surgery, podiatric surgery, internal medicine, genecology, pediatrics, OB/GYN, pediatrics, and podiatry. Portola Dental Clinic provides dental services. EPHD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 174 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY Graeagle Medical Clinic provides family practice, cardiology, chiropractics, gynecology, nutrition counseling, occupational medicine, orthopedic medicine, and podiatry. The Graeagle clinic facility is leased from Graeagle Land and Water. Indian Valley Medical Clinic provides family practice, chiropractic, general surgery, orthopedics, and podiatry. This building is rented from IVHD. This facility is outside of EPHD bounds (as part of the Indian Valley Healthcare District), but is currently under EPHD management as of 2007. All facilities were reported to be in good condition, but require work and need to be updated. District’s facilities appear to have sufficient capacity to meet needs; however, capacity to serve demand is constrained by the District’s ability to hire and retain adequate physician staffing levels. Infrastructure Needs The District’s facilities are in need of remodeling. The building which houses the boilers and the boilers themselves are planned to be replaced, if grant funds become available, by 2013. The District has made plans for this capital improvement in its capital budget. Challenges The District reported the following challenges to providing adequate services:  There are mounting requirements and standards to meet with decreased revenues;  Reduced revenues have forced the District to cutback service levels, such as discontinuing OB services; and  Hiring and retaining sufficient physician staffing levels. At the end of 2010, the District started formulating a strategic plan. As part of the plan, the District is reviewing opportunities to introduce traveling physicians for specialties, such as endoscopy and plastic surgery. EPHD is also currently undertaking a large electronic records project to digitize records and reduce duplication of efforts. Service Adequacy There are several benchmarks that may define the level of healthcare service provided by an agency, such as complaints, patient outcomes, occupancy rates, staffing levels, costs, emergency room closures and workload, operating room use and the extent to which residents go to other hospitals for service. Complaints, costs and staffing levels were discussed in the previous sections of this chapter. Indicators of service adequacy discussed here include 1) treatment response rates to heart attacks and pneumonia, 2) hospital occupancy rate, 3) pneumonia mortality rates, 4) mortality rates related to other EPHD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 175 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY conditions, 5) EMS ambulance diversion rates, 6) operating room use, 7) the extent to which residents go to other hospitals for service, and 8) accreditation information. These indicators for measuring service adequacy are established by the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Studies (CMS)179 and Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (OSHPD). Although this data is not available specifically for EPHD or even for Plumas County, it is important to discuss Prevention Quality Indicators (PQIs).180 Due to small population sizes, twenty-four counties were reported using seven groupings of two to five counties each. Groups were used because the count of selected hospitalizations in some counties was too small for meaningful analysis. Plumas County was grouped together with Lassen, Modoc, Sierra, and Nevada into the Northeastern Group. This group had California’s best (lowest) rates for PQIs, suggesting that residents there have the best access to outpatient care. When a person receives early and proper treatment for specific medical conditions, disease complications may be reduced or eliminated, disease progression may be slowed, and hospitalization may be prevented. Community-acquired pneumonia is one of the leading causes of death both nationwide and in California. For this reason, OSHPD chose it to be one of the conditions studied in the California Hospital Outcomes Program (CHOP), an initiative mandated by the State of California. The latest reports available are for 2002-2004. In 2004, EPHD had similar community-acquired pneumonia mortality rates to the State average. Rates for Plumas Healthcare District and Seneca Healthcare District in Plumas County were lower than the State average. Inpatient Mortality Indicators (IMIs) for EPHD are available for acute myocardial infarction, congestive heart failure, gastro-intestinal hemorrhage and pneumonia for 2009.181 Evidence suggests that high mortality may be associated with deficiencies in the quality of hospital care provided. The IMIs are part of a suite of measures called Inpatient Quality Indicators (IQIs), developed by the Federal Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), that provide a perspective on hospital quality of care. IMIs are calculated using patient data reported to OSHPD by all California-licensed hospitals. All IMIs include risk-adjustment, a process that takes into account patients' pre-existing health problems to "level the playing field" and allow fair comparisons among hospitals. The District’s mortality rates in 2009 for myocardial infarction were 30 percent compared to seven percent statewide; 16 percent for congestive heart failure compared to three percent 179 EPHD website, “Quality Measures” document 180 The Prevention Quality Indicators (PQIs) are a set of measures that can be used with hospital inpatient discharge data to identify quality of care for "ambulatory care sensitive conditions" in adult populations. These are conditions for which good outpatient care can potentially prevent the need for hospitalization or for which early intervention can prevent complications or more severe disease. The Prevention Quality Indicators represent hospital admission rates for the following 14 ambulatory care sensitive conditions. 181 OSHPD did not report mortality rates for other conditions (esophageal resection, pancreatic resection, abdominal aortic aneurism repair, craniotomy, percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty, carotid endarterectomy, acute stroke, and hip fracture) for the District because fewer than three procedures were performed or conditions were treated. EPHD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 176 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY statewide, zero for gastro-intestinal hemorrhage compared to two percent statewide, and five percent for pneumonia compared to 4.6 percent statewide. The District’s mortality rate for congestive heart failure is significantly higher than statewide. EPHD is considered not significantly different from the statewide average for the other Inpatient Mortality Indicators. In cases of heart attacks, the District’s goal is to have 100 percent of heart pain or heart attack patients receive aspirin on arrival. During the calendar year beginning in July 2010, EPHD has met its goal every month. In cases of pneumonia, the goal is to have 100 percent of patients receive antibiotics within six hours of arrival. During the calendar year beginning in July 2010, EPHD has met its goal every month. The District’s hospitals had an occupancy rate of 77.5 percent in 2010, compared to a statewide average of 71 percent.182 This occupancy rate suggests that service adequacy is satisfactory, and there are enough hospital beds in the area to serve patients as needed. Emergency room closure data was not available for the recent years. The last year when this information was reported was 2007. The EPHD was closed for a total of zero hours during that year. For 2010, in lieu of emergency closure rates, EMS ambulance diversion rates were used as an indicator for emergency room use. In 2010, ambulances were not diverted to other hospitals from EPHD. The operating room at the EPHD hospital in Portola was used for surgeries approximately one percent of the available time in 2010.183 The operating room was used about equally for inpatient and outpatient surgery. The operating room has abundant capacity to accommodate existing demand and possible future growth. The adequacy of hospital facilities and services in meeting the needs of Eastern Plumas County residents can be gauged by the extent to which residents travel outside their region to receive hospital services. The rates were calculated based on patient discharge data from OSHPD. Residential location was approximated by zip code. About 73 percent of Eastern Plumas County residents patronize the hospital in Portola. There are several major healthcare-related accreditation organizations in the United States: Healthcare Facilities Accreditation Program (HFAP), Joint Commission (JC), Community Health Accreditation Program (CHAP), Accreditation Commission for Health Care (ACHC), The Compliance Team – Exemplary provider programs, Healthcare Quality Association on Accreditation (HQAA), and DNV Healthcare, Inc. (DNVHC). For the State of 182 OSHPD, Annual Financial Disclosure Report, June 30, 2010, 1. CDC, Table 116. Occupancy rates in community hospitals and average annual percent change, by state: United States, selected years 1960–2008. Latest figure found for State of California was 2008. 183 Operating room use rates are calculated as the number of surgery-minutes divided by the annual capacity of the operating rooms (number of minutes in a year is based on 24-hour use). EPHD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 177 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY California the primary accreditation organization is the Joint Commission. The Joint Commission is a not-for-profit organization that accredits and certifies more than 19,000 health organizations and programs in the country. Accreditation can be earned by an entire healthcare organization, for example, hospitals, nursing homes, office-based surgery practices, home care providers, and laboratories. In California, the Joint Commission is part of the joint survey process with State authorities. Hospitals are not required to be accredited in order to operate. Accreditation generally recognizes outstanding performance by a healthcare provider. EPHD does not maintain any accreditations. Figure 10-6: Eastern Plumas Healthcare District Service Profile Healthcare Services Facilities Hospitals/Clinics Location Condition Owner Loyalton Medical Clinic 725 Third Street, Loyalton, CA Good EPHD Portola Medical Clinic 480 First Avenue, Portola, CA Good EPHD Portola Dental Clinic 480 First Avenue, Portola, CA Good EPHD Graeagle Medical Clinic 7597 Hwy 89, Suite 1, Graeagle, CA Good Rented Indian Valley Medical Clinic 176 Hot Springs Road, Greenville, CA Good Rented Eastern Plumas Hospital--Loyalton 700 Third Street, Loyalton, CA Good EPHD Eastern Plumas Hospital--Portola 500 First Avenue, Portola, CA Good EPHD Service Challenges The District's challenges include getting physicians, and meeting requirements with reduced revenue. The District had to discontinue OB services to stay within means. Facility Needs/Deficiencies The boilers are planned to be replaced in 2013 and the facilities need remodeling. Facility Sharing Current Practices: The District practices facility sharing by managing clinics for IVHD and SVHD. The District works collaboratively with five other providers for training and referrals, especially as it pertains to psychiatric cases and drug abuse Future Opportunities: The District did not identify future opportunities for facility sharing. Service Adequacy Occupancy rate, 2010: 77.5% (versus statewide average of 71%) Heart attack 100% (actual) out of 100% (goal) of patients given aspirin on arrival Pneumonia 100% (actual) out of 100% (goal) of patients given antibiotics within first six hours EPHD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 178 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY EEAASSTTEERRNN PPLLUUMMAASS HHEEAALLTTHHCCAARREE DDIISSTTRRIICCTT DDEETTEERRMMIINNAATTIIOONNSS Growth and Population Projections  There are approximately 6,239 residents within the District.  Over the past few years, the District has not experienced a significant increase in population and service demand.  There are several potential developments throughout the District that may lead to significant population growth in the long term.  Due to the recent recession, most of the planned developments are on hold and therefore minimal growth is expected within the District in the next few years. Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities and Adequacy of Public Services, Including Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies  The District’s facilities appear to have sufficient capacity to meet needs; however, capacity to serve demand is constrained by the District’s ability to hire and retain adequate physician staffing levels and by the elimination of some services due to declining revenues.  The District’s facilities in Portola are in need of remodeling and the boilers need to be replaced.  Capital improvements are planned for on an annual basis during each budget process.  The District should consider adopting a capital improvement plan to identify financing needs, potential revenue sources for these needs and timing of the improvements. Financial Ability of Agencies to Provide Services  The District reports that current financing levels are adequate to deliver services; although, the District has been compelled to eliminate some services, due to reduced revenues as a result of the recent recession.  While financing levels appear to be adequate, the District faces the challenge of meeting mounting requirements and standards with decreased revenue. EPHD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 179 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY  Reduced revenues have forced the District to cutback service levels, such as discontinuing OB services  EPHD seeks donations and applies for various loans and grants to increase its level of funding and fund capital improvements. Status of, and Opportunities for, Shared Facilities  The District practices facility sharing by managing clinics for IVHD and SVHD.  EPHD works collaboratively with five other providers for training and referrals.  Consolidation with another healthcare district would offer opportunities for shared resources and finances. Accountability for Community Service Needs, Including Governmental Structure and Operational Efficiencies  EPHD demonstrated accountability and transparency by disclosing financial and service related information in response to LAFCo requests.  The District conducts extensive outreach in the community.  A governmental structure option is consolidation with SVHD. EPHD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 180 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY 11. EASTE R N P LU M AS RU R A L FIRE PROT ECTION DISTRICT Eastern Plumas Rural Fire Protection District (EPRFPD) provides structural fire suppression, wildland fire suppression, emergency response, basic life support, rescue and occasional fire prevention programs.184 A municipal service review was last completed for the District in May 2007. AAGGEENNCCYY OOVVEERRVVIIEEWW Background EPRFPD was formed in 1975 as an independent special district to provide structural fire, emergency medical and emergency rescue services.185 The reason for its formation was the need to provide fire protection to the growing urban areas around the City of Portola. For the first few years EPRFPD contracted with the City of Portola for the provision of fire and emergency services within the District’s boundaries.186 Eventually, EPRFPD started providing fire suppression, emergency services, rescue and some fire prevention programs on its own. The principal act that governs the District is the Fire Protection District Law of 1987.187 The principal act empowers fire districts to provide fire protection, rescue, emergency medical, hazardous material response, ambulance, and any other services relating to the protection of lives and property.188 Districts must apply and obtain LAFCo approval to exercise services authorized by the principal act but not already provided (i.e., latent powers) by the district at the end of 2000. EPRFPD is located in the eastern part of Plumas County, in the high Sierra Mountains. The District surrounds the City of Portola and borders Beckwourth Fire Protection District in the northeast. 184 Trent Saxton, FEMA Fire House Grant Application, 2009, Fire Department Characteristics Part I, p. 1. 185 Plumas LAFCo, Resolution No. 75-2766. 186 John Gullixson, Plumas LAFCo, EPRFPD Municipal Service Review & Sphere of Influence Amendment, 2007, p. 7. 187 Health and Safety Code §13800-13970. 188 Health and Safety Code §13862. EPRFPD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 181 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY Boundaries EPRFPD’s boundary is entirely within Plumas County. The initial boundaries extended north to the Carmichael Ranch, south to Iron Horse Rancho, east to Grizzly Road, and west to include the Maybe area. The present bounds encompass approximately eight square miles, 189 98 percent of which is rural and wild land.190 The boundary area consists of two non-contiguous parts. The larger part surrounds the City of Portola and stretches from Willow Creek in the west to Grizzly Ranch in the east. The smaller of the two areas is located by Lake Davis. The existing boundaries of the District are shown in Figure 11-2. Plumas LAFCo and Board of Equalization records indicate there have been five annexations to the District and six detachments from the District, since EPRFPD was formed. All recorded boundary changes are shown in Figure 11-1. The most recent annexation took place in 2010 and involved 93.6 acres of the Ridges Properties.191 Although LAFCo has concluded its hearing on it, this annexation has not been finished or recorded by the BOE. The detachment for the portion of Grizzly Ranch property also only appear in LAFCo archives, and have not been recorded by the BOE. EPRFPD and LAFCo should work together to complete the annexation ,submit it for recording by the State, determine whether the detachment was satisfactorily completed, and ensure that the District’s Tax Rate Area is consistent with BOE records. Figure 11-1: EPRFPD Boundary History Project Name Type of Action Year Recording Agency Eastern Plumas Rural Fire Protection District Formation 1975 LAFCo, SBOE Northern Area, Lake Davis Rt Detachment 1984 LAFCo, SBOE Les Premo Territory Annexation 1984 LAFCo, SBOE Joy Way Territory Detachment 1984 LAFCO, SBOE West Side Territory Annexation 1990 LAFCo, SBOE Francisco Territory Detachment 1995 SBOE Lake Davis Area Annexation 1998 LAFCo, SBOE Portola 192 Detachment 1999 SBOE North Joy Way Detachment 2002 LAFCo, SBOE Joy Parcels Annexation 2007 LAFCo, SBOE The Ridges Properties Annexation 2010 LAFCo Southeastern portion of Grizzly Ranch property Detachment 2010 LAFCo Sierra Health Foundation/Rocky Point Road Detachment 2011 LAFCo, SBOE 189 Total agency area calculated in GIS software based on agency boundaries as of July 1, 2011. The data is not considered survey quality. 190 Trent Saxton, FEMA Fire House Grant Application, 2009, Fire Department Characteristics Part I, p. 1. 191 The Ridges Annexation has been approved by LAFCo but not yet been annexed or recorded. The LAFCo approval will expire if annexation is not completed within one year of commission approval. EPRFPD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 182 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY Sphere of Influence The SOI for EPRFPD was first adopted in 1975. The District’s SOI was amended in 2007. The new SOI includes areas southeast of its boundary along A-15, west along SR 70 to Mohawk Vista, and north of SR 70. In addition, the Gold Mountain Community Service District (GMCSD) territory was included in the District’s updated SOI.192 EPRFPD’s existing SOI also encompasses the entire City of Portola. According to the EPRFPD 2007 MSR, the reason for the inclusion of these communities and private developments into the District’s SOI was that this extension would allow for a “streamlined approach for future annexations to the most logical service provider.” The current SOI encompasses 28 square miles, of which approximately one-third is within the District’s boundaries. Extra-territorial Services Through an informal agreement with the Sheriff’s Office, which is discussed in more detail in the Fire Service Section in this chapter, the District responds outside of its boundaries. The District’s service area extends to the north and south of the boundary and encompasses about 37 square miles compared to eight miles of boundary area. Prior to the annexation of The Ridges project, the District provided extra-territorial fire and emergency services to the property via an Out-of-Area Service contract with Sweetwater Investments, LLC., John and Colleen Chase, and Christopher and Kathleen Hall. These areas are shown in Figure 11-2. OASA with Sweetwater Investments, LLC has been canceled due to non-payment. EPRFPD also provides occasional fire and emergency services within the boundaries of Beckwourth FPD through a mutual aid agreement. Areas of Interest EPRFPD reported a number of areas of interest where there were 1) challenges due to limited access, 2) areas lacking a designated service provider, 3) areas with the potential for miscommunication regarding the proper first responder, or 4) overlapping service providers:193  The area between the border of the City of Portola along Lake Davis Road and the border of the District has no designated provider.  During incidents, there is sometime confusion regarding who serves the finger areas in the northeastern part of the City of Portola along Manzanita Street, Chaparral Street, Loyalton Avenue, Magnolia Avenue, and Sagebrush Avenue. 192 Plumas LAFCo, Eastern Plumas Rural Fire Protection District Municipal Service Review and Sphere of Influence Amendment, 2007, p. 28. 193 Interview with Keith Clark, EPRFPD Fire Chief, November 7, 2010. EPRFPD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 183 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY  Although the areas of Rocky Point Road and Portola Heights are within EPRFPD’s boundaries, the District reported that the City of Portola has an Out of Area Service Agreement with these communities to provide water services and along with that it provides fire services there as well.  EPRFPD reported that they would like to have the rectangular area along Grizzly road detached from the District.  The District is concerned that other fire service providers are providing service within the District’s SOI without proper authorization.  Some property owners in eastern Plumas reportedly claim to be served by the District for insurance purposes, although they are not within the District’s boundaries.  Gold Mountain CSD, which is in EPRFPD SOI, currently receives fire services from the City of Portola under contract. In 2009, Gold Mountain CSD conducted a study with the purpose of choosing a long-term fire service provider. EPRFPD was considered as one the options. GMCSD concluded that EPRFPD was the closest fire district and the most affordable option. However, limited financing resources of EPRFPD may present a problem. EPRFPD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 184 Lake Davis Rd G rizzly R d ·|þ} 70 S D elleker R d ·|þ} 70 rD rekelleD Eastern Plumas Rural Fire Protection District 7 8 9 10 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 33 31 32 33 34 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 16 15 14 13 18 17 Portola 1 Mc 6 Clears Rd 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 htroN 32 pihsnwoT htroN 22 pihsnwoT 11-2 Range 12 East Range 13 East Range 14 East L a k e D a v is Legend Eastern Plumas Rural FPD Eastern Plumas Rural FPD Major Roads Parcels Resolution: 75-2766 ·|}þ 70 CA State Highway City of Portola Eastern Plumas Rural FPD (SOI) Adopted: 9/10/1975 Local Responsibility Area ² Stream / River FPD Service Area Eastern Plumas Rural FPD (SOI) State Responsibility Area Resolution: 2007-006 Waterbodies Sectional Grid (MDB&M) (Federal Responsibility lies Adopted: Fire Stations outside hatched area.) 0 0.5 1 2Miles Source: Plumas LAFCo Map Created 3/21/2011 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY Accountability and Governance The principal act orders that the governing body of a fire protection district must have an odd number of members, with a minimum of three and a maximum of 11 members. Directors may be appointed or elected.194 EPRFPD is governed by a five-member board of directors who are elected to staggered four-year terms. Two Board Members were elected and three were appointed by the County Board of Supervisors to fill the vacancies. There has never been a contested election. Current board member names, positions, and term expiration dates are shown in Figure 11-3. The Board meets once a month on the first Monday at the Delleker station. Board meeting agendas are posted on the bulletin board outside of the station and at the thrift store. Minutes of every board meeting are available upon request from the secretary. The District does not have a website, so its documents are not available online. Figure 11-3: EPRFPD Governing Body Eastern Plumas Rural Fire Protection District District Contact Information Contact: Fire Chief, Kieth Clark Address: 141 Delleker Road, Portola, CA 96122 Telephone: (530)832-5626 Fax: (530)832-5446 Email/website: eprfpd@att.net Board of Directors Member Name Position Term Expiration Manner of Selection Length of Term W. Trent Saxton Chair December 2011 Elected 4 years Marcia Dickinson Director December 2013 Elected 4 years Kimberly Burnett Director December 2013 Appointed 4 years Jeanne Graham Director December 2011 Appointed 4 years Dale Dankbar Director December 2011 Appointed 4 years Meetings Date: First Monday of every month Location: Delleker Station Agenda Distribution: Posted on the bulletin board outside of the Delleker Station and in the thrift store. Minutes Distribution: Provided upon request In addition to the required agendas and minutes, the District does public outreach through fundraisers and food drives for those in need. EPRFPD focuses much of its outreach on children. Young fire explorers train with the District’s volunteer fire fighters on occasional Thursdays. Previous efforts to reach out to kids also include involvement 194 Health and Safety Code §13842. EPRFPD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 186 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY with the boy scouts and showing of fire trucks at a preschool. The EPRFPD’s thrift store, which is run by volunteers, assists people who have lost their houses due to fire, raises money for the District and puts out a newsletter for the fire department. The District also organized a campaign to encourage the public to buy reflective signs to make it easier to identify the correct location in case of an emergency. If a customer is dissatisfied with District’s services, complaints may be submitted to the fire chief. In the past, most of EPRFPD’s complaints were regarding former staff. The District reported that no complaints were submitted in 2009 and 2010. EPRFPD demonstrated accountability and transparency in its disclosure of information and cooperation with Plumas LAFCo. The District responded to the questionnaires and cooperated with the document requests. Planning and Management Practices Daily operations are managed by the chief and the secretary. There are 22 staff, of which, only the secretary and fire chief are paid. The fire chief dedicates about 15 hours a week to district operations. The secretary puts in approximately six to 10 hours per week. The rest of the personnel are volunteers. They include one assistant fire chief, three captains, 13 volunteer fire fighters, and three non-safety volunteers perform building maintenance. Personnel are accountable to the chief. The chief reports to the Board of Directors at meetings. The chief does not perform formal employee evaluations. He makes himself available to discuss any issues on an as-needed basis. Volunteer firefighters receive an end-of-the-year bonus when they are frequently available to respond throughout the year, and notify the chief when they leave the area and are unavailable to respond. The District tracks its staff workload by incident and by person responding. Personnel also track equipment and its maintenance by recording it in logs. EPRFPD records training hours for each volunteer. EPRFPD reported performing no evaluations of overall district performance, such as benchmarking or annual reports. The District’s financial planning efforts include an annually adopted budget and occasional audits by the County. The latest audit took place in 2009. The District provided two adopted budgets: one for FY2009-2010 and another for FY2010-2011. EPRFPD does not adopt other planning documents, such as a capital improvement plan or master plan. The District previously attempted to develop further planning tools, but reported that limited funding posed a challenge. EPRFPD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 187 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY Existing Demand and Growth Projections Ninety-eight percent of the existing land uses within the District’s boundary area are agricultural and undeveloped properties, with some forest zones. Residential, commercial and industrial uses are mostly concentrated around the City of Portola. There are some residential and recreational areas in the Lake Davis portion of the District.195 The District’s boundaries encompass a total of nine square miles. Population As of 2008, the District’s boundary area included 5,284 acres, 1,486 residential unit equivalents, 827 structures, and 1,443 lots.196 Out of 827 structures, 98 are commercial. Based on average household size throughout the County of 1.9 people, the estimated population of EPRFPD is 1,385. According to grant application prepared by the District, there are nearly 5,000 more residents within its SOI. Through mutual aid agreements, the District estimates it provides fire and emergency services to about 400 square miles with a population of more than 22,000 people.197 Existing Demand The District reported having fluctuating peak demand, with no regular pattern of peak periods. Calls for medical emergencies are consistently high throughout the year, similar to other providers. Figure 11-4: EPRFPD Number of Calls by Year The District experienced growth in 140 service demand until 2007. In the last 120 three years, between 2007 and 2010, the 100 District experienced a decline in population, which resulted in a 80 subsequent drop in demand as well. The 60 agency experienced a large drop in calls 40 in 2008, at the peak of the recession, and a slight increase the following two years. 20 0 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 195 Plumas County Online Parcel Application. 196 Eastern Plumas Rural Fire Protection District- 2008 Annexations, Analysis of Fiscal Effects, 2008, Attachment 1. 197 Trent Saxton, FEMA Fire Tender Grant Application, 2009, Narrative Statement, p. 1. EPRFPD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 188 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY Projected Growth and Development The agency anticipates little or no growth in population and similarly in service demand within the District in the next few years; however, no formal population projections have been made by the District. The State Department of Finance (DOF) projects that the population of Plumas County will grow by five percent in the next 10 years. Thus, the average annual population growth in the County is anticipated to be approximately 0.5 percent. Based on these projections, the District’s population would increase from 1,385 in 2010 to approximately 1,456 in 2020. It is anticipated that demand for service within the District will increase minimally based on the DOF population growth projections through 2020. The District reported that to their knowledge there are no new or proposed developments within EPRFPD’s boundaries. There are four proposed developments within EPRFPD’s SOI, three of which are in the City of Portola. The Portola 192 development, comprised of 200 dwellings on 192 acres, is located in the very western part of the City of Portola and is almost completely surrounded by the District’s boundaries. The Woodbridge development consists of 1,005 dwelling units on 398 acres and extends from the Portola High School in the north to the southern boundary of the city. Mountain View Estates contains 15 dwelling units on 8 acres. Willow Creek development, which is comprised of 210 residential units and located on the north side of SR 70 about three and a half miles west of Delleker, is currently on hold due to negotiations with the County. EPRFPD anticipates providing service to the Willow Creek development. Since the City provides its own fire service it is unlikely that the District will be providing service to Woodbridge, Portola 192 and Mountain View Estates. While growth in demand over the next 10 years is anticipated to be minimal, the District faces challenges providing adequate services to the existing population and will face similar challenges providing adequate service levels to any increase in demand in the future without additional funding. Growth Strategies The District is not a land use authority, and does not hold primary responsibility for implementing growth strategies. The land use authority for unincorporated areas is the County. The County enforces the codes that it has enforcement power over, which does not encompass all State fire codes. The County ensures that new construction meets the requirements of the latest adopted edition of the California Building Standards. The County enforces the County codes that have been adopted in lieu of the California Fire Safe regulations. The County does not have authority to enforce PRC 4291, which requires defensible space around structures; however, the County does have some enforcement authority over vegetation removal around buildings that was adopted prior to PRC 4291. In addition, the Board of Supervisors, through the adoption of the General Plan and county codes, regulates development standards to be followed in processing subdivisions, including fire protection. EPRFPD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 189 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY The proposals for new developments are sent for review to the appropriate fire provider if a development is within district’s boundaries. The County reported that as SOI maps have not been digitized, is has been challenging to ensure that proposals go to the appropriate district if a proposed development was within that district’s SOI but outside its boundaries. The County and Plumas LAFCo are working together on a process to ensure that all appropriate districts are contacted for review of proposed developments. The County Board of Supervisors is discussing a possibility of hiring a fire marshal, part of whose responsibilities may be code enforcement and building inspections. However, thus far, no decision has been made on the responsibilities of the position.198 The County has several policies in the existing general plan, which impact the fire providers of new developments. 1) Turnouts are now required in every new development.199 2) The County encourages development to be located adjacent to or within areas where fire services already exist or can be efficiently provided.200 3) The County requires new developments within areas not currently served by a fire provider to be annexed into an existing fire district or create a funding mechanism, such as a CSD, to cover the costs of fire service provision.201 4) Sustainable timber and biomass production and harvesting as well as intensive forest management practices are encouraged to reduce the danger of catastrophic wildfires.202 5) There is a minimum requirement of two roadway access points, which are maintained on a year-round basis by the County or the State. 203 6) Minimum public and private road standards: roads providing access to two or more lots have to conform to a two-lane standard of no less than 16-foot traveled way.204 7) Bridges are required to be designed for an 80,000 pound vehicle load.205 198 Correspondence with Becky Herrin, Plumas County Senior Planner, September 8, 2011. 199 Plumas County Code of Ordinances, Title 9 Section 9-4.604 (k). 200 Plumas County, General Plan, 1984, pp. 28 & 29. 201 Ibid., p. 28. 202 Ibid, p. 32. 203 Ibid., p. 16. 204 Ibid., 205 Ibid. EPRFPD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 190 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY 8) All access roads must be marked with an approved sign; and all lots must be identified by an address.206 9) All developments within boundaries of a structural fire service provider may be required to contribute to the maintenance of the structural service proportionate to the increase in demand for fire service resulting from the development.207 10) As a condition of development it is required to provide long-term maintenance of private roads to the standards of original improvements, including roadside vegetation management.208 11) The County encourages biomass thinning programs in high fire risk areas.209 The District reported concerns that new developments in the County were not being required to comply with existing requirements.210 The County reported that only one agency had come to the County regarding these concerns, which were unfounded at the time. No conjecture is made by the authors of this report as to the accuracy of these statements. It should be noted that one of the purposes of the newly formed Emergency Service Feasibility Group is to address these concerns. The County is in the process of updating its general plan. The suggested new policies in the General Plan update that would impact fire service providers, but had not yet been adopted as of the drafting of this report, include: 12) The County shall review and update its Fire Safe ordinance to attain and maintain defensible space though conditioning of tentative maps and in new development at the final map or building permit stage. 13) The County will consult Fire Hazard Severity Zone Maps during the review of all projects. The Countywill work with fire protection agencies to develop community fire plans and require appropriate building setbacks and fuel modification requirements within fire hazard zones. 14) In order for the new development to be approved, the County must conclude that adequate emergency water flow, fire access and firefighters and equipment are available. 206 Ibid. 207 Ibid. 208 Plumas County Code of Ordinances, Title 9 Section 9-4.601. 209 Plumas County Code of Ordinances, Title 4 Section 4-2.101. 210 Profile comments from Chief Greg McCaffrey, May 3, 2011. EPRFPD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 191 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY 15) New developments have to show that they have adequate access for emergency vehicles to access the site and for private vehicles to evacuate the area. 16) New developments within high and very high fire hazard areas are required to designate fuel break zones that comply with fire safe requirements. 17) The County will work with Forest Service and fire districts in developing fire prevention programs, identifying opportunities for fuel breaks in zones of high and very high fire hazard and educating public. 18) Fire, law enforcement, EMS, resource management, and public health response partners are encouraged to conduct joint training exercises.211 The County has not adopted the new standards for development yet. The revised General Plan may be adopted towards the end of 2012. County zoning code will then go through a revision process in order for the zoning code to implement the General Plan. In 2007, the Board of Supervisors formed the Emergency Services Advisory Committee to “evaluate the funding feasibility of providing uniform and comprehensive emergency services to all of Plumas County.” The Committee attempted to look for opportunities to increase funding for emergency services, but faced a considerable challenge in the difficult economic times. Most recently, it focused on mitigating efforts through building and development standards improvements and the General Plan update process, and encouraging local fire service providers to share resources and realize economies of scale in preparing grant applications, conducting training and engaging in other joint programs. The District reported that it is considering annexing Mohawk Vista. In addition, there are tentative plans to consolidate with C-Road Community Service District. In 2010, EPRFPD considered consolidation with Beckwourth FPD. An ad hoc committee consisting of Beckwourth FPD members conducted the consolidation study and concluded that although the eventual consolidation is inevitable it may take a few years before all parties involved are ready for it. The District would also like to annex Gold Mountain CSD. Financing The District reports that current financing levels are not adequate to deliver services.212 According to the District, additional funding is needed to provide for enhanced staffing levels, new vehicles, new equipment, and a new fire station to ensure adequate service levels to meet existing and future demand. The District has faced several challenges with regard to service financing: 211 Plumas County General Plan, Draft Goals, Policies and Implementation Measures, 2010. 212 Interview with Keith Clark, EPRFPD Fire Chief, November 7, 2010. EPRFPD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 192 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY  Ninety percent of the District’s budget is derived from taxes and ten percent from donations. Approximately 85 percent of the whole budget is spent to ensure that the public gets emergency response staffing 24 hours a day. The remaining 15 percent pays for day-to-day operations and small purchases. Therefore, there is inadequate financing for large purchases and improvements.213  Another challenge to financing is that 300 lots, which were annexed before 2002 (subdivisions on the south side of Lake Davis and some small lots at Maybe), do not pay property tax to EPRFPD. They pay a modest annual property assessment that is only a small fraction of the amount of taxes that original properties pay to the District in taxes.214  While some other fire districts in the County are charging for providing services to the population within their SOI but outside of their boundaries, EPRFPD has not been doing so, and is just getting ready to start the process.  The recession is another factor that negatively impacted the District’s financing level. There has been a reduction in new developments within the District’s boundaries and consequently less growth than anticipated in property tax income for the District. Currently, it is challenging to maintain adequate service levels, especially with the effects of the recession. It is essential for the District to find ways to increase its funding. The District hopes to increase funding by way of conducting a district-wide lot assessment.215 Options for additional funding may also include 1) a retroactive tax sharing agreement with the County for the 300 lots for which District is not receiving compensation for providing services, 2) fees for services provided outside of bounds, which the District is in the process of implementing, and 3) grant funds. The County keeps accounts for the District’s finances and tracks revenue and expenditures. The District’s total revenues for FY 09-10 were $78,663. Revenue sources include property taxes and benefit assessments (88 percent), State and Federal aid (two percent), and interest (one percent). Approximately nine percent of revenue is from miscellaneous sources, such as donations and reimbursements. The District charges a benefit assessment on the properties that were annexed in 2007 and 2008.216 In addition, 213 Trent Saxton, FEMA Fire House Grant Application, 2009, Narrative Statement, p. 3. 214 Eastern Plumas Rural Fire Protection District, 2008 Annexations, Analysis of Fiscal Effects, 2008, Attachment 1. 215 Interview with Keith Clark, EPRFPD Fire Chief, November 7, 2010. 216 Eastern Plumas Rural Fire Protection District, 2008 Annexations Analysis of Fiscal Effects, 2008. EPRFPD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 193 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY there is a $20 special assessment on the properties at Lake Davis.217 Assessment revenues are categorized as part of the property taxes in the District’s financial report. During the annexation of the Joy Properties (2007) and The Ridges (2010), the County agreed to a redistribution of a portion of the property tax increment to the District (seven percent of the total tax increment) and a benefit assessment of $157.40 per residential unit equivalent per parcel that increases by two and a half percent annually. Until now, the District was not charging fees for service; however, the agency recently set up a system to start charging residents within its SOI, but outside of its boundaries. Accordingly, the fee schedule was produced in 2010. The District will be charging hourly fees for every staff member and equipment piece involved in an incident. The rates will be renewed annually.218 The District has a written service agreement with Fire Recovery USA, LLC that performs billing services on behalf of the fire agency for motor vehicle incidents and other emergency incidents at which the District provides emergency services. The District’s expenditures in FY 09-10 were $74,919. Expenditures were composed of employee compensation (18 percent), services and supplies (75 percent), and the Proposition 1A loan to the State (seven percent). Debt repayments were 18 percent of the total expenditures. Although the Proposition 1A loan is included in the financial statements of the District as part of the expenditures, in reality this loan to the State is not an expense. Due to the State budget crisis, in July 2009, the State legislature voted to suspend Proposition 1A, which ensures local property tax and sales tax revenues remain with the counties, cities and special districts. Consequently, all local agencies were required to loan eight percent of apportioned property tax revenues to the State with repayment plus interest by June 30, 2013. To mitigate the impact of the loss of revenues on the local agencies, the Proposition 1A Securitization Program enables local agencies to sell their Proposition 1A Receivables for cash proceeds to be paid in two installments in January and May 2010. EPRFPD decided not to participate in the securitization program. The District will receive its money back by 2013. 217 Beckwourth FPD, 2010 Ad Hoc Committee Report on: Consolidation of the Beckwourth Fire District and Eastern Plumas Rural Fire District, 2010, p. 2. 218 Ordinance No. 2010-001, An Ordinance of the Eastern Plumas Rural Fire Protection district to Approve and Implement a Master Fee Schedule as Attached in Fee Schedules A, B, C, D, E, and F, 2010. EPRFPD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 194 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY Figure 11-5: EPRFPD Revenues and Expenditures Income/Expenses FY 09-10 Budgeted FY 09-10 Actual FY 10-11 Budgeted Income Property Tax $63,023 98% $69,492 88% $70,240 90% Use of Money $450 1% $504 1% $450 0.5% State and Federal Aid $550 1% $1,377 2% $550 0.5% Other Miscellaneous $0 0% $7,290 9% $7,000 9% Total Income $64,023 100% $78,663 100% $78,240 100% Expenses Salaries & Benefits $12,971 11% $13,697 18% $15,595 13% Services & Supplies $83,316 75% $55,976 75% $106,243 87% Loan to State $0 0% $5,245 7% $0 0.0% Fixed Assets $15,500 14% $1 0% $0 0% Total Expense $111,787 100% $74,919 100% $121,838 100% Net Income -$47,764 $3,743 -$43,598 The District performs no formal capital improvement planning. Some capital improvement projects were included in the Engineer’s Report for the 2009 Joy Annexation. There are a few capital improvement needs that are currently identified, but the District does not have the ability to finance them. In 2009, EPRFPD applied for two FEMA grants— one for the new fire house and another for a water tender. Both applications were denied. The budgets for FY 09-10 and FY 10-11 do not list any expenditures for capital improvements, except for 0.5 to 2 percent of total expenses for the repair of safety equipment. Previous capital improvements were financed through loans, grants and donations. Wildland turnout equipment was purchased with FEMA grant money a few years ago. Some equipment has been donated to the District in the past. EPRFPD is paying back two bank loans. The first loan is for the Lake Davis Station and has a remaining balance of about $25,000 with accumulated interest of $17,000 as of February 2010. The second loan is for the Iron Horse Station with the remaining balance of approximately $30,000 and $13,000 of accumulated interest as of May 2010. Both loans should be repaid by 2021. The District currently does not have a financial reserve or reserve policy. The net income balance left over at the end of any year rolls over to the next year. At the end of FY 09-10, the District had a balance of nearly $4,000 compared to budgeted negative net balance of almost $48,000. At the end of FY 10-11 EPRFPD is anticipating to have a negative net balance of about $44,000. The District reported that it did not have extra money to keep a reserve fund. The District does not participate in any joint power authorities (JPAs) or joint financing mechanisms. EPRFPD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 195 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY FFIIRREE AANNDD EEMMEERRGGEENNCCYY SSEERRVVIICCEESS Service Overview EPRFPD provides fire suppression, emergency medical, rescue, hazardous material response services, and some fire prevention programs. The District does not have any certified paramedics, but all firefighters are trained in basic life support. Ambulance and Advanced Life Support services are provided by the Eastern Plumas Healthcare District. The prevention efforts of the District include making safety recommendations to homeowners. Service Agreements EPRFPD has formal mutual aid agreements with the City of Portola, Beckwourth FPD, Graeagle FPD and the U.S. Forest Service. There is an informal mutual aid agreement with the C-Road Community Service District that may turn into a formal automatic aid agreement in the near future. The District also has an informal mutual aid agreement with Plumas Eureka CSD. Training EPRFPD collaborates with other fire departments on training events. EPRFPD trains with Nevada fire departments in search and rescue, local fire departments, Graeagle FPD, USFS, and law enforcement agencies. The District is a member of the Chief’s Association, through which it participates in training to provide service to no man zones (areas without designated service providers). Dispatch The County Sheriff is the Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP); consequently, most land line emergency calls (9-1-1 calls) are directed to the Sheriff. Most cell phone emergency calls (9-1-1 calls) are answered by CHP and redirected to the Sheriff. The Sheriff provides dispatching for most fire providers in the County except for the ones in northern part of the County, which are served by the CHP Susanville Dispatch Center. The Forest Service has its own dispatch. The sheriff dispatch center has a first responder map, which it uses to identify what provider to dispatch to an incident. All territory within the County has a determined first responder; although, many areas lie outside the LAFCo approved boundary of the districts and lack an officially designated fire provider. The District reports that the dispatch service is usually fairly adequate; however, sometimes backup is slow when there is a high volume of calls. EPRFPD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 196 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY Staffing EPRFPD has 18 sworn personnel—one fire chief, one assistant fire chief, three captains and 13 safety volunteers. The chief receives a small stipend, while the rest of the fire fighters are volunteers. The median age of a fire fighter is 44, with a range from 22 to 64. The District currently tries to maintain a roster of 16 to 20 firefighters. Based on the District’s projections outlined in the Analysis of Fiscal Effects of 2008 Annexations paper, the EPRFPD anticipates having 31 firefighters in 2013, 37 in 2018 and 43 volunteer firefighters in 2023. Since 2008, there has been a net gain of two firefighters; however, the District reports that there has been a net loss of volunteers when compared to staffing levels prior to the recession.219 Most volunteer firefighters get recruited through word of mouth and the current firefighters’ circle of friends. The District tried to use newspaper advertising, but had limited success with these efforts. The District reported that it needed more qualified people, but they are hard to find. According to the California State Fire Marshal, all volunteer and call firefighters must acquire Firefighter I certification; however, there is no time limit as to how long they may work before attaining certification. Firefighter I certification requires completion of the 259-hour Firefighter I course, which includes training on various fireground tasks, rescue operations, fire prevention and investigation techniques, and inspection and maintenance of equipment. In addition to this course, Firefighter I certification also requires that the applicant have a minimum of six months of volunteer or call experience in a California fire department as a firefighter performing suppression duties.220 EPRFPD did not provide its firefighter certification information. Qualified volunteers have to attend at least three Fire and Medical meetings and are voted into the District by the firefighters. After they are voted in, they receive training in fire and medical emergency response.221 Volunteers are required to attend at least 50 percent of all trainings. Firefighters train every Thursday for two to three hours and on occasional Saturdays for five to six hours. Facilities and Capacity EPRFPD operates three fire stations—one in Delleker, the second one in the Lake Davis area, and the third one in the Iron Horse community. The District owns all three stations, all of which were donated to the District. 219 Eastern Plumas Rural Fire Protection District, 2008 Annexations, Analysis of Fiscal Effects, 2008, pp. 3-4. 220 State Fire Marshall, Course Information and Required Materials, 2007, p. 44. 221 Eastern Plumas Rural Fire Protection District, 2008 Annexations, Analysis of Fiscal Effects, 2008, p. 3. EPRFPD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 197 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY The Delleker (Station #1) and Lake Davis (Station #2) stations were reported to be in fair condition, and the Iron Horse (Station #3) station was described to be in poor condition.222 The Delleker Station, which was built in 1991, was the District’s first fire station. It has three vehicles—two to fight structural fires and one for wildland fires. The Lake Davis Station was built in 1998 and the Iron Horse Station in 2002.223 The Lake Davis Station has one vehicle to fight structural fires, one for wildland fires and one rescue vehicle. The Iron Horse Station houses two vehicles for structural fires and one for wildland fires. The District’s water reserves at the Lake Davis Station are represented by a 4,000- gallon water tank. The Ridges project will have two storage tanks with water available for EPRFPD to use. The Iron House Station does not have any water storage infrastructure. There are no set hours when the stations are staffed. Volunteers are always on call. Infrastructure Needs All three facilities require work and need to be updated. The Delleker Station building needs to be expanded. Delleker Station and Iron Horse stations require showers. The Iron Horse station currently is just a garage. It needs to be expanded, heat and a water tank. Growth in the number of tourists, the public expectation of improved levels of service and aging property owners require EPRFPD to provide a higher level of service which requires a new fire station or a significant expansion of an existing one. The District also would need new fire stations if the communities of Gold Mountain, Willow Creek, and the C-Road CSD are to be annexed into the District. There are currently no specific plans for facility expansion or construction, because the District lacks funding for large capital projects. EPRFPD applied for a FEMA grant for a new firehouse in 2009, but the application was denied. The estimated project cost to either expand/modify an existing fire station to accommodate 24/7 service demands or to construct a new one was estimated at $2,691,285.224 The District needs a water tender, another rescue vehicle, and ideally all five engines need to be upgraded. The District’s territory needs more fire hydrants. Only one percent of the area within its boundaries has fire hydrants, which is typical of rural fire districts. 222 Facility condition definitions: Excellent-relatively new (less than 10 years old) and requires minimal maintenance. Good- provides reliable operation in accordance with design parameters and requires only routine maintenance. Fair- operating at or near design levels; however, non-routine renovation, upgrading and repairs are needed to ensure continued reliable operation. Poor- cannot be operated within design parameters; major renovations are required to restore the facility and ensure reliable operation. 223 Eastern Plumas Rural Fire Protection District, 2008 Annexations, Analysis of Fiscal Effects, 2008. 224 Trent Saxton, Fire House Grant Application, 2009, Request Details. EPRFPD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 198 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY Challenges In addition to challenges to response coordination in areas outside of the District’s boundaries (discussed at the beginning of this chapter), the District reported several constraints to providing adequate services.  Lack of current and accurate address records combined with a lack of visible address signs,  Lack of fire hydrants within boundaries and SOI,  Absence of any kind of water storage at the Iron Horse Station,  Limited access and narrow rough roads in some areas (i.e., northeast of the City of Portola around Aspen Drive and Sunset Drive, the community of Gold Mountain), and  Lack of public education regarding the need for clearing of trees and brush on private property. Service Adequacy While there are several benchmarks that may define the level of fire service provided by an agency, indicators of service adequacy discussed here include ISO ratings, response times, and level of staffing and station resources for the service area. Fire services in the communities are classified by the Insurance Service Office (ISO), an advisory organization. This classification indicates the general adequacy of coverage. Communities with the best fire department facilities, systems for water distribution, fire alarms and communications, and equipment and personnel receive a rating of 1. EPRFPD has an ISO rating of 6 in urban areas and 9 in rural areas. The District was last evaluated in 2004. The guideline established by the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) for fire response times is six minutes at least 90 percent of the time, with response time measured from the 911-call time to the arrival time of the first-responder at the scene. The fire response time guideline established by the Center for Public Safety Excellence (formerly the Commission on Fire Accreditation International) is 5 minutes 50 seconds at least 90 percent of the time.225 Emergency response time standards vary by level of urbanization of an area: the more urban an area, the faster a response has to be. The California EMS Agency established the following response time guidelines: five minutes in urban areas, 15 minutes in suburban or 225 Commission on Fire Accreditation International, 2000. EPRFPD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 199 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY rural areas, and as quickly as possible in wildland areas. District’s response zones include primarily rural classifications. The District reports that its average response time is five to ten minutes depending on where an incident occurs. An area that EPRFPD could improve upon is tracking its response times for each incident. The service area size226 for each fire station varies between fire districts. The median fire station in eastern Plumas serves approximately 20 square miles. Sierra Valley FPD serves the most expansive area, with 111 square miles served per station on average. Densely populated areas tend to have smaller service areas. For example, the average service area for the City of Portola is 3.8 square miles. By comparison, each station in EPRFPD serves approximately 12.3 square miles. The number of firefighters serving within a particular jurisdiction is another indicator of level of service; however, it is approximate. The providers’ call firefighters may have differing availability and reliability. A district with more firefighters could have fewer resources if scheduling availability is restricted. Staffing levels in eastern Plumas vary from eight call firefighters per 1,000 residents in City of Portola service area to 42 in Beckwourth FD. By comparison, EPRFPD has approximately 13 firefighters per 1,000 residents. 226 Service area refers to the area that the agency will respond to, based on a first responder map used by the Sherriff’s office. EPRFPD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 200 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY Figure 11-6: Eastern Plumas Rural Fire Protection District Fire Profile Fire Service Facilities Firestation Location Condition Staff per Shift Vehicles #1 Delleker Station 151 Delleker Fair Unstaffed 2 Engines for structural fire; 1 Wildland Road, Portola, fire engine CA #2 Lake Davis Station Lake Davis Fair Unstaffed 1 Engine for structural fire; 1 Wildland fire Road engine; 1 Rescue vehicle #3 Iron Horse Station 5585 Poor Unstaffed 2 Engines for structural fire; 1 Wildland Semiphore fire engine Road, Portola, CA Facility Sharing Current Practices: The District does not currently share its facilities with other agencies. EPRFPD collaborates with other fire districts through Fire Chiefs Association and collective trainings Future opportunities: Opportunities for future facility sharing include the expansion of the Delleker station and establishing of a sheriff’s sub-station in the facility. Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies The District identified a need to a new station, expansion of and upgrades to existing ones, new vehicles, and water tank at the Iron Horse station District Resource Statistics Service Configuration Service Demand Staffing Base Year 2010 Configuration Base Year 2010 Statistical Base Year 2010 Fire Stations in District 3 Fire Suppression Direct Total Service Calls 123 Stations Serving District 3 EMS Direct % EMS 63% Sq. Miles Served per Station 12 Ambulance Transport EPHCD % Fire/Hazardous Materials 25% Total Staff2 22 Hazardous Materials Direct % False 0% Total Full-time Firefighters 0 Air Rescue/Ambulance HelicopterCareFlight % Misc. emergency 0% Total Call Firefighters 18 Fire Suppression Helicopter CalFire % Non-emergency 12% Total Sworn Staff per Statio 6 Public Safety Answering Point Sheriff % Mutual Aid Calls NP Total Sworn Staff per 1,000 13 Fire/EMS Dispatch Sheriff Calls per 1,000 people 88 Service Adequacy Service Challenges Lack of fire hydrants. No water tank at Iron Horse station. Limited access Response Time Base Year 2010 areas. Median Response Time (min) NP Training Volunteers are required to attend at least 50 percent of all trainings and 90th Percentile Response Time (min) NP at least three Fire and Medical meetings. Firefighters train every Thursday for two to three hours and on occasional Saturdays for five to ISO Rating 6/9 (2004) six hours. Mutual & Automatic Aid Agreements EPRFPD has mutual aid agreements with the City of Portola, Beckwourth FPD, Graeagle FPD, Plumas Eureka FPD and Forest Service. The District has an informal agreement with the C-Road CSD. Notes: 1) Primary service area (square miles) per station. 2) Total staff includes sworn and non-sworn personnel. 3) Based on ratio of sworn full-time and call staff to the number of stations. Actual staffing levels of each station vary. EPRFPD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 201 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY EEAASSTTEERRNN PPLLUUMMAASS RRUURRAALL FFPPDD DDEETTEERRMMIINNAATTIIOONNSS Growth and Population Projections  The estimated population of EPRFPD is 1,385.  Over the past decade the District has experienced little or no growth in residential population; however, there has been an increase in tourists and related demand.  No or slow residential growth is expected within the District, until the proposed Willow Creek development within its SOI is approved and constructed. Although, residential growth is anticipated to be limited, potential growth in the City of Portola could result in an increase in demand for EPRFPD’s services, as the City’s population rises resulting in increased travel through EPRFPD’s service area. Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities and Adequacy of Public Services, Including Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies  The District’s current facilities do not have capacity to adequately serve current demand. EPRFPD does not have the capacity to serve future growth with existing fire stations and financial resources.  The District identified a need for a new station, expansion of and upgrades to existing ones, new vehicles, and a water tank at the Iron Horse station. However, EPRFPD does not have plans to address these needs in the near future due to financing constraints.  It is recommended that the County Sheriff’s Office work with the fire districts to update the ESN map that is used for dispatching, in order to adequately address any communication concerns and recent boundary changes.  The District should consider adopting a capital improvement plan to identify financing needs and potential revenue sources for these needs.  It is a recommended practice that fire service providers track response times for each incident. Financial Ability of Agencies to Provide Services  The District reports that current financing levels are not adequate to deliver services, and cannot accommodate any possible increase in demand.  The District requires increased revenues to finance facilities and infrastructure needs to address inadequate service financing. EPRFPD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 202 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY  The District hopes to increase funding by way of conducting a district-wide lot assessment. Options for additional funding may also include 1) fees for services provided outside of bounds, which the District is in the process of implementing, and 2) grant funds. Status of, and Opportunities for, Shared Facilities  EPRFPD collaborates with other fire providers in Plumas County and outside of it through mutual aid agreements, common trainings and membership in the Fire Chiefs Association.  The District currently does not share its facilities with other agencies.  Opportunities for future facility sharing include the expansion of the Delleker station and establishment of a Sheriff’s sub-station in the facility. Accountability for Community Service Needs, Including Governmental Structure and Operational Efficiencies  EPRFPD demonstrated accountability and transparency by disclosing financial and service related information in response to LAFCo requests.  The County of Plumas is considering hiring a countywide fire marshal whose responsibilities may include enforcing fire code and conducting building inspections..  A governmental structure option is consolidation of the District with C-Road CSD. The two agencies are contemplating consolidation or annexation of C-Road CSD by EPRFPD. Consolidation with other fire districts offers opportunities for shared resources and finances.  Beckwourth FD conducted a consolidation study, which explored the possibility of consolidation with EPRFPD. The conclusion reached was that although consolidation is inevitable in the future, presently, all parties are not agreeable on various terms.  Other governmental structure options include the annexation of Gold Mountain CSD, as well as the community of Mohawk Vista, which is currently outside of a fire protection district.  The District hopes to improve its operational efficiency through increased funding by way of conducting a district-wide lot assessment and charging service fee to residents outside its boundaries. EPRFPD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 203 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY 12. GOLD MOUN TA IN COMM UN IT Y S E RVI C ES D I ST R I CT Gold Mountain Community Services District (GMCSD) provides fire suppression, fire prevention, emergency medical, retail water delivery, and wastewater collection and disposal. Fire and EMS services are provided via a contract with the City of Portola. Road maintenance and snow removal are provided by the Gold Mountain Homeowner’s Association. The last Municipal Service Review for GMCSD was conducted in 2006. AAGGEENNCCYY OOVVEERRVVIIEEWW Background GMCSD was formed in 1996 as a dependent special district;227 members from the Board of Supervisors were designated as the District’s Board of Directors. In 2004, the residents of the District requested that responsibility for the District to be transferred to them, but the request was denied. In the same year, district residents voted to take over control of the District in a general election and requested that the Board of Supervisors appoint three interim directors until Directors could be voted upon. The request was satisfied, and in 2005, residents voted to expand the Board of Directors from three to five members. Thus, the first five Directors were elected and GMCSD became an independent special district.228 The principal act that governs the District is the State of California Community Services District Law.229 CSDs may potentially provide a wide array of services, including water supply, wastewater, solid waste, police and fire protection, street lighting and landscaping, airport, recreation and parks, mosquito abatement, library services; street maintenance and drainage services, ambulance service, utility undergrounding, transportation, abate graffiti, flood protection, weed abatement, hydroelectric power, among various other services. CSDs are required to gain LAFCo approval to provide those services permitted by the principal act but not performed by the end of 2005 (i.e., latent powers).230 Initially, the District was given the power to provide all services common to a community services district, except for solid waste, because the Supervisor from that district made a point that it be excluded from the ability to provide solid waste service In 227 LAFCo Resolution 96-5, 1-F-96. 228 Plumas LAFCo, Gold Mountain Community Services District Municipal Service Review and Sphere of Influence Amendment 2006-2011, 2006, pp. 6-7. 229 Government Code §61000-61226.5. 230 Government Code §61106. GMCSD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 204 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY 2006, however, LAFCo determined that the District’s active powers were water, sewer, fire protection, weed abatement and snow removal.231 LAFCo determined that all other powers were latent powers. The District reported that it has had to overcome several challenges since formation. These challenges are outlined below. For a more detailed description of these challenges, refer to the District’s MSR from 2006.  The developer had only constructed a portion of the required water and wastewater infrastructure, yet subdivision maps were approved for lots which could not be served. This has required the District to develop plans and financing for significant infrastructure improvements.  The infrastructure was failing (when the District’s independent board came into place) and needed to be replaced on an emergency basis. These expenditures eliminated the District’s reserves.  The District was severely underfunded as a result of 1) subsidized rates that were not adjusted when the subsidy expired, 2) delinquent payments from the developer on 30 properties, and 3) a lack of funding for fire protection services.  The transition agreement deeding the water and wastewater infrastructure and water rights to the District had not been fully implemented when the developer went into bankruptcy. Ultimately, the District sued the developer resulting in significant costs to the District, but has gained ownership of the infrastructure and water rights. GMCSD is located in the eastern part of Plumas County, about three miles west of the City of Portola. The District borders the Feather River in the west, EPRFPD in the north, and the Plumas National Forest in the east and south. Boundaries GMCSD’s boundary is entirely within Plumas County. The District’s boundaries encompass approximately 1,294 acres or two square miles. 232 Since its formation, there have been no annexations to or detachments from GMCSD. Sphere of Influence Since GMCSD was formed to serve the Gold Mountain subdivision, its original SOI was coterminous with its boundary, which was consistent with the land within the subdivision. 231 Plumas LAFCo, Gold Mountain Community Services District Municipal Service Review and Sphere of Influence Amendment 2006-2011, 2006, p. 6. 232 Total agency area calculated in GIS software based on agency boundaries as of July 1, 2011. The data is not considered survey quality. GMCSD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 205 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY The District’s SOI was most recently updated in 2006, and it was expanded to include wildland territory south of the boundaries, small suburban pieces of land to the north and east, and industrial property to the west.233 According to the 2006 MSR, the Sphere of Influence was expanded “to accommodate those property owners outside the present District boundary who may seek services from the District in future annexations.”234 The current SOI is five square miles compared to two square miles of boundary area. Extra-territorial Services The District does not provide any extra-territorial services. Areas of Interest The entire territory of GMCSD is an area of interest with regards to the provision of fire services. Currently, the City of Portola provides fire services to GMCSD under contract. However, GMCSD is located within the SOI of Eastern Plumas Rural FPD, which desires to provide fire services to the Gold Mountain community. GMSCD is considering being annexed by EPRFPD or GFPD or setting up a joint powers agreement with the City of Portola. As Gold Mountain is not contiguous to the City, it cannot be annexed into Portola.235 233 GMCSD SOI Zoning Map, 2006. 234 Plumas LAFCo, Gold Mountain Community Services District Municipal Service Review and Sphere of Influence Amendment 2006-2011, 2006, p. 28. 235 Gold Mountain Community Services District, Selection of a Long Term Fire Service Provider, Draft, 2009, p. 12. GMCSD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 206 Gold Mountain Community Services District 6 5 4 3 2 ·|þ} 8 9 10 11 7 70 CLIO STATE 40A Rd DANCING BEARS DEER TRL VILLAGE TRL WINDSONG N U R R E A 14 18 17 FALLING WATER N B U R S T D 1 R R 6 E E D A M SK M Y AKER B STARTO G P REAT SPIRT CANYON RIM 15 U S CLOUDS REST Portola McClears Rd EAGLES NEST 23 22 21 20 19 30 29 28 27 26 htroN 22 pihsnwoT 12-1 Range 13 East ² Legend Gold Mountain CSD Major Roads Parcels Gold Mountain CSD Resolution: 1-F-96 ·|}þ 70 CA State Highway Adopted: 5/23/1996 Streets Sectional Grid (MDB&M) Gold Mountain CSD (SOI) Gold Mountain CSD (SOI) Stream / River Resolution: 2006-007 Waterbodies 0 0.25 0.5 1Miles Adopted: Source: Plumas LAFCo Map Created 5/2/2011 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY Accountability and Governance GMCSD is governed by a five-member Board of Directors who are to be elected by the residents of the District to staggered four-year terms. As of 2008, the District had 55 registered voters.236 There are currently five board members, all of whom were elected. There has never been a contested election in the history of the District. Current board member names, positions, and term expiration dates are shown in Figure 12-2. The Board meets on the second Friday of each month at two in the afternoon at the Nakoma Resort. Board meeting agendas are posted at the post offices in Portola and Clio. Minutes are posted on the website and are available upon request. Figure 12-2: GMCSD Governing Body Gold Mountain Community Services District District Contact Information Contact: Janean Lohn Address: 150 Pacific Street #8, Portola, CA 96122 Telephone: (530)832-5945 Fax: (530)832-4591 Email/website: goldmtncsd@sbcglobal.net Board of Directors Member Name Position Term Expiration Manner of Selection Length of Term George Sipel President December 2011 Elected 4 years Mike Callaghan Vice President December 2013 Elected 4 years Rene St. Piere Treasurer December 2013 Elected 4 years Butch Niford Member December 2013 Elected 4 years Steve Fuqua Member December 2011 Elected 4 years Meetings Date: Second Friday of every month at 2pm. Location: Nakoma Resort. Agenda Distribution: Posted at Clio and Portola post offices. Minutes Distribution: Posted on the website and are available upon request. In addition to the required agendas and minutes, the District tries to reach its constituents through its website, occasional emails, newsletters and participating in HOA meetings. If a customer is dissatisfied with the District’s services, complaints may be submitted by calling the office or filling out a complaint form. In 2009, the District had nine complaints regarding water services and 14 regarding sewer services. A majority of the complaints were about water outages, water pressure and septic tank alarms. The office administrator is in charge of taking and recording complaints. The water operator is responsible for 236 Out-of-Agency Service Agreement, Plan for Providing Services, 2008, p. 1. GMCSD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 208 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY handling complaints about water services, and the sewer operator deals with complaints regarding sewer operations or facilities. GMCSD demonstrated accountability in its disclosure of information and cooperation with Plumas LAFCo. The District responded to the questionnaires and cooperated with the document requests. Planning and Management Practices Daily operations of the District are managed by the general manager and office administrator. There are five part time staff that together constitute 2.5 FTEs. There are also seasonal workers for periods of peak demand. The general manager reports to the Board of Directors and is supported by the office administrator and system operator. Contractors, general counsel and the chief financial officer also report to the general manager. The employees of the District are evaluated annually by the general manager. To track staff workload, district employees fill out and submit timesheets. Contract providers, including the City of Portola and the accountant, were evaluated only initially, when they first began providing services to the District. GMCSD reported that it performs an informal evaluation of overall district performance at an annual meeting. In order to increase efficiency and reduce costs, the District cooperates with the homeowner’s association by sharing various costs and staff. The District sees further possibilities to share costs and jobs with nearby entities. GMCSD would like to have an open dialogue with other similar districts in the area regarding mutual aid and cross training of staff positions.237 The District’s financial planning efforts include an annually adopted budget and audited financial statements. The financial statements were last audited for FY 09-10. They are audited annually. The District provided the adopted budget for FY 10-11 and audited financial statements for FY 09-10. GMCSD adopts a master plan for all services, which is used to forecast service needs and plan for capital improvement projects. The master plan was most recently adopted in 2007. The District plans for capital improvement projects over a 30-year period; capital needs are updated every five years. GMCSD has also adopted a Fire Suppression Plan. 237 Gold Mountain CSD, Master Plan Report, 2007, p. 18. GMCSD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 209 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY Existing Demand and Growth Projections Designated land uses within the District are primarily suburban.238 The total boundary area of GMCSD is two square miles. The community of Gold Mountain is primarily residential with 427 lots designated for 401 single family homes and 26 villas that could accommodate 70 time share units. Two parcels are designated for stables and eight acres for commercial purposes.239 The community contains a commercial facility called Nakoma that has a restaurant, pro shop and spa. There is also a golf course, undeveloped commercial area and 37 acres reserved for a nine hole executive golf course.240 Population The District currently has 88 residential structures.241 Based on average household size throughout the County of 1.9 people, the estimated population of GMCSD is 167. Over one third of these residences are occupied on a full-time basis.242 Existing Demand The District reported that it has observed growth in demand in the last few years. Since 2006, 18 additional residential structures have been constructed and connected to the Districts’ utility systems, which equates to 26 percent growth during that period. Peak periods of water and wastewater demand for the District are during holidays and summer periods.243 Projected Growth and Development The District anticipates growth in population and similarly in service demand within the District in the next few years. District planning documents assume build-out of the subdivision by 2039 with a growth rate of 5.7 percent annually.244 GMCSD projects its service needs related to growth through build-out of the subdivision in its master plan. 238 Plumas County Online Parcel Application. 239 John Gullixson, Gold Mountain Community Services District Municipal Service Review and Sphere of Influence Amendment 2006-2011, 2006, p. 9. 240 Out-of-Agency Service Agreement, Plan for Providing Services, 2008, p. 1. 241 RFI II. 242 Out-of-Agency Service Agreement, Plan for Providing Services, 2008, p. 1. 243 Gold Mountain CSD, Master Plan Report, 2007, p. 4. 244 GMCSD, Water and Wastewater System Development Charges, November 2009, p. 4-3. GMCSD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 210 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY The State Department of Finance (DOF) projects that the population of Plumas County will grow by five percent in the next 10 years. Thus, the average annual population growth in the County is anticipated to be approximately 0.5 percent. Based on these projections, the District’s population would increase from 167 in 2010 to approximately 176 in 2020. The District reported that there was no specific area where it anticipates future growth to be concentrated. There are empty lots scattered throughout the community where development could potentially occur. GMCSD appears to have the capacity to serve short- term projected development. Any significant increase in population would require capacity enhancements as outlined in the Water and Wastewater sections of this chapter. The District did not identify any specific areas within the agency’s future growth area to which it would be difficult to provide an adequate level of service. Growth Strategies The District is not a land use authority, and does not hold primary responsibility for implementing growth strategies. The land use authority for unincorporated areas is the County. With regard to possible governance structure alternatives, the District reported that it may be interested in annexing into one of the fire districts, such as Graeagle FPD or EPRFPD. Financing The District reported that the current financing level is adequate to deliver services to existing customers. The District anticipated that future capital improvements would require additional funding sources such as loans and/or assessments. The District operates out of a governmental fund for fire services and separate enterprise funds for water and wastewater services. The District’s total revenues for FY 09-10 were $533,159. Primary revenue sources included standby charges (45 percent), water sales (17 percent), sewer service charges (17 percent) and a special tax for fire services (16 percent). GMCSD charges its residents fees for water and wastewater services it provides. The first rate schedule since the District’s formation was implemented in 2006 based on a master plan engineering report and a rate study. The rates were increased in 2008 by 28 percent, and were established to increase annually by three percent through FY 10-11. For water and wastewater services customers are charged a flat annual cost of $1,888, of which 47 percent is allocated for water services and 53 percent is attributed to wastewater services. The District charges an additional water consumption fee of .55 per 1,000 gallons for first 10,000 gallons, and increased rates for each additional 10,000 gallons. Based on these charges, the average residential connection is charged $78.05 a month for water services and $83.69 for wastewater services. GMCSD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 211 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY Figure 12-3: GMCSD Revenues and Expenses A special tax for fire protection was adopted by district voters in 2006. It is Income/Expenses FY 09-10 Actual billed in conjunction with the property Income tax for each parcel. In FY 09-10, the Property taxes $171 0% single family homes paid $222.84 and Special Tax $83,440 16% undeveloped lots paid $138.57. In 2007, Water Sales $88,319 17% after having negotiated with the County, Sewer Services $93,076 17% the District was granted a tax sharing agreement that took effect in FY 07-08. Standby Charges $237,389 45% It directed about six percent of the Connection fees $3,000 1% annual assessed tax valuation increase Interest $8,879 2% within the District boundaries to the Other $18,885 4% fire fund.245 Total Income $533,159 100% Expenses The District’s expenditures in FY 09- Administration $179,644 45% 10 were $396,241. The District’s Water Services $82,004 21% primary expenditures consist of administration (45 percent), water Wastewater Services $24,493 6% operations (21 percent), depreciation Public Protection $37,448 9% (17 percent) and the contract for fire Depreciation $68,798 17% services (nine percent). Loss on Disposal of Assets $3,046 1% Interest on Debt $808 0% GMCSD completed a master plan in Total Expenses $396,241 100% 2007 with a 30-year planning horizon, Net Income $136,918 which is updated on a five-year basis. It identifies needed capital improvements to service additional customers. The latest update took place in February 2008. In order to finance the majority of the planned capital improvements, the Board of Directors adopted a system development charge (SDC) or a connection fee to finance any necessary improvements to the system. A fee study was conducted in 2009 to determine the SDC fee schedule. The SDC fee is charged when a newly constructed home starts receiving water and sewer service. A single-family home with a one-inch water service is charged $6,450 for a water connection and $3,260 for a sewer connection. The SDC charge is adjusted annually based on the construction cost index. Additionally, the District is applying for a loan from the USDA for an additional well, transmission pipes and pumping facilities. The 2007 Master Plan estimated the cost of necessary capital improvement projects to be over $10 million dollars through 2027. The District has a formal reserve policy. System development charge revenue goes into the capital reserve every year. At the end of that year any remaining operational revenue also rolls over to capital reserve. At the end of FY 09-10, the District maintained a combined unrestricted undesignated fund balance of $352,370—$280,508 in the enterprise fund and $71,862 in the governmental fund. In each of the funds these amounts 245 Gold Mountain Community Services District, Financial Statements and Independent Auditor’s Report, 2010, p. 5. GMCSD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 212 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY could finance about seven months of operations for water and wastewater services, and over five months of operations for fire services (based on annual operational expenditures in FY 09-10). The District’s long-term debt is represented by a loan for a vehicle purchase. The District makes payments of $365 per month at 8.69 percent interest. The remaining balance at the end of FY 09-10 was $7,345. The loan will be paid off in April 2012.246 The District does not participate in any joint power authorities (JPAs) or joint financing mechanisms. 246 Gold Mountain Community Services District, Financial Statements and Independent Auditor’s Report, 2010, p. 21. GMCSD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 213 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY WWAATTEERR SSEERRVVIICCEESS Service Overview The District provides retail water services, in the form of groundwater extraction and distribution to developed lots in the Gold Mountain subdivision. Additionally, the District is in the midst of developing a groundwater management plan and installing monitoring devices at the wells to begin groundwater monitoring services. Developed lots are scattered throughout the subdivision. Private wells within the District’s bounds consist of seven irrigation wells at the golf course, which are operated independent of GMCSD. Water services are provided by 1.5 FTE employees dedicated to water operations and maintenance. The chief operator has a treatment certification of T3 and a distribution certification of D2, which exceeds the requirements of the GMCSD system. Facilities and Capacity District infrastructure dedicated to water services consists of two wells, two storage tanks, 12 miles of distribution pipelines, seven booster pump stations, and 13 fire hydrants. Water Supplies Water Source The District relies entirely on groundwater pumped from two wells as its water source. The District pumps water from the Humbug Valley Groundwater Basin. The Department of Water Resources estimates storage capacity of the basin to be 76,000 acre- feet to a depth of 100 feet.247 Groundwater extraction for municipal and industrial uses is estimated to be 200 acre-feet. Deep percolation of applied water is estimated to be 200 acre-feet, meaning that the amount pumped by users is replaced by groundwater recharge. The City of Portola and Grizzly Lake Resort Improvement District also pump from the Humbug Valley Basin. While there is a considerable amount of ground water development in this general area, aquifer performance appears good, and no indications of over- pumping have been observed to date.248 247 Department of Water Resources, California’s Groundwater Bulletin 118 – Humbug Valley Groundwater Basin, 2004, p. 1. 248 GMCSD, Hydrology and Groundwater Development, August 11, 2006, p. 9. GMCSD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 214 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY Quality The Humbug Valley Groundwater Basin is considered to have high quality water that does not require treatment. Existing and Projected Water Use Groundwater is pumped from two wells with a combined capacity of 75 gpm. Well 17 was constructed in 1997 and was identified as being in good condition by the District. The pumping capacity of Well 17 is 35 gpm. Well 29A was reconstructed in 2007 and is also considered to be in good condition. The pumping capacity of Well 29A is 40 gpm. The yield of the wells has diminished since the original pump tests were complete; however, the flows have stabilized at the pumping capacities reported here. Presently, average daily use is 0.02 mgd or 15 percent of the wells’ pumping capacity. Peak day demand is 0.05 mgd, which is approximately 46 percent of the wells’ pumping capacity. The District projects build-out by 2039, which equates to an average annual growth rate of 5.7 percent. Based on these projections, peak day demand will exceed source capacity in 2024. At build-out, the District anticipates needing resource capabilities of no less than 140 gpm.249 Treatment and Distribution Facilities The District does not treat the groundwater. Water is pumped from the two wells to the storage tanks and is then pumped (with the seven booster pumps) to the to the various pressure zones within the District. The distribution system is composed of 12 miles of pipeline ranging in size from two to six inches in diameter. The distribution system was identified as being generally in fair condition with several infrastructure needs and deficiencies, particularly poor fire flow. The water supply system was not designed to provide for fire protection; however, some fire hydrants were constructed in the commercial areas of the development and have the potential to provide some fire flow. The District is in the process of installing additional hydrants with the goal of 30 total hydrants in the system. The District is working to improve fire flows to the extent possible given the limitations of the system. The water system currently does not lend itself readily to simple or efficient modifications that would enhance fire flow delivery capabilities. It has limited capability to move water required for potable uses as it is, let alone provide additional hydraulic capacity for the conveyance of significant fire flows. The District has identified several strategies to improve fire flows to the extent possible as outlined in the Infrastructure Needs section of this Chapter. 249 GMCSD, Water and Sewer Master Plan, 2007, p. 12. GMCSD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 215 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY Storage Facilities and Emergency Supply The District’s two water storage tanks have a combined storage capacity of 280,000 gallons. The storage tanks have sufficient capacity to provide fire flow for two hours (240,000 gallons) and one day of water service at peak day demands. The District anticipates that additional storage will be necessary once it is serving 140 connections. No redundancy is available in the system and a water shortage could exist on peak demand days if any existing sources were out of service. Infrastructure Needs The primary infrastructure needs identified by the District for the water system are improved fire suppression flows, increased storage, and an additional well for back up purposes. The District is pursuing each of these capital improvements, although the exact timing and funding sources are yet to be identified. Based on an engineer’s report, options to enhance fire flows would cost an estimated $1.8 million and include:  Provide for fire water storage at highest possible elevation in the system. Tank(s) should be sized to provide water for a specific fire scenario as well as to act as backup to the existing potable storage tanks.  Provide a transmission system between the new tanks and the distribution system such that each pressure zone is connected to the fire suppression infrastructure in at least one location.  Provide a separate transmission system between the sources (wells) and the tanks and reinforce the existing distribution system. The District is in the process of identifying the ideal location for the additional storage tanks. The District is also in the process of applying for funding from the USDA for a back- up well. Given the District’s limited current financial resources, it is considering a phase improvement program for the water storage tanks. Needs identified in the master plan but not yet completed include: 1) a new supply well, 2) a dedicated transmission line for source water, 3) constructing parallel lines or replacement of existing lines with larger diameter lines, 4) reinforcement of existing lines, 5) construct one million gallons of storage, and 6) upgrade booster stations. The estimated cost of these projects is $4.5 million in 2007 dollars. The District is also pursuing a plan for an additional well and upgrades to the booster stations. Three potential sites for Well 32 have been identified. The District estimates that construction of the well could cost up to $218,540, so in order to limit costs, the District may drill the well and then cap it for future use. GMCSD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 216 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY During the District’s most recent inspection by the Plumas County Public Health Agency in 2007, several other needs were identified for the two wells. However, the District reported that all of the needs identified by the County had been addressed. Challenges As discussed, the District’s primary challenge with regard to water services is the provision of adequate fire suppression flows. The District is implementing several strategies to maximize the potential of the existing distribution system. Service Adequacy This section reviews indicators of service adequacy, including the Plumas County Public Health Agency annual system evaluation, drinking water quality, and distribution system integrity. Figure 12-4: GMCSD Water Service Adequacy Indicators Water Service Adequacy and Efficiency Indicators Service Adequacy Indicators Connections/FTE 59 O&M Cost Ratio1 5,196,434 MGD Delivered/FTE 0.01 Distribution Loss Rate 3% Distribution Breaks & Leaks (2010) 1 Distribution Break Rate2 8.3 Water Pressure 20+ psi Total Employees (FTEs) 1.5 Customer Complaints CY 2010: Odor/taste (0), leaks (0), pressure (4), other (0) Drinking Water Quality Regulatory Information3 # Description Health Violations 1 Exceedance of Coliform MCL (2010) Monitoring Violations 1 Monitorng for Coliform (2002) DW Compliance Rate4 99.7% Notes: (1) Operations and maintenance costs (exc. purchased water, debt, depreciation) per volume (mgd) delivered. (2) Distribution break rate is the number of leaks and pipeline breaks per 100 miles of distribution piping. (3) Violations since 2000, as reported by the U.S. EPA Safe Drinking Water Information System. (4) Drinking water compliance is percent of time in compliance with National Primary Drinking Water Regulations in 2010. The County Public Health Agency is responsible for the enforcement of the federal and California Safe Drinking Water Acts, and the operational permitting and regulatory oversight of public water systems of 199 connections or less. These systems are subject to inspections by the County Public Health Agency. During the Agency’s most recent inspection in 2007, the Agency noted several deficiencies with the District’s wells, which have subsequently been addressed.250 The inspection report also noted that the annual 250 Plumas County Public Health Agency, Letter to the District re: Routine Inspection, June 24, 2008, p. 1. GMCSD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 217 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY report to the Agency was overdue. The District reported that subsequent reports have been filed in a timely manner. Drinking water quality is determined by a combination of historical violations reported by the EPA since 2000 and the percent of time that the District was in compliance with Primary Drinking Water Regulations in 2010. Since 2000, the District has had one health violation due to a positive coliform test in 2010, and one monitoring violation due to inadequate monitoring for coliform in 2002. This equates to approximately 22 violations per 1,000 connections served. By comparison, the other water providers in the eastern region of the County had a median of 21 violations per 1,000 connections served during that same time frame. The median water service provider in the region was in compliance 96 percent of the time in 2010. The District was in compliance with drinking water regulations 99.7 percent of the time, which was above the regional median. Indicators of distribution system integrity are the number of breaks and leaks in 2010 and the rate of unaccounted for distribution loss. The District reported approximately eight breaks and leaks per 100 miles of pipe lines in 2010, while other providers in the region had a median rate of 12 breaks per 100 pipe miles. The District loses approximately three percent of water between the water source and the connections served, which was relatively low compared to other providers in the area that averaged seven percent distribution losses. GMCSD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 218 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY Figure 12-5: GMCSD Water Service Tables Water Service Configuration & Infrastructure Water Service Provider(s) Water Service Provider(s) Retail Water GMCSD Groundwater Recharge None Wholesale Water None Groundwater Extraction GMCSD Water Treatment GMCSD Recycled Water None Service Area Description Retail Water Scattered developed lots throughout the Gold Mountain subdivision, excluding irrigation at the golf course. Wholesale Water NA Recycled Water NA Water Sources Supply (Acre-Feet/Year) Source Type Average Maximum Safe/Firm Humbug Valley Basin Groundwater 19.85 80.5 200 2 System Overview Average Daily Demand 0.02 mgd Peak Day Demand 0.05 mg Major Facilities Facility Name Type Capacity Condition Yr Built Well 29A Well 40 gpm Good 2007 Well 17 Well 35 gpm Good 1997 Storage Tank 1 Storage 140,000 gallons Good 1999 Storage Tank 2 Storage 140,000 gallons Good 1999 Other Infrastructure Reservoirs 2 Storage Capacity (mg) 0.28mg Pump Stations 7 Pressure Zones 8 Production Wells 2 Pipe Miles 12.0 Facility-Sharing and Regional Collaboration Current Practices: The District has developed a master cost sharing agreement with the GMHOA, and currently, shares the costs of personnel, equipment, facilities, supplies, and other office related activities. Opportunities: There is the potential to share a multi-purpose facility with the HOA, as well as water source facilities with the Ridges subdivision. Notes: (1) NA means Not Applicable, NP means Not Provided, mg means millions of gallons, af means acre-feet. (2) Based on the groundwater recharge rate reported by the Department of Water Resources. GMCSD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 219 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY Water Demand and Supply Service Connections Total Inside Bounds Outside Bounds Total 89 89 0 Irrigation/Landscape 0 0 0 Domestic 88 88 0 Commercial/Industrial/Institutional 1 1 0 Recycled 0 0 0 Other 0 0 0 Average Annual Demand Information (Acre-Feet per Year)1 20002 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 Total Unknown 21 17 58 71 87 106 Residential Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Commercial/Industrial3 Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Irrigation/Landscape 0 0 0 39 45 52 60 Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Supply Information (Acre-feet per Year)4 20002 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 Total 0 22 18 63 76 93 114 Imported 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Groundwater Unknown 22 18 23 31 41 54 Surface 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Recycled5 0 0 0 39 45 52 60 Drought Supply and Plans Drought Supply (af)6 Year 1: NA Year 2: NA Year 3: NA Storage Practices Storage is for short-term emergency supply only. Drought Plan None. Water Conservation Practices CUWCC Signatory No Metering Yes Conservation Pricing Yes Other Practices The District plans to develop additional conservation practices. Notes: (1) Annual projected production less 3 percent system loss. (2) The District did not operate the system in 2000 and does not have records of these flows. (3) The District does not have records of the the commercial use in the system as the single connection was originally not metered, and then the resort went into bankruptcy. The District reported that 2011 will be the first full year for which data will be available. (4) Projected production based on District assumption of build-out by 2039. (5) Although the timing for construction is unknown, a recycled water plant is planned to be built. The authors assumed construction in 2015. The District assumes that approximately 70,000 gpd of recycled water will be in use at build out of the District in 2039. (6) The District has not estimated available supply during a three year drought. During past droughts, the District reported that it has experienced little difference in groundwater levels. GMCSD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 220 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY Water Rates and Financing Residential Water Rates-Ongoing Charges FY 10-111 Avg. Monthly Rate Description Charges Consumption2 Fixed annual charge of $1,888 for water and wastewater services. Water consumption charge of .55 per 1,000 Residential $ 78.05 7,600 gal/month gallons for first 10,000 gallons, and increased rates for each additional 10,000 gallons. Rate-Setting Procedures Most Recent Rate Change 7/1/10 Frequency of Rate Changes Annually Water Development Fees and Requirements Fee Approach Rates are set to cover the costs of operation, maintenance and a portion of the capital outlays. Connection Fee Amount $6,450 per connection Water Enterprise Revenues, FY 09-10 Operating Expenditures, FY 09-10 Source Amount % Amount Total $213,941 100% Total $243,222 Rates & charges $199,892 93% Administration $81,643 Property tax $0 0% O & M $82,004 Grants $0 0% Capital Depreciation $44,697 Interest $4,173 2.0% Debt $0 Connection Fees $1,000 0% Other $1,812 Other $8,876 4% Debt forgiveness - Fire $33,066 Notes: (1) Rates include water-related service charges and usage charges. (2) Water use assumptions were used to calculate average monthly bills. Assumed use levels are consistent countywide for comparison purposes. GMCSD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 221 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY WWAASSTTEEWWAATTEERR SSEERRVVIICCEESS Service Overview The District operates and maintains a wastewater utility which provides collection and disposal of domestic wastewater using a “STEP” system. STEP stands for Septic Tank Effluent Pumping. The District’s sewage disposal system is designed to dispose of septic tank effluent via subsurface infiltration or community leachfields. The sewage is not treated in a treatment facility by the District prior to disposal into the community leachfields, but receives primary treatment in the individual septic tanks. The sewer system is overseen and operated by one employee or 0.5 FTEs. The operator has a certification level of Grade II for the collection system, which exceeds the needs of the system. Facilities and Capacity The sewage collection and disposal facilities include an individual septic tank, effluent filter and pump at each home, a common force main collection system and two separate community leachfields. The District operates under Waste Discharge Requirements (Order No. 96-263) issued by the RWQCB. The permit is vague and does not indicate flow limitations of the system. As the system had not been constructed when the permit was issued, the document only outlines in general terms the proposed design of the system through build-out. The collection system was built in 1996 and consists of 13 miles of sewer pipelines, which the District considers to be in good condition. The system is pressurized, which has the advantage of reduced inflow and infiltration from rainfall, runoff and groundwater. The peak wet weather flow to the treatment plant is therefore less for a low pressure sewer system than for a gravity sewer system. Low pressure sewers provide a more consistent strength of wastewater during heavy rainfall events. The terminus of the collection system is two community leachfields—Falling Water leachfield and Windsong leachfield. The final design capacity of these two fields was never formally established. These two facilities were designed to accommodate a total of 84 lots per a letter dated April 22, 1996 from NST Engineering. The Windsong facility was intended to serve lots 1 thru 52, while the Falling Water facility was to serve lots 53 to 84. Subsequent lots would then require a “modular package type” or recirculating sand-gravel filter bed. The District’s Waste Discharge Requirements also does not indicate a maximum capacity of the system. During an investigation of both the Windsong and Falling Water community leachfields, in 2005, it was determined that the construction of the collection system was most likely not in accordance with the design. During the 2005 investigation of the system it was found that there were major construction defects in the Windsong leachfield, including lack GMCSD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 222 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY of sufficient drain rock, clogged pipe drain holes, undersized drain rock, and lack of covering fabric. The leachfield was subsequently reconstructed, and is now considered to be in good condition. Phase II of the leachfield improvements, which is to include improvements to the dosing station, has not yet been completed and is being reevaluated by the district engineer. The existing system appears to be at 50 percent capacity; although the exact capacity of the leachfields has not been determined. The District has developed a capital improvement plan for adding capacity to the sewer system to accommodate future growth. Future plans call for construction of an additional leachfield, initiation of treatment and utilization of recycled water for golf course irrigation. A third potential leachfield location has been identified on the golf course adjacent to the existing Falling Water leachfield. Disposal expansion and treatment facilities are estimated to cost $1.2 million. Infrastructure Needs The primary infrastructure need of GMCSD’s sewer facilities is additional leachfield capacity. Needs identified in the master plan include: 1) expanded and enhanced disposal facilities including above ground effluent storage in ponds, use of recycled water at the golf course, and additional subsurface infiltration capacity, 2) construction of a secondary treatment facility for recycled water, and 3) completion of the Windsong Leachfield improvements. These projects are estimated to cost $4.1 million in 2007 dollars. The District is in the midst of making plans for the additional leachfield. A location has been identified and some preliminary engineering has been started. Complete project design is anticipated to take place over the next several years. As of the drafting of this report, the $1.2 million project was unfunded and a timeline had not yet been established. The District’s waste discharge permit requires that GMCSD work with the golf course to utilize reclaimed water for irrigation purposes at some point in the future. The District recognizes this as a probable need in the future, and has included it in its long-term capital projects list. Challenges A particular challenge to the District in providing wastewater services is the lack of knowledge of the actual capacity of the two leachfields. The District continues to evaluate the system in an effort to prioritize needs. Service Adequacy This section reviews indicators of service adequacy, including regulatory compliance, treatment effectiveness, sewer overflows and collection system integrity. GMCSD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 223 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY Figure 12-6: GMCSD Wastewater Service Adequacy Indicators Wastewater Service Adequacy and Efficiency Regulatory Compliance Record, 2005-10 Formal Enforcement Actions 0 Informal Enforcement Actions 0 Formal Enforcement Action Type Description of Violations NA Total Violations, 2005-10 Total Violations 0 Priority Violations 0 Service Adequacy Indicators Treatment Effectiveness Rate2 NA3 Sewer Overflows 2008 - 20104 1 Total Employees (FTEs) 0.5 Sewer Overflow Rate5 7.7 MGD Treated per FTE 0.280 Customer Complaints 2010: 14 Source Control and Pollution Prevention Practices None. Collection System Inspection Practices The District did not report any inspection practices. Notes: (1) Order or Code Violations include sanitary sewer overflow violations. (2) Total number of compliance days in 2010 per 365 days. (3) As the District does not provide treatment, it does not monitor the quality of the effluent. (4) Total number of overflows experienced (excluding those caused by customers) from 2008 to 2010 as reported by the agency. (5) Sewer overflows from 2009 to 2010 (excluding those caused by customers) per 100 miles of collection piping. GMCSD has had no violations related to wastewater services between 2005 and 2010, and consequently, no priority violations and no formal or informal enforcement actions. By comparison, other wastewater providers in the eastern region of the County averaged 38 violations per 1,000 population served. Wastewater treatment providers are required to comply with effluent quality standards under the waste discharge requirements determined by RWQCB. As the District is not presently treating sewage, it does not track the quality of the effluent. Wastewater agencies are required to report sewer system overflows (SSOs) to SWRCB. Overflows reflect the capacity and condition of collection system piping and the effectiveness of routine maintenance. The sewer overflow rate is calculated as the number of overflows per 100 miles of collection piping. The District reported one residential septic tank overflow during the period from 2008 thru 2010, and consequently the overflow rate is 7.7 per 100 miles of piping. Other providers in the region averaged an SSO rate of 3.8 per 100 miles of collection piping. There are several measures of integrity of the wastewater collection system, including peaking factors, efforts to address infiltration and inflow (I/I), and inspection practices. Peak demand periods are not related to wet weather flows as the system is pressurized which minimizes infiltration and inflow into the system. Additionally, the District did not report any inspection practices as the system is pressurized. GMCSD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 224 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY Figure 12-7: GMCSD Wastewater Profile Wastewater Service Configuration and Demand Service Configuration Service Type Service Provider(s) Wastewater Collection GMCSD Wastewater Treatment None Wastewater Disposal GMCSD Recycled Water None Service Area Scattered developed lots throughout the Gold Mountain Collection: subdivision. Treatment: NA Recycled Water: NA Service Demand Connections (2010) Flow (gpd) Type Total Inside Bounds Outside Bounds Average Total 88 88 0 5,004 Residential 87 87 0 5,004 Commercial 1 1 0 Unknown Industrial 0 0 0 - Historical and Projected Demand (AAF in gallons per day)2 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 Unknown3 5,004 6,602 8,711 11,493 Note: (1) NA: Not Applicable; NP: Not Provided. (2) Projections are based on the 5.7 percent annual average growth rate projected by the District. (3) The District installed flow meters at the leachfields in the middle of 2005. GMCSD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 225 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY Wastewater Infrastructure Wastewater Collection, Treatment & Disposal Infrastructure System Overview Facility Name Capacity Condition Year Built Windsong Community Leachfield Approx. 5,000 gpd Good 2006 Falling Water Community Leachfield Approx. 5,000 gpd Fair 1996 Collection & Distribution Infrastructure Sewer Pipe Miles 13 Sewage Lift Stations 0 Treatment Plant Daily Flow (mgd) AAF (gpd) % of Capacity in Use Peak Monthly (gpd) Peaking Factor 5,004 Approx. 50% 7,000 NA Infiltration and Inflow The District did not identify any particular issues related to I/I, as the system is pressurized which minimizes I/I. Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies The District identified a need for an additional leachfield for back up and additional capacity, as well as a probable need for a treatment facility sometime in the future. Wastewater Facility Sharing Facility Sharing Practices The District has developed a master cost sharing agreement with the GMHOA, and currently, shares the costs of personnel, equipment, facilities, supplies, and other office related activities. Facility Sharing Opportunities There is the potential to share a multi-purpose facility with the HOA. GMCSD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 226 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY Wastewater Rates and Financing Wastewater Rates-Ongoing Charges FY 10-111 g y Rate Description Charges Demand2 A flat annual rate of $1,888 for Residential $83.69 250 gpd water and wastewater services. Rate Zones None Rate-Setting Procedures Last Rate Change 7/1/2010 Frequency of Rate Changes Annually Wastewater Development Fees and Requirements Rates are set to cover the costs of operation, maintenance and a portion Fee Approach of the capital outlays. Connection Fee Amount3 $3,260/connection Wastewater Enterprise Revenues, FY 09-10 Operating Expenditures, FY 09-10 Source Amount Amount Total $235,607 100% Total $181,815 Rates & Charges $218,892 93% Administration $98,001 Property Tax $0 0% O & M $24,493 Grants $0 0% Capital Depreciation $22,655 Interest $4,706 2% Debt $0 Connection Fees $2,000 1% Other $2,042 Other $10,009 5% Debt forgiveness - Fire $34,624 Notes: (1) Rates include wastewater-related service charges and strength and flow charges. Average monthly charges calculated based on average consumption. Rates are rounded for presentation. (2) Wastewater use assumptions by customer type were used to calculate average monthly charges. Assumed use levels are 250 gallons per home per day, and are consistent countywide for comparison purposes. (3) Connection fee amount is calculated for a single-family home. GMCSD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 227 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY FFIIRREE SSEERRVVIICCEESS Service Overview GMCSD provides structural fire suppression, emergency medical and fire prevention services to its residents through a contract with the City of Portola FD. History The City of Portola started providing fire services to Gold Mountain CSD in 1997 when the City and the District entered into a contract. The term of the original agreement was from 1997 through 2001. Under this contract GMCSD paid the City a standby charge of $5,000 a year. In addition, the District was paying the City per incident for firefighters and equipment used. Water provision was the District’s responsibility.251 In 2002, the contract was extended through 2006. At that time the annual fee was raised to $25,000, as the construction of homes and the Nakoma Lodge created a higher responsibility burden and level of liability for Portola FD.252 At the end of 2006, the City and the District renewed the contract and applied to LAFCo for an out-of-area service agreement. LAFCo approved the agreement. The parties entered into a contract for the period of one and a half years from January 1, 2007 to June 30, 2008. The City continued charging $25,000 per year.253 By the end of the contract period, the parties decided to renew their agreement under the same conditions. The parties attempted to extend the agreement without LAFCo approval, claiming exemption on this agreement under Government Code §56133(e), as the City had provided fire suppression services to GMCSD prior to 2001, which excludes the contract from LAFCo review and contracts or agreements solely involving two or more public agencies do not require LAFCo approval.254 At that time, LAFCo determined that “once an agency submits to LAFCo jurisdiction on an issue that LAFCo will have exclusive jurisdiction thereafter.”255 GMCSD and City of Portola extended their contract for two years again through LAFCo.256 251 Agreement for Fire Suppression Services by the City of Portola for the Gold Mountain Service District, 1997, p. 1. 252 City of Portola and Gold Mountain CSD, Plan for Providing Services, Out-of-Agency Service Agreement, Fire Suppression Service, 2006, p. 1. 253 2006-OASA-002. 254 From Steven C. Gross, City Attorney to Jim Murphy, Portola City Manager, Legal Memorandum, March 12, 2008, pp. 1-2. 255 John M. Gullixson, Staff Report to Honorable Members of the Commission, April 14th, 2008. 256 2008-OASA-001. GMCSD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 228 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY Most recently, in 2010, upon contract renewal LAFCo determined that the agencies’ arguments had credence, and the City of Portola now provides services to GMCSD under a three-year contract (with two possible one year extensions) that is under exemption of LAFCo approval. Scope of Services The nearest City of Portola fire station is located about 2.5 miles from the community of Gold Mountain. In case of an incident, a truck from the south side Fire Hall responds first and is followed by a truck from the north side Fire Hall and the tanker. At least 11 firefighters are to respond—five on the first truck, five on the second truck and one on the tanker. The Fire Department’s goal is to respond within two to three minutes from eight in the morning to eight in the evening and within five minutes from eight in the evening to eight in the morning.257 Funding In 2006, GMCSD voters approved a special tax designated for fire protection and prevention, emergency medical response and hazardous material emergency response to pay the annual payment of $25,000 to the City of Portola. In FY 09-10, the single family homes paid $222.84 and undeveloped lots paid $138.57. Before the special tax was approved by the voters, fire protection was financed through the water and sewer charges, contrary to Proposition 218.258 Constraints The primary constraint to the provision of adequate fire services is a lack of sufficient fire flow as outlined in the Fire Suppression plan. The study depicts the current situation, presents the requirements, and analyzes potential solutions to the problem. GMCSD has 250,000 gallons of potable water storage with very limited ability to deliver required fire flows. The existing water system is highly inflexible, and it would be difficult and inefficient to try to modify it to enhance fire flow delivery capabilities. Possible solutions identified include equipping new structures with a residential fire sprinkler system; constructing water storage at the highest possible elevation in the system; providing a transmission system between the new tanks and the distribution system; providing a separate transmission system between the sources and the tanks; and reinforcing the existing distribution system.259 257 Out-of-Agency Service Agreement, Plan for Providing Services, 2008, p. 4. 258 Out-of-Agency Service Agreement, Plan for Providing Services, 2008, p. 6. 259259 GMCSD, Fire Suppression Plan, 2007, Introduction, Appendix C. GMCSD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 229 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY Future of Fire Service In order to make fire service provision more permanent, in 2008-2009, the District did a study that looked into various possibilities. Three scenarios were on the table:  Consolidation with EPRFPD. The outlined pros included the proximity of one of EPRFPD’s three fire stations to GMCSD and the fact that GMCSD is in EPRFPD’s SOI. The main argument against the consolidation was that EPRFPD was extremely underfunded.  Consolidation with GFPD. It was determined that GFPD was a well-run district with a lot of resources; however, there would be a high cost of buying-in to the District’s services, and GMCSD is a long distance from the GFPD fire station.  Enter into a joint powers agreement with the City of Portola since annexation cannot take place between non-contiguous areas. There is already an established relationship between the two parties and this agreement was identified as the lowest cost alternative. However, the costs could go up and the agreement would not be permanent.260 Since the study did not provide a clear solution, as part of a community outreach, the study and a survey were sent to all community members. Most of the respondents preferred a joint powers agreement and adequate protection at minimal costs. Many expressed a desire not to make a change in fire protection services. At the November 2009 meeting, the Board approved a motion to continue the District's contract with Portola for three years with two possible one year extensions. If during that time, EPRFPD and Graeagle FPD should consolidate, GMCSD would review an annexation with the resulting District. 260 GMCSD, Selection of a Long Term Fire Service Provider, 2009, pp. 10-15. GMCSD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 230 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY GGOOLLDD MMOOUUNNTTAAIINN CCSSDD DDEETTEERRMMIINNAATTIIOONNSS Growth and Population Projections  The District currently has 88 residential structures with an estimated population of 167.  Between 2006 and 2010, 18 additional residential structures have been constructed and connected to the Districts’ utility systems, which equates to 26 percent growth during that period.  The District anticipates growth in population and similarly in service demand within the District in the next few years. District planning documents assume build- out of the subdivision by 2039 with a growth rate of 5.7 percent annually. Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities and Adequacy of Public Services, Including Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies  Presently, average daily demand for water is 15 percent of the wells’ pumping capacity, while peak day demand constitutes approximately 46 percent of the wells’ pumping capacity.  The primary infrastructure needs identified by the District for the water system are improved fire suppression flows, increased storage, and an additional well for back up purposes. The District is pursuing each of these capital improvements, although the exact timing and funding sources are yet to be identified.  The existing sewer system appears to be at approximately 50 percent capacity; however, the actual capacity of the leachfields is unknown.  The District has developed a capital improvement plan for adding capacity to the sewer system to accommodate future growth. Future plans call for construction of an additional leachfield, initiation of treatment and utilization of recycled water for golf course irrigation.  It is recommended that GMCSD complete an analysis of its wastewater collection system to determine actual capacity.  GMCSD projects its service needs related to growth through build-out of the subdivision in its master plan. GMCSD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 231 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY Financial Ability of Agencies to Provide Services  While the District has faced financial difficulties in the past, and anticipates significant unfunded infrastructure needs in the future, the District reported that the current financing level is adequate to deliver services to existing customers.  The District anticipated that future capital improvements would require additional funding sources such as loans and/or assessments.  GMCSD has a capital improvement program with a 30-year planning horizon, which is updated on a five-year basis and is outlined in the master plan.  The District has a healthy restricted and unrestricted reserve Unrestricted reserves could finance about seven months of operations for water and wastewater services, and over five months of operations for fire services Status of, and Opportunities for, Shared Facilities  The District shares fire facilities with the City of Portola through a contract for fire services.  The District has developed a master cost sharing agreement with the GMHOA, and currently, shares the costs of personnel, equipment, facilities, supplies, and other office related activities.  There is the potential to share a multi-purpose facility with the HOA, as well as water source facilities with the Ridges subdivision. Accountability for Community Service Needs, Including Governmental Structure and Operational Efficiencies  GMCSD demonstrated accountability in its disclosure of information and cooperation with Plumas LAFCo. The District responded to the questionnaires and cooperated with the document requests.  GMCSD practices extensive outreach efforts which enhance transparency, including a website where district information is made available.  Governance structure options with regard to fire services in Gold Mountain include consolidation with EPRFPD, consolidation with GFPD, or a JPA with the City of Portola. District residents prefer a JPA with the City. As of the drafting of this report, the District had not made a final decision as to the course it would like to take in this matter. GMCSD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 232 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY 13. GRAEAGLE FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT Graeagle Fire Protection District (GFPD) provides fire protection, rescue, emergency medical, hazardous material emergency response and some fire prevention services. The previous Abbreviated Municipal Service Review for the District was conducted in 2003. AAGGEENNCCYY OOVVEERRVVIIEEWW Background GFPD was formed in 1967 as an independent special district.261 The formation followed the Graeagle Land and Water Company purchase of the town of Graeagle and of the other holdings of the California Fruit Exchange in Plumas County. The District was formed to provide structural fire, emergency medical, and emergency rescue services.262 The principal act that governs the District is the Fire Protection District Law of 1987.263 The principal act empowers fire districts to provide fire protection, rescue, emergency medical, hazardous material response, ambulance, and any other services relating to the protection of lives and property.264 Districts must apply and obtain LAFCo approval to exercise services authorized by the principal act but not already provided (i.e., latent powers) by the district at the end of 2000. GFPD is located in the eastern part of Plumas County, approximately an hour from the Nevada border. The District includes the Whitehawk Ranch CSD territory in the south and borders the C-Road CSD to the northeast and Plumas-Eureka CSD to the northwest. Boundaries GFPD’s boundary is entirely within Plumas County. The initial boundaries encompassed all the contiguous lands of the Graeagle Land and Water Company in Mohawk Valley. 265 The present bounds include approximately 5,147 acres or eight square miles. 266 261 County Board of Supervisors Resolution No. 1721. 262 Larry A. Fites, Engineer of Work, Engineers Report: Whitehawk Ranch Annexation to Graeagle Fire Protection District, 2007, Attachment A. 263 Health and Safety Code §13800-13970. 264 Health and Safety Code §13862. 265 Larry A. Fites, Engineer of Work, Engineers Report: Whitehawk Ranch Annexation to Graeagle Fire Protection District, 2007, Attachment A. GFPD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 233 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY Following formation, the District undertook three small annexations in the 1980s. After that, an annexation that was completed in 2005 added 413 acres to the District. Another annexation was completed in 2006 and brought 501 more acres into the District. The 2007 annexation involved 962 acres where Whitehawk Ranch CSD previously provided services. Since the creation of GFPD through 2007, all of the annexations combined have increased the total area within the District’s boundaries by about two thirds.267 Additionally, in March 2010, the Commission approved the annexation of Feather River Inn—a resort property near the community of Graeagle that consists of 114 acres. The annexation has not gone through as of drafting of this report. The latest annexation to GFPD was approved by LAFCo in January, 2011 and included 89 acres of Tantau Ranch—a five-parcel subdivision. Figure 13-1: GFPD List of LAFCo Approved Border Changes Project Name Type of Action Year Recording Agency Graeagle Fire Protection District Formation 1967 LAFCo, SBOE Dawson Subdivision Area Annexation 1981 SBOE Graeagle and Wat. Co. Territory Annexation 1985 SBOE Mohawk Development Co. Territory Annexation 1985 SBOE North/South Mohawk Valley Annexation 2005 LAFCo, SBOE V.R./M.M. Greaeagle Creek Annexation 2006 LAFCo, SBOE Whitehawk Ranch Annexation 2007 LAFCo, SBOE Feather River Inn Annexation (incomplete) 2010 LAFCo Tantau Ranch Annexation 2011 LAFCo Sphere of Influence The SOI for GFPD was first adopted on August 26, 1976. The Sphere of Influence was further revised and expanded on March 24, 1983. The next SOI amendment took place in 2003. The new SOI was extended to include Mohawk Valley near Clio, Valley Ranch, territory near the junction of SR 89 and SR 70, and the community of Whitehawk Ranch to accommodate possible future annexations of territory surrounding Graeagle that seek fire protection and potential consolidations or mergers of fire protection providers for the whole Mohawk Valley into GFPD.268 The latest SOI update took place in January 2011 that added 40 more acres to the District’s sphere. The current SOI is 14 square miles compared to about eight square miles of boundary area. 266 Total agency area calculated in GIS software based on agency boundaries as of July 1, 2011. The data is not considered survey quality. 267 Larry A. Fites, Engineer of Work, Engineers Report: Whitehawk Ranch Annexation to Graeagle Fire Protection District, 2007, Attachment A. 268 Plumas LAFCo, Staff Report, 2003, p. 2. GFPD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 234 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY Extra-territorial Services Through an informal agreement with the Sheriff’s Office, which is discussed in more detail in the Fire Service Section of this chapter, the District provides services outside of its boundaries. The District’s service area extends to the southwest and to the northeast of the boundary and encompasses about 49 square miles compared to eight square miles of boundary area. The District is currently working on an Out-of-Area Service agreement with Clio PUD. Areas of Interest One of the areas of interest is the community of Johnsville, which is located north of GFPD. Johnsville is not currently within a fire district’s boundaries; however, the understanding of Graeagle FPD is that the community would like to be annexed by GFPD. 269 Plumas-Eureka CSD also reported that residents of Johnsville wish to join PECSD for fire services. PECSD expressed desire to include the community into its SOI. Another area of importance is the community of Gold Mountain. Currently, the City of Portola provides fire services to the area by contract with Gold Mountain CSD. In 2009, GMCSD conducted a study with the purpose of choosing a long-term fire service provider. Graeagle FPD was considered as one of the options. GMCSD concluded that GFPD was “the most established, best managed, most financially sound department,” but was the highest cost alternative and farthest away from the Gold Mountain community (12 minutes or almost nine miles). Additionally, there is one more area of interest. Eagle Ridge RV Park is a newly developed recreational area located within GFPD SOI. However, GFPD thought that it was going to be placed in PECSD SOI which created confusion about which agency would be serving the new recreation area. 269 Interview with GFPD fire chief. GFPD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 235 Graeagle Fire Protection District 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 29 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 ·|þ} 70 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 7 ·|þ} 70 8 9 10 17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14 13 18 17 Portola 1 Mc 6 Clears Rd 15 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 89 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 0 0 12 0 7 8 11 0 13 18 17 0 htroN 32 pihsnwoT htroN 22 pihsnwoT 13-2 Range 11 East Range 12 East Range 13 East ² Graeagle FPD Legend Parcels Graeagle FPD Resolution: 1721 Adopted: 6/19/1967 Major Roads Graeagle FPD (SOI) State Responsibility Area ·|}þ 70 CA State Highway (Federal Responsibility lies Graeagle FPD Service Area Graeagle FPD (SOI) outside hatched area.) Resolution: 2003-007 Stream / River Adopted: Waterbodies Sectional Grid (MDB&M) Fire Stations 0 0.250.5 1Miles Source: Plumas LAFCo Map Created 5/6/2011 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY Accountability and Governance The principal act orders that the board of directors of a fire protection district must have an odd number of members, with a minimum of three and a maximum of 11 members. Directors may be appointed or elected.270 GFPD is governed by a five-member board of directors elected to staggered four year terms. All current members were elected; there are no vacancies. There has never been a contested election. Current board member names, positions, and term expiration dates are shown in Figure 13-3. The Board meets once a month on the third Thursday of every month at nine in the morning at the Graeagle Fire Station 1. Board meeting agendas are posted on the door of the fire station, the Graeagle post office and the Clio post office. Minutes of every board meeting are available upon request from the administrative assistant. The District currently does not have a website, so its documents are not available online. Figure: 13-3: GFPD Governing Body Graeagle Fire Protection District District Contact Information Contact: Fire Chief, Ed Ward Address: 7620 SR 89, Graeagle, CA 96103 Telephone: (530)836-1340 Fax: (530)836-2645 Email/website: gfpd@psln.com Board of Directors Member Name Position Term Expiration Manner of Selection Length of Term John Sciborski Chair December 2013 Elected 4 years Teri Skutt Member December 2013 Elected 4 years Dan West Member December 2011 Elected 4 years Don Clark Member December 2011 Elected 4 years Bob Anderson Member December 2011 Elected 4 years Meetings Date: Third Thursday of every month at 9am Location: Graeagle station #1 Agenda Distribution: Posted on the door of the Graeagle station, Graeagle post office and Clior post office. Minutes Distribution: Provided upon request In addition to the required agendas and minutes, the District tries to reach its constituents through various programs. GFPD administers public CPR classes. It frequently works with children at the preschool in Graeagle. The District had a live Burn Trailer event where numerous communities came together to watch and learn. The 270 Health and Safety Code §13842. GFPD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 237 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY District worked with the community on wildfire prevention and has become recognized as a Firewise Community for creating a wildfire action plan and conducting a “Firewise Day” event. The District is in the process of setting up a website through which it plans to keep its customers informed about its activities. If a customer is dissatisfied with District’s services, the complaints may be submitted over the phone to the administrative assistant, who would then communicate them to the fire chief. In addition, the complaint should be submitted in writing to the District. The chief is responsible for handling complaints for the District. Most of the complaints received are from individuals within the District’s SOI, but outside of its boundaries, who are charged for fire services after GFPD responds to an incident on their property. The District reported that there was one complaint in 2009. GFPD demonstrated accountability in its disclosure of information and cooperation with Plumas LAFCo. The District responded to the questionnaires and cooperated with the document requests. Planning and Management Practices Daily operations are managed by the chief and the administrative assistant. The total number of staff is 21. The administrative assistant, fire chief, assistant chief and three captains are paid staff. The assistant chief and three captains are paid a limited stipend. The rest of the 15 firefighters are volunteers. In addition, the District had an Incident Management Team that it contracted out to the federal government to respond to national forest fires. The District recently decided to disband the team. Administrative staff and the assistant chief are accountable to the chief. The EMS and Fire personnel are accountable to the assistant chief. The chief reports to the Board of Directors at meetings. The Board of Directors evaluates the chief annually. The chief evaluates his employees annually as well. The District just started the process of formal evaluations and put together an evaluation form. The Incident Management Team was also evaluated annually. The members of the team filled out job performance forms for every incident. GFPD reported performing no evaluations for the District as a whole, such as benchmarking or annual reports. The District’s financial planning efforts include an annually adopted budget. The District’s financial statements are audited every two years. GFPD does not adopt any other planning documents. The District provided two adopted budgets: one for FY 09-10 and another for FY 10-11, audited financial statements for FY 08 and FY 09, and unaudited financial statements for FY 09-10. The District does capital improvement planning during each annexation process through the District’s contract engineer. GFPD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 238 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY Existing Demand and Growth Projections Most of the land uses within the District are residential, suburban and recreational. The densest residential areas are located around the communities of Graeagle and Blairsden. The central part of the District is primarily timberland production zone. The communities of Valley Ranch and Whitehawk Ranch include suburban land uses.271 The District’s bounds encompass approximately eight square miles. Population As of 2007, the District served 4,878 acres, 1,579 lots, 1,187 structures and 1,730 residential unit equivalents. Currently, there are approximately 1,019 residents within the District, based on census designated place population in the 2000 census.272 Population information at the census designated place level was not yet available for the 2010 census, as of the drafting of this report; however, based on the lack of growth experienced throughout the County over the last decade, and in some cases population decline, it can be assumed that the approximate population has not changed significantly since 2000. According to the District, the population goes up to 3,000 people in summer months. Existing Demand The peak demand times for the District are in the summer months when the area experiences an influx of tourists and seasonal residents. The calls for medical emergencies are consistently high in volume throughout the year, similar to other fire districts in the region. Figure 13-4: GFPD Number of Calls by Year The District reported a recent 140 increase in demand for services, due to 120 an increase in new developments and 100 existing lot build-outs. The number of calls increased from 2006 to 2007; in 80 2008 the District experienced a drop in 60 demand similar to EPRFPD; the increase 40 reported by GPFD occurred in 2009 and 20 2010. 0 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 271 Plumas County Parcel Application. 272 Census designated places Graeagle, Whitehawk and Valley Ranch in Plumas County. GFPD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 239 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY Projected Growth and Development GFPD anticipates some growth in population and similarly in service demand within the District in the next few years. No formal population projections, however, have been made by the District. The District estimates service demand through its annexation studies done by the District’s contract engineer. The State Department of Finance (DOF) projects that the population of Plumas County will grow by five percent in the next 10 years. Thus, the average annual population growth in the County is anticipated to be approximately 0.5 percent. Based on these projections, the District’s population would increase from 1,019 in 2010 to approximately 1,071 in 2020. It is anticipated that demand for service within the District will increase minimally based on the DOF population growth projections through 2020. The District identified one proposed development within its boundaries and one within its SOI. The area within the SOI is called A-15 and is located to the southeast of Valley Ranch. Another area of anticipated growth, which is within the District’s boundaries, is in the northeastern part of Whitehawk Ranch. In addition, according to the County, there is one approved development in Graeagle which consists of 99 lots, that has not begun construction. The development was approved about eight years ago; and the developers are waiting for the economy to improve before beginning construction. The District believes that these new developments will increase service demand. Currently, the District appears to have the capacity to serve its future growth area. GFPD did not identify any areas within its future growth area to which it would be difficult to provide an adequate level of service. Growth Strategies The District is not a land use authority, and does not hold primary responsibility for implementing growth strategies. The land use authority for unincorporated areas is the County. The County enforces the codes that it has enforcement power over, which does not encompass all State fire codes. The County ensures that new construction meets the requirements of the latest adopted edition of the California Building Standards. The County enforces the County codes that have been adopted in lieu of the California Fire Safe regulations. The County does not have authority to enforce PRC 4291, which requires defensible space around structures; however, the County does have some enforcement authority over vegetation removal around buildings that was adopted prior to PRC 4291. In addition, the Board of Supervisors, through the adoption of the General Plan and county codes, regulates development standards to be followed in processing subdivisions, including fire protection. The proposals for new developments are sent for review to the appropriate fire provider if a development is within district’s boundaries. The County reported that as SOI maps have not been digitized, is has been challenging to ensure that proposals go to the appropriate district if a proposed development was within that district’s SOI but outside its boundaries. The County and Plumas LAFCo are working together on a process to ensure GFPD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 240 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY that all appropriate districts are contacted for review of proposed developments. The County Board of Supervisors is discussing a possibility of hiring a fire marshal, part of whose responsibilities may be code enforcement and building inspections. However, thus far, no decision has been made on the responsibilities of the position.273 The County has several policies in the existing general plan, which impact the fire providers of new developments. 1) Turnouts are now required in every new development.274 2) The County encourages development to be located adjacent to or within areas where fire services already exist or can be efficiently provided.275 3) The County requires new developments within areas not currently served by a fire provider to be annexed into an existing fire district or create a funding mechanism, such as a CSD, to cover the costs of fire service provision.276 4) Sustainable timber and biomass production and harvesting as well as intensive forest management practices are encouraged to reduce the danger of catastrophic wildfires.277 5) There is a minimum requirement of two roadway access points, which are maintained on a year-round basis by the County or the State. 278 6) Minimum public and private road standards: roads providing access to two or more lots have to conform to a two-lane standard of no less than 16-foot traveled way.279 7) Bridges are required to be designed for an 80,000 pound vehicle load.280 8) All access roads must be marked with an approved sign; and all lots must be identified by an address.281 273 Correspondence with Becky Herrin, Plumas County Senior Planner, September 8, 2011. 274 Plumas County Code of Ordinances, Title 9 Section 9-4.604 (k). 275 Plumas County, General Plan, 1984, pp. 28 & 29. 276 Ibid., p. 28. 277 Ibid, p. 32. 278 Ibid., p. 16. 279 Ibid., 280 Ibid. 281 Ibid. GFPD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 241 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY 9) All developments within boundaries of a structural fire service provider may be required to contribute to the maintenance of the structural service proportionate to the increase in demand for fire service resulting from the development.282 10) As a condition of development it is required to provide long-term maintenance of private roads to the standards of original improvements, including roadside vegetation management.283 11) The County encourages biomass thinning programs in high fire risk areas.284 The District reported concerns that new developments in the County were not being required to comply with existing requirements.285 The County reported that only one agency had come to the County regarding these concerns, which were unfounded at the time. No conjecture is made by the authors of this report as to the accuracy of these statements. It should be noted that one of the purposes of the newly formed Emergency Service Feasibility Group is to address these concerns. The County is in the process of updating its general plan. The suggested new policies in the General Plan update that would impact fire service providers, but had not yet been adopted as of the drafting of this report, include: 12) The County shall review and update its Fire Safe ordinance to attain and maintain defensible space though conditioning of tentative maps and in new development at the final map or building permit stage. 13) The County will consult Fire Hazard Severity Zone Maps during the review of all projects. The Countywill work with fire protection agencies to develop community fire plans and require appropriate building setbacks and fuel modification requirements within fire hazard zones. 14) In order for the new development to be approved, the County must conclude that adequate emergency water flow, fire access and firefighters and equipment are available. 15) New developments have to show that they have adequate access for emergency vehicles to access the site and for private vehicles to evacuate the area. 16) New developments within high and very high fire hazard areas are required to designate fuel break zones that comply with fire safe requirements. 282 Ibid. 283 Plumas County Code of Ordinances, Title 9 Section 9-4.601. 284 Plumas County Code of Ordinances, Title 4 Section 4-2.101. 285 Profile comments from Chief Greg McCaffrey, May 3, 2011. GFPD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 242 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY 17) The County will work with Forest Service and fire districts in developing fire prevention programs, identifying opportunities for fuel breaks in zones of high and very high fire hazard and educating public. 18) Fire, law enforcement, EMS, resource management, and public health response partners are encouraged to conduct joint training exercises.286 The County has not adopted the new standards for development yet. The revised General Plan may be adopted towards the end of 2012. County zoning code will then go through a revision process in order for the zoning code to implement the General Plan. In 2007, the Board of Supervisors formed the Emergency Services Advisory Committee to “evaluate the funding feasibility of providing uniform and comprehensive emergency services to all of Plumas County.” The Committee attempted to look for opportunities to increase funding for emergency services, but faced a considerable challenge in the difficult economic times. Most recently, it focused on mitigating efforts through building and development standards improvements and the General Plan update process, and encouraging local fire service providers to share resources and realize economies of scale in preparing grant applications, conducting training and engaging in other joint programs. The District is considering annexing all territory within the Clio PUD in the future. Clio, as a public utility district, has the latent power to provide fire services, but currently does not do so. GFPD provides extra-territorial fire services in Clio and charges service fees for responding to incidents outside of its bounds. It is likely that Clio PUD will give up this latent power, continue providing water services, and annex the territory into GFPD for fire services. Currently, the two parties are working on a fire services contract and are having discussions about annexation. In fact, it is planned to be included in the contract that the Districts will start working towards and preparing for the annexation process. Financing The District reports that current financing levels are adequate to deliver services. GFPD has enough funding to provide sufficient services to its existing and anticipated developments. The County keeps accounts for the District’s finances and tracks revenue and expenditures. The District’s total revenues for FY 09-10 were $507,935. Revenue sources included tax revenue (48 percent), charges for services (47 percent), use of money and properties (two percent), state and federal aid (one percent), and other revenue (two percent). The majority of the District’s income came from the fees and charges for services. Most of the funds within this revenue source were charges for services by the Incident 286 Plumas County General Plan, Draft Goals, Policies and Implementation Measures, 2010. GFPD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 243 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY Management Team, which has subsequently been disbanded. The remaining revenue from charges was from contract and service fees to the properties outside of the District’s boundaries. The hourly rates for vehicles and equipment involved in an incident are based on the 2007 GFPD apparatus and equipment rates. The service fees paid to the District for responding to a federal incident as a Cooperating Agency under Assistance by Hire were provided to the District in 2007 and are the same for all Districts that respond to a federal incident. The rates for the personnel responding to an incident are based on comparative salary survey of representative paid fire Districts and Departments and are updated annually. The District receives property tax revenues from the County for the territory included within the District’s boundaries prior to 2005. The properties annexed by the District in 2005, 2006 and 2007 paid “buy in” fees, compensation for the annual expense of the District’s operations and maintenance, a share of the anticipated cost of future capital investments, and financed annexation proceedings. The newly annexed communities also pay an annual per-parcel special benefit assessment.287 Special assessment income constitutes almost 40 percent of all tax revenue for the District. The District also receives comparatively insignificant amounts from its investments and from state and federal awards and grants. Awards and grants are awarded for specific purposes and are subject to review and audit by the grantor agencies.288 287 Larry A. Fites, Engineer of Work, Engineers Report: Whitehawk Ranch Annexation to Graeagle Fire Protection District, 2007 and John Gullixson, Plumas LAFCO Executive Officer, Graeagle Fire Protection District Abbreviated Municipal Service Review Five-Year Sphere of Influence, 2003. 288 D.R. Watts Accountancy Corporation, Graeagle Fire Protection District Financial Statements and Independent Auditors’ Report, June 30, 2009 and June 30, 2008. GFPD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 244 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY Figure 13-5: GFPD Revenues and Expenditures Income/Expenses FY 09-10 Budgeted FY 09-10 Actual FY 10-11 Budgeted Income Tax Revenue $253,125 33% $242,593 48% $239,585 42% Use of Money $10,250 1% $10,643 2% $10,250 2% State and Federal Aid $2,200 0.3% $1,296 1% $2,200 1% Charges for Services $511,250 66% $240,572 47% $311,750 55% Other Revenue $0 0% $12,832 2% $0 0% Total Income $776,825 100% $507,935 100% $563,785 100% Expenses Salaries & Benefits $518,000 67% $284,650 61% $402,500 71% Services & Supplies $203,825 26% $133,019 29% $145,285 26% Other Charges $0 0% $12,813 3% $0 0% Fixed Assets $57,000 7% $35,538 7% $16,000 3% Total Expense $778,825 100% $466,021 100% $563,785 100% Net Income -$2,000 $41,914 $0 GFPD’s expenditures were $466,021 in FY 09-10. Of this amount, 61 percent was spent on salaries and benefits, 29 percent on services and supplies, three percent on other charges, and seven percent on fixed assets and capital improvements. The District performs capital improvement planning through engineer’s reports made prior to annexations. The last two such engineer’s reports were done in 2007 for the Whitehawk Ranch CSD and Feather River Inn annexations. Capital expenditures were projected for a 20 year planning horizon and took depreciation value in to account when being calculated. None of the areas annexed to the District before Whitehawk Ranch required additional equipment purchases or significant increases in operating expenses. The annual increases have been covered by increases in tax income, fees and inflation adjustments. When Whitehawk Ranch was annexed to the District, it brought its existing inventory into the District. A new capital improvement schedule was created as part of Whitehawk Ranch annexation engineer’s report and updated in the Feather River Inn annexation engineers report. This 2007 capital improvement plan serves as the basis for the future cost component of new annexations.289 Until this year, the District had long-term debt on which it was making annual payments. Annual payments included interest paid to Plumas Bank and fixed payment on a capital lease agreement paid to Federal Signal. The loan was taken out to finance a fire truck. The last payment was made in FY 09-10. 289 Larry A. Fites, Engineer of Work, Engineers Report: Whitehawk Ranch Annexation to Graeagle Fire Protection District and Feather River Inn Annexation Preliminary Analysis of Fiscal Effects, 2007. GFPD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 245 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY The District does not have a formal reserve policy; however, the budget includes a reserve category for vehicles, equipment and building. This reserve fund is mainly financed through benefit assessments, which are escalated by two percent per year. The reserve balance for FY 09-10 was $35,538 and for FY 10-11 it was budgeted to be $16,000. The District also plans for contingencies. The FY 09-10 budget planned for five percent of total expenditures for contingencies, and FY 10-11 planned for 0.1 percent of total expenditures for contingencies. The District participates in a joint venture under a JPA with the Fire District Association of California, Fire Agency Self-Insurance System (FDAC-FASIS). The JPA is not a component unit of the District. The goal of this JPA is to provide workers’ compensation insurance coverage to its members, pay the administration costs of the JPA and pay for the excess insurance and risk management costs. Each member of the JPA pays an annual premium based on the number of personnel, estimated payroll and experience.290 FFIIRREE AANNDD EEMMEERRGGEENNCCYY SSEERRVVIICCEESS Service Overview GFPD provides fire protection, rescue, emergency medical, hazardous material emergency response and some fire prevention services. The fire prevention efforts of the District include fire education of the population through the website, which is currently being developed. The District is also in the process of developing a fire prevention program. The District experiences the highest occurrence of service calls in summer months due to tourist influx, especially in July when most of the community events take place. Collaboration It is currently working on signing a contract with Clio PUD. The District has formal mutual aid agreements with Sierra Valley FPD and Plumas Eureka FPD. The District was also contracted by the federal government for the Incident Management Team that served as a backup team for national fires. There are opportunities to increase efficiency through collaboration. The District reports that fire providers need to stop duplicating services and start saving money by helping each other and making bulk purchases. Dispatch and Communications The County Sheriff is the Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP); consequently, most land line emergency calls (9-1-1 calls) are directed to the Sheriff. Most cell phone 290 D.R. Watts Accountancy Corporation, Graeagle Fire Protection District Financial Statements and Independent Auditors’ Report, June 30, 2009 and June 30, 2008. GFPD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 246 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY emergency calls (9-1-1 calls) are answered by CHP and redirected to the Sheriff. The Sheriff provides dispatching for most fire providers in the County except for the ones in northern part of the County, which are served by the CHP Susanville Dispatch Center. The Forest Service has its own dispatch. The sheriff dispatch center has a first responder map, which it uses to identify what provider to dispatch to an incident. All territory within the County has a determined first responder; although, many areas lie outside the LAFCo approved boundary of the districts and lack an officially designated fire provider. The District identified some areas where dispatch and response coordination could be improved. If there were a dispatcher at the sheriff’s office solely dedicated to EMS, dispatching in the County would be a lot more effective. In addition, the whole infrastructure of communication system (i.e., repeaters) needs to be updated. The main obstacle to both improvements is lack of funding. Staffing GFPD has 20 sworn personnel—one fire chief, one assistant fire chief, three captains, and 15 volunteer firefighters. In 2010 the District had 27 sworn personnel; seven firefighters recently resigned. The fire chief, assistant fire chief and three captains are paid staff. The median age of the fire fighters is 55, with a range from 20 to 77. The District reports that while it makes provisional staffing need projections in the engineering reports, future staffing needs will largely be dictated by growth, revenues and service demands. In 2010, the District had 27 sworn firefighters; however, it had been anticipated in the engineer’s report that 37 sworn personnel would be necessary in that year. The same study projects the need for a total of 37 and 45 sworn staff in 2015 and 2020, respectively.291 Over time, the District is hoping to increase its full time, paid staffing levels. Each of the three shifts are assigned a chief, a captain and firefighters. Each firefighter is assigned to a voluntary two days on and four days off schedule. The shift members usually only respond on their scheduled days; however, if a large incident occurs, all personnel are encouraged to respond.292 Qualified volunteers are required to attend at least three Fire or Medical meetings and are voted into the District by the firefighters. After that they receive training in fire and medical emergency response.293 Volunteers train four times a month for three hours. In addition to the 12 hours of training at the fire station, they are required to fulfill four to eight hours a month of online training. The District’s goal is to get all of its firefighters Fire 291 Whitehawk Ranch CSD and Graeagle Fire Protection District Annexation 2006, Plan for Providing Services, 2007, p. 5. 292 Whitehawk Ranch CSD and Graeagle Fire Protection District Annexation 2006, Plan for Providing Services, 2007, pp. 4- 5. 293 Whitehawk Ranch CSD and Graeagle Fire Protection District Annexation 2006, Plan for Providing Services, 2007, p. 5. GFPD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 247 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY Fighter I certified. GFPD uses NFPA guidelines for firefighter training and local guidelines for EMS training. According to the California State Fire Marshal, all volunteer and call firefighters must acquire Firefighter I certification; however, there is no time limit as to how long they may work before attaining certification. Firefighter I certification requires completion of the 259-hour Firefighter I course, which includes training on various fireground tasks, rescue operations, fire prevention and investigation techniques, and inspection and maintenance of equipment. In addition to this course, Firefighter I certification also requires that the applicant have a minimum of six months of volunteer or call experience in a California fire department as a firefighter performing suppression duties.294 GFPD has two Volunteer Firefighter I certified personnel and 12 BLS I certified personnel. Eighteen firefighters are certified as Volunteer Firefighters. Everybody is certified as First Responder; the chief is a paramedic. Graeagle Firefighter’s Association, which is a 501(c) 3 nonprofit corporation, is involved in recruitment of firefighters and determining the rank structure at the District. Every two years the rank of fire chief down to captain is voted on by the members following a nomination process.295 The District tries to recruit volunteers mostly through word of mouth. It posts ads on local community boards and at restaurants and recruits through newspaper articles. In addition, it participates in the statewide program California State Firefighter’s Association (CSFA) FireLine.org, which encourages people to volunteer for local fire departments. Although the District is planning to increase the number of paid full- time staff in the future, it will not eliminate the need for volunteer firefighters. The volunteer firefighters will continue to be an essential pool for all emergency incidents.296 Facilities and Capacity Originally, GFPD housed its engine in and operated out of a leased building. In 1989, the Graeagle Fire Station was constructed and donated to the District. Currently, the District operates two fire stations- the Graeagle Station #1 in Graeagle and the Graeagle Station #2, located in Whitehawk Ranch, both of which were reported to be in good condition.297 Graeagle Station #1 is owned by GFPD.298 It is used as an office, for training purposes, and to 294 State Fire Marshall, Course Information and Required Materials, 2007, p. 44 295 Whitehawk Ranch CSD and Graeagle Fire Protection District Annexation 2006, Plan for Providing Services, 2007, p. 5. 296 Whitehawk Ranch CSD and Graeagle Fire Protection District Annexation 2006, Plan for Providing Services, 2007, p. 5. 297 Facility condition definitions: Excellent-relatively new (less than 10 years old) and requires minimal maintenance. Good- provides reliable operation in accordance with design parameters and requires only routine maintenance. Fair- operating at or near design levels; however, non-routine renovation, upgrading and repairs are needed to ensure continued reliable operation. Poor- cannot be operated within design parameters; major renovations are required to restore the facility and ensure reliable operation. 298 Larry A. Fites, Engineer of Work, Engineers Report: Whitehawk Ranch Annexation to Graeagle Fire Protection District, 2007 and Whitehawk Ranch CSD and Graeagle Fire Protection District Annexation 2006, Plan for Providing Services, 2007. GFPD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 248 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY house vehicles. Graeagle Station #2 is in use by the District as a result of the 2007 Whitehawk Ranch annexation and is owned by Whitehawk Ranch CSD. It is currently used only as a garage for the vehicles. Graeagle Station #1 houses one Type I engine, one Type III engine, one Type 5 ALS Rescue, and one Type 1 Water Tender. The District plans to add other resources to its fleet as dictated by growth, revenue and service demand. Graeagle Station #2 has one Type II engine, which is owned by GFPD, and one Type 5 ALS rescue vehicle.299 Command vehicle is in the possession of the chief at all times. The District’s water reserves are represented by a 750,000 gallon tank and a one million gallon tank. The District has adequate capacity to provide fire service to its current service area and planned development in its future growth area. Infrastructure Needs The capital improvement plan in the 2007 engineer’s report proposes the following purchases: land for another firehouse and a structure in 2009, an assistant chief’s vehicle in 2010, a wildland engine in 2011, a wildland engine in 2012, an engine in 2015, a rescue vehicle in 2015, a chief’s vehicle in 2016, a rescue vehicle that would replace the one in Station in 2017, another engine in 2023, a tender in 2025 and an assistant chief’s vehicle replacement in 2025.300 The total value of planned purchases was estimated to be $3,890,700, with the annual average of $137,560 for 20 years. The assistant chief’s vehicle was not purchased in 2010. The District has plans to replace Station #2. The District purchased property in the fall of 2010; and construction is to start by the end of 2012. GFPD is in need of a new full fire station, due to the growth of the District and its vast territory. The construction will be financed through bank loans and local financing. The immediate vehicle need is replacement of the second Type I engine for Station 2. The District will use its equipment and apparatus replacement reserve for 50 percent down payment; the rest of the cost will be financed. There is also a longer term need for Type III engine since the current one is outdated. It will be financed the same way as Type I engine described above. 299 Larry A. Fites, Engineer of Work, Engineers Report: Whitehawk Ranch Annexation to Graeagle Fire Protection District, 2007. 300 Larry A. Fites, Engineer of Work, Engineers Report: Whitehawk Ranch Annexation to Graeagle Fire Protection District, 2007. GFPD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 249 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY Challenges The District reported several constraints to providing services.  Territory within the District’s service area but outside of its boundaries experiences prolonged response times due to the distance firefighters have to travel to respond to an incident,  Keeping and recruiting new volunteers is always a challenge, especially because of current economic condition,  Due to the recent recession, the District lost about $40,000 in secured taxes in the last two years. Service Adequacy There are usually two general indicators of service adequacy for municipal fire providers: ISO rating and response times. Fire services in the communities are classified by the Insurance Service Office (ISO), an advisory organization. This classification indicates the general adequacy of coverage. Communities with the best fire department facilities, systems for water distribution, fire alarms and communications, and equipment and personnel receive a rating of 1. GFPD has an ISO rating of 4 in the Graeagle and Whitehawk Ranch areas and 9B in the remaining territory of the District. The District was last evaluated in 2010. The guideline established by the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) for fire response times is six minutes at least 90 percent of the time, with response time measured from the 911-call time to the arrival time of the first-responder at the scene. The fire response time guideline established by the Center for Public Safety Excellence (formerly the Commission on Fire Accreditation International) is 5 minutes 50 seconds at least 90 percent of the time.301 Emergency response time standards vary by level of urbanization of an area: the more urban an area, the faster a response has to be. The California EMS Agency established the following response time guidelines: five minutes in urban areas, 15 minutes in suburban or rural areas, and as quickly as possible in wildland areas. The District’s response zones include rural and wilderness classifications. The District reports that its average response time is seven to eight minutes depending on where an incident occurs. An area that GFPD could improve upon is tracking its response times for each incident. The District reported that one of the Captains already started going over this year’s calls and making a dispatch time to scene graph. GFPD is planning to keep track of this information in the future. 301 Commission on Fire Accreditation International, 2000. GFPD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 250 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY The service area size302 for each fire station varies between fire districts. The median fire station in eastern Plumas serves approximately 20 square miles. Sierra Valley FPD serves the most expansive area, with 111 square miles served per station on average. Densely populated areas tend to have smaller service areas. For example, the average station service area for the City of Portola is 3.8 square miles. By comparison, each station in GFPD serves approximately 25 square miles. The number of firefighters serving within a particular jurisdiction is another indicator of level of service; however, it is approximate. The providers’ call firefighters may have differing availability and reliability. A district with more firefighters could have fewer resources if scheduling availability is restricted. Staffing levels in eastern Plumas vary from eight call firefighters per 1,000 residents in City of Portola service area to 42 in Beckwourth FD. By comparison, GFPD has approximately 20 firefighters per 1,000 residents. 302 Service area refers to the area that the agency will respond to, based on a first responder map used by the Sherriff’s office. GFPD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 251 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY Figure 13-6: Graeagle Fire Protection District Fire Profile Fire Service Facilities Firestation Location Condition Staff per Shift Vehicles Graeagle Station #1 7620 SR 89, Good Unstaffed 1 Type I engine, 1 Type III engine, 1 Type Graeagle, CA 5 ALS Rescue, 1 Type 1 Water Tender Graeagle Station #2 1127 Good Unstaffed 1 Type II engine (owned by GFPD), 1 Type Whitehawk 5 ALS Rescue Drive, Clio, CA Facility Sharing Current Practices: The District shares the Graeagle Station #1 meeting hall for training purposes with Beckwourth Ranger District and other fire service providers in Plumas County. GFPD rents out their meeting hall for community events. Future opportunities: The District believes that eventually the whole Mohawk Valley will be in GFPD and there is a high likelihood that one or more of the District's stations will be joint use stations with other service provider(s). A station staffed with ambulance is highly desirable. Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies The District is in need of a new full fire station. It also needs new Type I and Type III engines. District Resource Statistics Service Configuration Service Demand Staffing Base Year 2010 Configuration Base Year 2010 Statistical Base Year 2010 Fire Stations in District 2 Fire Suppression Direct Total Service Calls 131 Stations Serving District 2 EMS Direct % EMS 65% Sq. Miles Served per Station1 4 Ambulance Transport EPHCD % Fire/Hazardous Materials 8% Total Staff2 21 Hazardous Materials Direct % False 4% Total Full-time Firefighters 0 Air Rescue/ Ambulance Helicopter CareFlight % Misc. emergency 3% Total Call Firefighters 20 Fire Suppression Helicopter CalFire % Non-emergency 20% Total Sworn Staff per Station3 10 Public Safety Answering Point Sheriff % Mutual Aid Calls 5% Total Sworn Staff per 1,000 20 Fire/EMS Dispatch Sheriff Calls per 1,000 people 131 Service Adequacy Service Challenges Prolonged response times outside of District's boundaries in its Response Time Base Year 2010 service area; less tax income due to recession; volunteer recruitment. Median Response Time (min) NP Training Volunteers are required to train four times a month for three hours 90th Percentile Response Time (min) NP and do four to eight hours of online training. The goal is to have all ISO Rating 4 and 9B firefighters Firefighter I certified. Mutual & Automatic Aid Agreements GFPD has informal mutual aid agreements with all the fire districts in Plumas County. Notes: 1) Primary service area (square miles) per station. 2) Total staff includes sworn and non-sworn personnel. 3) Based on ratio of sworn full-time and call staff to the number of stations. Actual staffing levels of each station vary. GFPD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 252 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY GGRRAAEEAAGGLLEE FFPPDD DDEETTEERRMMIINNAATTIIOONNSS Growth and Population Projections  There are approximately 1,019 residents within the District.  The District experienced an increase in demand for services in the last few years due to an increase in new developments and existing lot build-outs.  Moderate growth in population and in service demand is expected within the District in the next few years. Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities and Adequacy of Public Services, Including Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies  The District’s existing facilities have the capacity to adequately serve current demand and short-term growth.  Infrastructure needs include a new fire station that will be constructed within a year and a half, a new Type I engine and a replacement Type III engine.  The District identified a number of future infrastructure needs to address future growth and deterioration of current facilities and equipment.  It is recommended that the County Sheriff’s Office work with the fire districts to update the ESN map that is used for dispatching, in order to adequately address any communication concerns and recent boundary changes.  GFPD could improve its Firefighter I certification rate of about ten percent.  An area that GFPD could improve upon is tracking its response times for each incident. The District has started to address this issue. Financial Ability of Agencies to Provide Services  The District reports that current financing levels are adequate to deliver services and accommodate anticipated growth.  The District performs capital improvement planning through engineer’s reports made prior to annexations. Capital expenditures were projected for a 20-year planning horizon.  The District maintains a reserve fund for vehicles, equipment and building, as well as contingency funds equivalent up to five percent of total expenditures. GFPD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 253 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY Status of, and Opportunities for, Shared Facilities  GFPD collaborates with other fire providers in Plumas County through informal mutual aid agreements, contracts and common trainings.  The District shares the Graeagle Station 1 meeting hall for training purposes with the Beckwourth Ranger District and other fire service providers in Plumas County. GFPD rents out their meeting hall for community events.  Opportunities for future facility sharing include a joint-use fire station with another service provider and staffing a station with an ambulance operated by EPHD. Accountability for Community Service Needs, Including Governmental Structure and Operational Efficiencies  GFPD demonstrated accountability and transparency by disclosing financial and service related information in response to LAFCo requests.  A governmental structure option is consolidation with or annexation of the C-Road CSD. Consolidation with other fire districts offers opportunities for shared resources and finances.  Other governmental structure options include annexation of Sierra Pacific Industries, Smith Creek, Clio and Johnsville areas.  The District would like to increase its operational efficiency by collaborating with other fire service providers more closely and sharing resources.  The County of Plumas is considering establishing a countywide fire marshal whose responsibilities may include enforcing fire code and conducting building inspections. GFPD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 254 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY 14. G R I Z Z LY L A K E COM M U N I T Y S E RVI C ES D I ST R I CT Grizzly Lake Community Services District (GLCSD) provides water services to the communities of Delleker, Crocker Mountain Estates and Grizzly Retreat, as well as wastewater services to the Delleker and Crocker Mountain Estates communities, and street lighting services in Delleker. A Municipal Service Review for the District was last completed in 2007. AAGGEENNCCYY OOVVEERRVVIIEEWW Background GLCSD was formed in 1965 as an independent special district—originally called the Grizzly Lake Resort Improvement District.303 The District was formed to provide water and wastewater services to residents in Delleker, Crocker Mountain Estates, and Grizzly Retreat. At some point in the District’s history, GLCSD reportedly took on street lighting services in the Delleker area from the County; however, neither the County nor the District has records of when or how this occurred. The District recently transitioned to a community services district (CSD).304 Prior to the reorganization, GLCSD was a resort improvement district (RID). RIDs were originally designed for unincorporated areas that were particularly suited to and used for recreational purposes, and that were held and used by residents of California which were inhabited only seasonally.305 The resort improvement district law greatly restricted the powers of the District to add new services. On July 17, 1997, special legislation was approved by the Governor changing RIDs into “registered voter” districts as opposed to “landowner voter” districts, as services provided by the District were no longer “seasonal,” and because for GLRID in particular, 80 percent or more of the assessed valuation of the land in the District was no longer in non-resident ownership.306 A new piece of legislation became effective January 1, 2011, permitting RIDs to easily convert to CSDs via expedited reorganization. Once GLRID converted to GLCSD, the District acquired the ability to secure grants and other funding without relying on government 303 Plumas BOS, Resolution No. 1535. 304 Plumas LAFCo, Regular Meeting Agenda, March 14, 2011, pg. 2. 305 GLCSD, Grizzly Lake Resort Improvement District Municipal Service Review 2007-2012, January 2007, pg. 6. 306 GLCSD, Grizzly Lake Resort Improvement District Municipal Service Review 2007-2012, January 2007, pg. 6. GLCSD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 255 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY entities, and the ability to take on new services (with LAFCo approval) such as implementing and managing the community park around Delleker Pond. The principal act that governs the District is the State of California Community Services District Law. CSDs may potentially provide a wide array of services, including water supply, wastewater, solid waste, police and fire protection, street lighting and landscaping, airport, recreation and parks, mosquito abatement, library services; street maintenance and drainage services, ambulance service, utility undergrounding, transportation, abate graffiti, flood protection, weed abatement, hydroelectric power, among various other services. CSDs are required to gain LAFCo approval to provide those services permitted by the principal act but not performed by the end of 2005 (i.e., latent powers). Boundaries GLCSD is located in the eastern part of Plumas County. The GLCSD boundary is entirely within Plumas County, and includes the communities of Delleker, Crocker Mountain Estates, and Grizzly Retreat. GLCSD provides services to non-contiguous areas—one is the community of Delleker located generally at SR 70 and Delleker Road, west of the City of Portola. The other area is Crocker Mountain Estates and Grizzly Retreat located generally at Grizzly Road and Valley View, north of SR 70. The District’s two bounded areas consist of approximately 1,297 acres or two square miles. 307 There have been two annexations to and one detachment from the District since its formation in 1965, as shown in Figure 14-1. In 1977, the Russell Detachment consisted of the removal of two territories known as Portola Heights and Welch Estates from the District. The Plumas Sierra Rentals property and Clark property were annexed in 1986 and 1996, respectively. Figure 14-1: GLCSD Boundary History Project Name Type of Action Year Recording Agency Grizzly Lake Resort Improvement District Formation 1965 LAFCo, SBOE Russell Detachment Detachment 1978 LAFCo, SBOE Plumas Sierra Rentals Annexation 1986 LAFCo, SBOE Clark Annexation Annexation 1996 LAFCo, SBOE Sphere of Influence In the Crocker Mountain Estates area, the District’s SOI is coterminous with its boundaries, and in the Delleker area, the District’s SOI extends substantially beyond its boundaries north and south of SR 70 to Meadowlark Lane in the west and the Portola city limits in the east. 307 Total agency area calculated in GIS software based on agency boundaries as of July 1, 2011. The data is not considered survey quality. GLCSD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 256 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY The SOI for GLCSD was adopted in 1982,308 and it was most recently updated in 2007.309 The SOI was originally updated in 2007 in LAFCo Resolution 2007-003; however, that was rescinded, as the SOI included an area adjacent to the City of Portola where the City is already providing water and wastewater utilities. A new updated SOI was adopted in LAFCo Resolution 2013-003. Extra-territorial Services The District provides extra-territorial water and wastewater services to two connections to the east of the Delleker area boundaries along SR 70, as shown in Figure 14- 1. It is unknown when these connections were added to the system. One parcel receives water and the other receives water and wastewater. Areas of Interest Of primary interest to the SOI update that the Commission will have to undertake, is the overlap in the District’s and City of Portola’s SOIs. The overlap area is illustrated in Figure 14-1, and generally extends from the City’s western limit to the District’s eastern boundary in the west. As both agencies provide water and wastewater utilities, the future provider of these services will need to be clarified in this area of SOI overlap. There are two areas to which the District indicated the potential to extend services— the SR 70 corridor and along Grizzly Road. The District wants to serve the SR 70 corridor, and wants active professional marketing to deal with developers in the area. Residents outside of the District’s Crocker Mountain bounds along Grizzly Road have indicated an interest in getting water services from the District. 308 LAFCo Resolution 82-07. 309 LAFCo Resolution 2007-013. GLCSD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 257 Lake Davis Rd G rizzly R d ·|þ} 70 S D elle ke r R d ·|þ} 70 rD rekelleD Grizzly Lake Community Services District 31 32 33 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 4 6 5 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 9 7 8 14 13 13 18 17 16 15 18 17 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 25 30 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 Portola McClears Rd 6 5 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 13 18 17 16 15 14 13 18 17 htroN 32 pihsnwoT htroN 22 pihsnwoT 14-1 Range 13 East Range 14 East Grizzly Lake CSD Legend Parcels Grizzly Lake CSD Resolution: 1535 Adopted: 5/3/1965 Major Roads Grizzly Lake CSD (SOI) City of Portola ·|}þ 70 CA State Highway Area Served Outside ² Grizzly Lake CSD (SOI) of District Resolution: 2007-013 Stream / River Sectional Grid (MDB&M) Adopted: Waterbodies 0 0.25 0.5 1Miles Source: Plumas LAFCo Map Created 5/4/2011 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY Accountability and Governance GLCSD is governed by a five-member board of directors who are to be elected to staggered four-year terms. There are currently five Directors, all of whom were elected at large. There has not been a contested election since formation. Current board member names, positions, and term expiration dates are shown in Figure 14-2. The Board meets on the first Wednesday of every month at 5:30 pm at the GLCSD office. Board meeting agendas are posted on the office bulletin board and are emailed to a distribution list. Minutes are available upon request and emailed to the distribution list. Figure 14-2: Grizzly Lake Community Services District Governing Body Grizzly Lake Community Services District District Contact Information Contact: Juli Thompson, District Secretary Address: 119 Delleker Rd., Portola, CA 96122 Telephone: 530-832-5225 Fax: 530-832-1319 Email/website: glrid@att.net Board of Directors Member Name Position Term Expiration Manner of Selection Length of Term Maurice D. Willis Chairman December 2011 Elected 4 years Susan Folland Vice-Chair December 2013 Elected 4 years Sharon Castaneda Director December 2013 Elected 4 years Fred Coates Director December 2013 Elected 4 years John Streeter Director December 2011 Elected 4 years Meetings Date: First Wednesdays of every month at 5:30 pm Location: At the office Agenda Distribution: Posted on office bulletin board & emailed to distribution list Minutes Distribution: Emailed to distribution list & available upon request In addition to the required agendas and minutes, the District does public outreach through quarterly newsletters and special notices in the billings. The District does not maintain a website. If a customer is dissatisfied with the District’s services, complaints may be submitted to the District Secretary who then reports these complaints to the Board. Complaints are related to odor in the tap water due to sulfites and rates. There were approximately 20 complaints in 2009. GLCSD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 259 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY GLCSD demonstrated accountability and transparency in its disclosure of information and cooperation with Plumas LAFCo. The District participated in an interview and cooperated with the document requests. Planning and Management Practices GLCSD is managed and operated by three district employees. The three staff members include the general manager, a licensed operator, and an operator in training (OIT). All three positions are full-time. The general manager and the chief operator report directly to the board. The District’s Board performs staff evaluations annually. Staff workload is monitored by timesheets broken down by utility, and a daily log of operations. The District currently does not evaluate agency-wide performance. The District is hoping to implement an annual report as a means to assess overall performance based on various indicators. The District does not conduct any benchmarking. The District’s financial planning efforts include an annually adopted budget for FY 10- 11, and annually audited financial statements. The financial statements were last audited for FY 09-10. The District currently does not have a capital improvement plan, although it does plan for designated reserves for specific capital projects over a 10-year planning period. The District is currently putting together a CIP with help from RCAC and CUPS. RCAC provides free assistance to rural entities in putting together a budget with a five-year plan. The CUPS program for asset management is helping GLCSD initiate a capital improvement program. Other planning documents include a facility fee study for the Delleker area completed in 2005. Existing Demand and Growth Projections Designated land uses within the District are primarily commercial and residential, with some light industrial, suburban and recreational uses near the City of Portola and in the communities of Delleker, Crocker Mountain Estates, and Grizzly Retreat.310 The total boundary area of GLCSD is approximately two square miles. In the Delleker area there are approximately 220 equivalent dwelling units. At build- out the Delleker are is anticipated to have 445 edu’s. 310 Plumas County Parcel Application. GLCSD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 260 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY Population The District has 278 service connections in Delleker, and 125 connections in Crocker/Grizzly Retreat.311 Of these connections, 392 are residences. Based on a countywide average household size of 1.9, the District has an approximate population of 766. Existing Demand The District has experienced little growth in recent demand, due to two separate building moratoriums on the system, which have subsequently been lifted. In the late 1990s, the California Department of Fish and Game (DFG) decided to eradicate Northern Pike known to exist in Lake Davis. To accomplish this task, DFG decided to treat the lake with a chemical called rotenone, which contaminated the public drinking supply.312 As a result of limited water supply, the District had to place a building moratorium in Crocker Mountain. No growth could occur while the building moratorium was in place. The District drilled a new well to supplement the water source capacity in the area, and the moratorium was lifted in 2007. Additionally, until recently, it was believed that there was insufficient fire flow to serve growth in an industrial park south of SR 70 in Delleker. The District established a building moratorium until fire suppression flows could be enhanced. During investigations of the fire hydrants in question in January 2011, District staff found that the valves were nearly closed. Once the valves were opened to full capacity, the fire flows well exceeded the minimums required by the California Building Standards for lifting the building moratorium. Projected Growth and Development The District had not developed formal population projections of its own. The State Department of Finance (DOF) projects that the population of Plumas County will grow by five percent in the next 10 years. Thus, the average annual population growth in the County is anticipated to be approximately 0.5 percent. Based on these projections, the District’s population would increase from 766 in 2010 to approximately 804 in 2020. Based on the DOF’s projections demand for service within the District would increase minimally through 2020. The DOF’s projections may be low given the development potential in the area. With the building moratorium lifted in the industrial park, several businesses have shown interest in building or expanding. Additionally, within the District’s SOI, proposed 311 GLCSD, Annual Inspection Report, California Department of Health Services, May 3, 2007, pg.1. Population figures are as of 2004. 312 GLCSD, Grizzly Lake Resort Improvement District Municipal Service Review 2007-2012, January 2007, pg. 17. GLCSD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 261 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY developments include Willow Creek and Wolf Meadows. The Willow Creek development would be located three and a half miles west of Delleker and consist of 210 residential units. The proposed Wolf Meadows project would be located just outside the District’s Delleker area boundaries to the northeast. Due to the unpredictable nature of the existing economy and housing market, these areas will likely not be developed within the short- term; however, they may be indicative of the long-term potential for growth. Growth Strategies The District is not a land use authority, and does not hold primary responsibility for implementing growth strategies. The land use authority for unincorporated areas is the County. The District does not take part in reviewing plans for proposed developments. In the past, the District has not provided input to the County on developments within its SOI, but outside its bounds. Financing The District reported that current financial levels are minimally adequate to deliver services. Specific challenges to financing include numerous foreclosures that have resulted in reduced revenues. Foreclosures create delinquent accounts, which are a challenge to collect on for the District. The foreclosure rate in the County is two percent; presently, within the District there are approximately seven properties with liens. The District operates out of a single enterprise fund for all three of the utilities (water, wastewater, and streetlighting). Revenue and expenditures for each utility are separated within the fund. The District’s total revenues for FY 09-10 were $330,695.313 Revenue sources included charges for services and fees for water, wastewater, and street lighting (81 percent), property taxes (12 percent), other operating revenue (seven percent), and interest income (one percent). Of the charges for services and fees, the majority of charges are from water services, while only one percent of charges are from street lighting services. GLCSD charges its residents fees for the services it provides. The fee and rate schedule is outlined in an ordinance most recently updated in March 2010. Separate fees are charged based on type of connection (residential or commercial), applicable reserve funds and long- term debt financing for historical projects. The fees are adjusted annually based on the adopted budget, not based on inflation. Specific fees are listed below. Water and wastewater rates are covered in the utility-specific sections. 313 GLRID, Financial Statement and Independent Auditor’s Report, September 22, 2010, p. 3. GLCSD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 262 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY Figure 14-3: GLCSD Revenue and Expenditures (FYs 10-11) Income/Expenses FY 09-10 Actual FY 10-11 Budgeted Income Property Taxes $38,769 12% $36,000 9% Other Operating Revenue $22,175 7% $3,340 1% Charges for Services/Fees: Sewer $124,898 38% $149,370 39% Charges for Services/Fees: Street Light $4,314 1% $4,440 1% Charges for Services/Fees: Water $140,101 42% $187,155 49% Interest Income $438 0% $300 0% Total Income $330,695 100% $380,605 100% Expenses Water Services $217,183 45% $188,564 52% Wastewater Services $234,740 48% $169,020 47% Street Lighting Services $5,699 1% $5,748 2% Depreciation $15,055 3% NP 0% Interest $14,709 3% NP 0% Total Expense $487,386 100% $363,332 Net Income -$156,691 $17,273 GLRID provides street lighting services to the Delleker area at a cost of $2.00 per month which is collected in each resident’s utility bill. The amount collected does not cover the cost of providing the service. In FY 09-10, streetlighting expenditures exceeded revenues by $1,385. During the 2007 MSR, it was reported that the District was going to review the costs and update the fee, which has not yet been completed. The District’s expenditures in FY 09-10 were $760,139. The District’s primary expenditures consist of water services (45 percent), wastewater services (48 percent) and depreciation (three percent). Other expenses are detailed in Figure 14-4. As can be seen from the figure, water and wastewater service expenditures exceeded the utility revenue sources by $157,000 in FY 09-10. The District finances capital expenditures through loans and certificates of participation, as well as through rates. The District conducts capital improvement planning in its annual budget for a 10-year planning horizon in order to allocate hook-up fees to specific projects. The District plans to compile a more formal capital improvement plan in the future. The District’s long-term debt is represented by certificates of participation issued for the Crocker Tank Project and a loan from the City of Portola to address the potential negative impact of the California Department of Fish and Game’s (CDFG) Pike Eradication Project.  Certificates of Participation, USDA: This $379,000 (principal only) U.S. Department of Agriculture loan was issued in 2005 to finance the Crocker Tank GLCSD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 263 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY Project.314 The loan is payable from the revenues of the District’s water enterprises. The balance with interest as of June 2010 was $379,000.  City of Portola loan: This funding with the City of Portola, in the original amount of $326,000, was secured to finance the mitigation of Lake Davis, as resulting from the Pike Eradication Project.315 The loan is payable from reimbursements from the State. As of June 2010, the District owed the City of Portola $5,637. The District currently does not have a reserve policy, but plans to allocate a financial reserve of 2.5 to five percent of revenue as part of the new budget. At the end of FY 09-10, the District had a negative unrestricted net asset balance of $57,961. The District participates in joint financing JPAs with the Special District Risk Management Authority (SDMRA) for workers’ compensation and is a member of the Special Districts Association JPA (CSDA). CSDA provides education and training, insurance programs, legal advice, litigation and public relations support, legislative advocacy, capital improvement and equipment funding, collateral design services, and current information relevant to special district management and operational efficiency. Regular membership dues range from $490 to $4,088 depending on a district’s operating budget. 314 GLRID, Financial Statement and Independent Auditor’s Report, September 22, 2010, p. 12. 315 GLRID, Financial Statement and Independent Auditor’s Report, September 22, 2010, p. 13. GLCSD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 264 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY WWAATTEERR SSEERRVVIICCEESS Service Overview GLCSD provides water retail services in the form of groundwater extraction and distribution. The District does not treat the groundwater. The District provides water services to the communities of Delleker, Crocker Mountain Estates and Grizzly Retreat. Additionally, the District provides water services to two connections outside of the Delleker are bounds along SR 70. The water systems are operated by approximately 0.25 FTEs dedicated to water services. The chief operator has a distribution certification of D3 and a treatment certification of T2, which exceeds the requirements of the two systems. Facilities and Capacity The District presently relies entirely on groundwater for both systems. The District has the potential to supplement with surface water from Lake Davis once the new WTP is online and operational. Delleker Delleker currently receives its domestic water supply from two commercial wells. Water is pumped from the Humbug Valley Groundwater Basin. The Department of Water Resources estimates storage capacity of the basin to be 76,000 acre-feet to a depth of 100 feet.316 Groundwater extraction for municipal and industrial uses is estimated to be 200 acre-feet. Deep percolation of applied water is estimated to be 200 acre-feet, meaning that the amount pumped by users is replaced by groundwater recharge. GLCSD, Gold Mountain CSD and the City are the only public users of the Humbug Valley Basin. GLCSD reported that there had been no periods of significant drawdown and there is little noticeable change in available water during droughts.317 The water from the Humbug Valley Groundwater Basin is considered to be high quality, and does not require treatment. Both wells are located next to Humbug Creek adjacent to Highway 70 and are approximately 500 feet deep. Each well taps into different aquifers and have a combined pumping capacity of 266 gpm. One well was built in 1985 and is considered to be in good condition. The other well was built in 1979 and is reportedly also in good condition. 316 Department of Water Resources, California’s Groundwater Bulletin 118 – Humbug Valley Groundwater Basin, 2004, p. 1. 317 Interview with Todd Roberts, Portola Director of Public Works, March 17, 2011. GLCSD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 265 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY The District has the potential to use water from the Fillippini Springs as well. However, the spring water has had positive bacteriological samplings and is presently offline. The District could bring this source online if necessary as they have the capability to chlorinate the water, but the District would prefer to find other high quality sources that do no require chlorination. When in use, water is piped from three concrete spring boxes located at the spring site approximately 5,000 feet west of Delleker. The pipe runs to a pump station, and from there runs to a storage tank. The spring can consistently produce 60 gpm. Combined, the wells provide the District with a total source capacity of 266 gpm or 0.38 mgd. Average daily demand in Delleker is 0.11 mgd or 29 percent of the total source capacity. Peak day demand is .29 mgd, which equates to 76 percent of total source capacity. Peak day demand is limited to the high-occupancy period in July and August. Source capacity should be sufficient to cover max day demand if the single largest water source was out, which the District does not presently achieve.318 The water from the wells is pumped to a relatively new 310,000-gallon steel bolted tank located on U.S. Forest Service Property on the mountain immediately behind Delleker. The District presently requires 360,000 to provide adequate fire flow (240,000) emergency flow (60,000) and diurnal flow (60,000). The District presently needs an additional 50,000 gallons of storage to meet emergency needs. At build-out of the community, the system will require approximately 484,000 gallons of storage. The existing distribution system consists primarily of approximately six miles of six inch asbestos cement water main pipe, with five percent PVC and five percent iron, and is generally adequate to provide maximum daily demand. According to DPH, the distribution system is generally considered to be in good condition. Crocker The Crocker area receives groundwater purchased from a well owned by the Plumas County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (PCFCWCD), as well as from a district-owned well. The District has historically received water from Lake Davis through a contract with Plumas County Flood Control and Water Conservation District. The District ceased use of the Lake Davis supply when, in 1997, the California Department of Fish and Game (DFG) treated the lake in an attempt to remove the invasive Northern Pike fish. Although Lake Davis is not currently being used as a source by the District, the District has the potential to return to the use of Lake Davis water after the summer of 2011, following the completion of a new 1.5 mgd treatment plant. At that time, the City of Portola will take over ownership of the plant from PCFCWCD and provide water to the District if requested, based on a contract with PCFCWCD. As of 2007, GLCSD had contract rights to up to 42.66 acre feet of water from the plant, which is to gradually increase to 60 acre feet in 2027. Presently, the District 318 GLCSD, Facility Fee Study, 2005, p. 5. GLCSD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 266 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY plans to continue use of the groundwater until such time that demand warrants use of the surface water. The District purchases water from PCFCWD from a well located at the old WTP, which pumps to a clearwell. The water then flows to the District’s new storage tank. The well and clearwell are owned by the County but operated by the District. The well has a capacity to pump 30 gpm of water. As a result of the Lake Davis treatment and a subsequent moratorium on building due to a lack of source capacity, the District installed a well in 2007 in the Crocker area. The well has the capacity to provide up to 130 gpm or 0.19 mgd. The well is new and considered to be in excellent condition. Combined, the two wells have the capacity to provided 0.23 mgd. Average daily demand in 2010 was 0.01 mgd, or four percent of the water source capacity for the area. Peak day demand was 0.03 mgd, which equates to 13 percent of source capacity. There are approximately 1.7 miles of six inch asbestos cement pipelines that carries water to the District’s main water storage tank located above Crocker Mountain Estates. The booster pumps also direct water through 8,000 feet of six inch asbestos cement pipeline to the Grizzly Retreat area. The distribution system is reportedly in good condition according to the District. The Crocker water storage tank was installed in 2005 and is considered to be in excellent condition. It is a 250,000-gallon all steel riveted tank. While the District doesn’t own the PCFCWCD clearwell, it can rely on that storage capacity during a short-term emergency or outage. Combined, the Crocker area has 500,000 gallons of available water storage. Based on the District’s peak day demand in the Crocker area, the storage tanks have sufficient capacity to provide for one two-hour fire (240,000 gallons) and about 8.5 days of water supply during peak demand period. Infrastructure Needs The District has identified $870,000 in desired capital improvements to the two water systems in the FY 10-11 budget. Timing and funding sources are not yet established for these projects. In the Delleker area, the District would like to install a new well to maintain sufficient source capacity to cover peak day demands should the well with the highest pumping capacity go offline. The District also indicated that additional capacity will be necessary should the acceptable level of uranium be lowered by the State, as one well may exceed the proposed lowered limit. The District intended to bring the Fillipini springs online in order to enhance source capacity; however, with the positive bacteriological samples the District has had to keep it offline. Options for enhanced capacity include an additional well or use of surface water from the new Lake Davis WTP. GLCSD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 267 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY While the commercial and new connections in the Delleker system are metered, the remaining connections in Delleker and all connections in Crocker are unmetered. The District is unable to track the amount delivered to the connections and to determine what percent of unaccounted for loss the distribution system is experiencing. The District identified a need to start metering of all of the connections, prior to the State required deadline of 2025. Challenges The District identified a particular challenge with regards to a lack of archived documentation. The District’s records prior to 2007 are minimal, particularly with regard to historical flows. Over the last two years, the District has been making efforts to accumulate and organize system information. Service Adequacy This section reviews indicators of service adequacy, including the Department of Public Health’s (DPH) annual system evaluation, drinking water quality, and distribution system integrity. Figure 14-4: GLCSD Water Service Adequacy Indicators Water Service Adequacy and Efficiency Indicators Service Adequacy Indicators Connections/FTE 1,656 O&M Cost Ratio1 $ 782,146 MGD Delivered/FTE 0.48 Distribution Loss Rate Unknown Distribution Breaks & Leaks (2010) 3 Distribution Break Rate2 39 Water Pressure 60+ psi Total Employees (FTEs) 0.25 Customer Complaints CY 2010: Odor/taste (0), leaks (0), pressure (0), other (0) Drinking Water Quality Regulatory Information3 # Description Exceedance of monthly MCL for Coliform (2001, 2002, 2006, Health Violations 7 2009, 2010) Monitoring Violations 1 Rountine monitoring for Coliform (2010) DW Compliance Rate4 92% Notes: (1) Operations and maintenance costs (exc. purchased water, debt, depreciation) per volume (mgd) delivered. (2) Distribution break rate is the number of leaks and pipeline breaks per 100 miles of distribution piping. (3) Violations since 2000, as reported by the U.S. EPA Safe Drinking Water Information System. (4) Drinking water compliance is percent of time in compliance with National Primary Drinking Water Regulations in 2010. The DPH is responsible for the enforcement of the federal and California Safe Drinking Water Acts and the operational permitting and regulatory oversight of public water systems. Domestic water providers of at least 200 connections are subject to inspections by DPH. During the Department of Public Health’s most recent inspection in 2007, DPH reported that the District’s water system is “in good condition and is operated in a GLCSD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 268 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY professional manner.” The inspection report did note a need for the District to update the emergency notification plan, provide the annual report to the drinking water program, and the consumer confidence report since it was not done the previous year. Drinking water quality is determined by a combination of historical violations reported by the EPA since 2000 and the percent of time that the District was in compliance with Primary Drinking Water Regulations in 2010. Since 2000, the District has had seven health violations due to exceedances of the coliform MCL at the wells and one monitoring violation for coliform. This equates to approximately 10 violations per 1,000 connections served. By comparison, the other water providers in the eastern region of the County had a median of 21 violations per 1,000 connections served during that same time frame. The median water service provider in the region was in compliance 96 percent of the time in 2010. The District was in compliance with drinking water regulations 92 percent of the time, which was below the regional average. Indicators of distribution system integrity are the number of breaks and leaks in 2010 and the rate of unaccounted for distribution loss. The District reported 39 breaks and leaks per 100 miles of pipe lines in 2010, while other providers in the region had a median rate of 12 breaks per 100 pipe miles. As a majority of the District’s connections are not metered, the District is unable to calculate the unaccounted for loss from the distribution system between the water source and the connections served. Other providers in the area averaged seven percent distribution losses. GLCSD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 269 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY Figure 14-5: GLCSD Water Service Tables Water Service Configuration & Infrastructure Water Service Provider(s) Water Service Provider(s) Retail Water GLCSD Groundwater Recharge None Wholesale Water None Groundwater Extraction GLCSD Water Treatment GLCSD Recycled Water None Service Area Description Retail Water The District serves the area within its boundaries in the communities of Delleker and Crocker, as well as two connections outside of its bounds. Wholesale Water NA Recycled Water NA Water Sources Supply (Acre-Feet/Year) Source Type Average Maximum Safe/Firm Humbug Valley Basin Groundwater 134 429 200 2 Fillippini Springs Spring 0 97 Unknown System Overview - Delleker Average Daily Demand 0.11 mgd Peak Day Demand 0.29 mgd Major Facilities Facility Name Type Capacity Condition Yr Built Delleker Well 1 Well 90 gpm Good 1979 Delleker Well 2 Well 176 gpm Good 1985 Fillippini Springs Source 60 gpm Poor Mid-1960s Storage Tank Storage 310,000 gallons Excellent 2001 Other Infrastructure Reservoirs - Storage Capacity (mg) 0.31 Pump Stations 0 Pressure Zones 1 Production Wells 2 Pipe Miles 6 System Overview - Crocker Average Daily Demand 0.01 mgd Peak Day Demand 0.03 mgd Major Facilities Facility Name Type Capacity Condition Yr Built Plumas County FCD Well Well 30 gpm NA NA Plumas County Clearwell Storage 250,000 gallons NA NA Crocker Mountain Well Well 130 gpm Excellent 2007 Crocker Storage Tank Storage 250,000 gallons Excellent 2005 Other Infrastructure Reservoirs 0 Storage Capacity (mg) 0.25 Pump Stations 1 Pressure Zones 3 Production Wells 1 Pipe Miles 1.7 Facility-Sharing and Regional Collaboration Current Practices: The District is collaborating with the City on the new Lake Davis WTP. Opportunities: As GLRID and the City of Portola serve adjacent communities there is an opportunity to work closely together in joint efforts to provide services in the most efficient, safe and cost effective way. Notes: (1) NA means Not Applicable, NP means Not Provided, mg means millions of gallons, af means acre-feet. (2) Based on the groundwater recharge rate reported by the Department of Water Resources. GLCSD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 270 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY Water Demand and Supply Service Connections Total Inside Bounds Outside Bounds Total 414 412 2 Irrigation/Landscape 0 0 0 Domestic 403 401 2 Commercial/Industrial/Institutional 11 11 0 Recycled 0 0 0 Other 0 0 0 Average Annual Demand Information (Acre-Feet per Year)1 - Delleker 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 Total Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Supply Information (Acre-feet per Year) - Delleker 2000 2 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 Total Unknown 120 107 110 113 116 119 Average Annual Demand Information (Acre-Feet per Year)1 - Crocker 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 Total Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Supply Information (Acre-feet per Year) - Crocker 2000 2 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 Total Unknown 14 17 18 18 19 19 Drought Supply and Plans Drought Supply (af)3 Year 1: No change Year 2: No change Year 3: No change Storage Practices Storage is for short-term emergency supply only. Drought Plan The District has a mandatory rationing plan from historical shortages. Water Conservation Practices CUWCC Signatory No Metering No Conservation Pricing No Other Practices No Notes: (1) Connections are not metered, consequently, the District does not track overall consumption or by connection type. As connections are not metered, the District had no estimates with regard to unaccounted for water loss in the water mains. (2) The District's has minimal records regarding historical flows prior to 2007. (3) The District has not estimated available supply during a three year drought. During past droughts, the District reported that it has experienced little difference in groundwater levels. GLCSD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 271 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY Water Rates and Financing Residential Water Rates-Ongoing Charges FY 10-111 Avg. Monthly Rate Description Charges Consumption2 A flat monthly fee dependent on meter size Residential and a surcharge for repayment of revenue $ 35.25 7,600 gal/month bonds for water storage tanks. Rate-Setting Procedures Most Recent Rate Change 3/1/10 Frequency of Rate Changes As needed Water Development Fees and Requirements Fee Approach Fees are established to cover regualar operation and maintenance of the system. Connection Fee Amount $2,900/connection Water Enterprise Revenues, FY 09-10 Operating Expenditures, FY 09-10 Source Amount % Amount Total $170,793 100% Total $245,272 Rates & charges $126,371 74% Administration $123,754 Property tax $19,385 11% O & M $93,429 Grants $0 0% Capital Depreciation $13,380 Interest $219 0.1% Debt $14,709 Connection Fees $0 0% Purchased Water $0 Other $24,818 15% Other $0 Notes: (1) Rates include water-related service charges and usage charges. (2) Water use assumptions were used to calculate average monthly bills. Assumed use levels are consistent countywide for comparison purposes. GLCSD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 272 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY WWAASSTTEEWWAATTEERR SSEERRVVIICCEESS Service Overview GLCSD provides wastewater services in two distinct geographic areas with two separate wastewater systems. In Delleker, the District provides wastewater collection, pond treatment, and discharge to land or surface water. In the Crocker area, the District provides collection and disposal into a community septic tank and evaporation ponds. The District also receives septage from other areas for treatment at its Delleker facility. In the Delleker area, services are provided to residences throughout the bounded territory; however, all of the commercial facilities in the area rely on private septic systems and have not connected to the District’s system. In the Crocker area, services are confined to the northern portion of the District’s territory. Wastewater services are not provided in the southern portion of the Crocker area in Grizzly Retreat. The wastewater systems are operated by approximately 1.75 FTEs dedicated to wastewater services. The chief operator has a wastewater certification of 2 for treatment and 4 for collection systems, which exceeds the requirements of the two systems. Facilities and Capacity Delleker The District’s Delleker WWTF operates under an NPDES permit (NPDES No CA0081744) and waste discharge requirements (Order No R5-2007-0019). The permit is set to expire May 1, 2012, and the District is presently in the process of updating the permit with the RWQCB. The District owns and operates a wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal facility. The treatment system consists of a headworks, five facultative lagoons with some mechanical aeration (5.5 acres total), and chlorination/dechlorination. The District reported that the treatment facility is in fair condition. Between November 1st and May 15th, wastewater may be discharged to the Middle Fork of the Feather River, but only when the Middle Fork of the Feather River flow is 40 cfs or more. Discharge to the Middle Fork of the Feather River is prohibited from May 16th to October 31st, during which time effluent is retained within the stabilization ponds for evaporation, percolation or future disposal. One pond is typically left dry to provide for emergency storage. The ponds range in surface area between 0.52 acres to 1.3 acres. The total surface area of the ponds is 5.16 acres and the total volume of the five ponds is 6.73 million gallons. However, with one pond dormant, the usable area is reduced in volume to 4.06 acres and 5.29 million gallons, respectively. The hydraulic detention time for the entire system ranges from 140 days in the summer to 39 days during the peak of the rainy season. GLCSD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 273 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY Between November 1st and May 15th, the current permit allows up to 0.1 mgd of wastewater to be discharged from the plant into the Feather River. The average daily flow to the treatment plant is approximately 0.06 mgd with peak flows as high as 0.13 mgd. Average daily dry weather flow is approximately 0.043 mgd, or 43 percent of the permitted discharge. While peak wet weather flows are in excess of the facility’s permitted discharge capacity, the flows are treated and stored in the ponds over a period of one to three months. Consequently, discharge levels never exceed permitted capacity. The collection system consists of six miles of six inch asbestos cement gravity pipelines. Due to the topography of the area, most of the existing system maintains good slope within the pipelines and there are no pumping stations within the system. There is generally adequate capacity throughout most of the system; however, additional demand would require the replacement of the South Delleker Drive sewer pipeline from SR 70 to the treatment plant. This pipeline demonstrates limited excess capacity during peak flow periods.319 Crocker The District operates the Crocker system under waste discharge requirements (Order No. 86-206) as issued by the RWQCB. The order is vague and does not enumerate the permitted capacity of the system. The Crocker Mountain Estates sewer system is a gravity-fed system that collects sewage in a 2,500-gallon underground concrete community septic tank. Black water drains to two percolation/evaporation ponds. The Grizzly Creek Retreat area does not share this wastewater system, as all the residents rely on private septic systems. It is generally believed that the system was built at the time the subdivision was created in the mid- 1970s. The District reported that the system is generally in fair condition. There are no flow meters in the Crocker system to document daily or annual demand. The District estimates that the capacity of the two ponds is 1.8 mg, of which only 90,000 gallons, or five percent, is in use at any given point.320 Given the low demand, the District operates entirely out of the smaller of the two ponds. The Crocker collection system is composed of 1.7 miles of pipelines and is generally considered to be in fair condition. Infrastructure Needs The District reported that infiltration and inflow issues are critical in the Delleker collection system. Several manhole structural problems have been identified, and the District began a grouting program in 2011, which has eliminated approximately 30 percent 319 GLCSD, Facility Fee Study, 2005, p. 6. 320 Interview with Randy Mark, Chief Operator, GLCSD, June 17, 2011. GLCSD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 274 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY of the infiltration in manholes. The District has also smoke tested about a third of the system to identify and eliminate inflow sources from roof drains, yard drains and damaged service connections. Additionally, the District has begun CCTV inspections of the sewer main lines to identify faulty break-in connections, offset and cracked joints and any illegal connections made to the system. The District plans to complete smoke testing of the entire system and have all manholes grouted this year. In the Crocker system, there is a need to install a device to easily divert flows between the two ponds. Presently, the District must pump effluent from one pond to the other if maintenance is necessary. Additionally, there is a need for flow meter devices to document daily and annual demands. The District has identified approximately $90,000 in needs for the two collection systems consisting of video inspections of both systems, manhole sealing, and line replacements. Once the video inspections of both systems have been completed, further needs will be identified and prioritized for improvement. Based on the District’s budget, planned capital improvements at the Delleker treatment ponds will cost approximately $795,000, which includes a treatment upgrade, installation of SCADA equipment, and engineering. Challenges The District has a particular challenge staying within total suspended solids (TSS) and biological oxygen demands (BOD) permitted levels, due to high infiltration and inflow levels in the Delleker system. The District has implemented smoke testing and CCTV inspections of the system to identify problem areas, and has sealed manholes to reduce the level of infiltration and inflow in order to lower the TSS and BOD levels. Service Adequacy This section reviews indicators of service adequacy, including regulatory compliance, treatment effectiveness, sewer overflows and collection system integrity. GLCSD has been issued 46 violations between 2005 and 2010. A majority of the violations were for TSS and BOD levels in excess of permitted conditions. Of the violations, seven were considered priority violations. As a result of these violations, the District was issued an Administrative Civil Liability Order in 2009 for six non-serious violations of permit effluent limitations outlined in the District’s permit for the Delleker facility. The District received another Administrative Civil Liability Order in 2010 for four serious violations of permitted effluent limitations and nine non-serious violations. In lieu of the fine, the District proposed expending $39,150 on a compliance project to rebuild and improve effluent pumping control and monitoring. GLCSD is required to complete construction of this project by October 2012. Forty-six violations equates to approximately 60 violations per 1,000 population served. By comparison, other wastewater providers in the eastern region of the County averaged 38 violations per 1,000 population served. GLCSD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 275 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY Figure 14-6: GLCSD Wastewater Service Adequacy Indicators Wastewater Service Adequacy and Efficiency Regulatory Compliance Record, 2005-10 Formal Enforcement Actions 2 Informal Enforcement Actions 16 Formal Enforcement Action Type Description of Violations Administrative Civil Liability Order 11/30/2010 Administrative Civil Liability Order 3/16/2009 Total Violations, 2005-10 Total Violations 46 Priority Violations 7 Service Adequacy Indicators Treatment Effectiveness Rate1 98% Sewer Overflows 2008 - 20102 6 Total Employees (FTEs) 1.8 Sewer Overflow Rate3 78 GPD Treated per FTE 1,714 Customer Complaints CY 10: Odor (0), spills (0), other (0) Source Control and Pollution Prevention Practices The District has a regular monitoring program of pollution sources and jets the system once a year. Collection System Inspection Practices The District has smoke tested about a third of the system this year and plans to complete smoke testing of the entire system by the end of 2011. Additionally, the District has begun CCTV inspections of the sewer main line. Notes: (1) Total number of compliance days in 2010 per 365 days. (2) Total number of overflows experienced (excluding those caused by customers) from 2008 to 2010 as reported by the agency. (3) Sewer overflows from 2009 to 2010 (excluding those caused by customers) per 100 miles of collection piping. Wastewater treatment providers are required to comply with effluent quality standards under the waste discharge requirements determined by RWQCB. The District reported that in 2010, it was out of compliance with effluent quality requirements on a total of seven days. Other wastewater providers in the eastern region of Plumas County were out of compliance on average nine days in 2010. Wastewater agencies are required to report sewer system overflows (SSOs) to SWRCB. Overflows reflect the capacity and condition of collection system piping and the effectiveness of routine maintenance. The sewer overflow rate is calculated as the number of overflows per 100 miles of collection piping. The District reported six overflows during the period from 2008 thru 2010, and which equates to an overflow rate of 78. Other providers in the region averaged an SSO rate of 3.8 per 100 miles of collection piping. There are several measures of integrity of the wastewater collection system, including peaking factors, efforts to address infiltration and inflow (I/I), and inspection practices. As discussed previously, the District’s collection systems have moderately high I/I with a peaking factor of 3.25 during heavy rain. Other wastewater providers in the region have an average peaking factor of 4.3. The District has instituted smoke and CCTV inspections of both systems, and is making efforts to seal all manholes. GLCSD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 276 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY Figure 14-7: GLCSD Wastewater Profile Wastewater Service Configuration and Demand Service Configuration Service Type Service Provider(s) Wastewater Collection GLCSD Wastewater Treatment GLCSD Wastewater Disposal GLCSD Recycled Water None Service Area Collection: Communities of Delleker and Crocker Mountain Estates Treatment: Communities of Delleker and Crocker Mountain Estates Recycled Water: NA Service Demand - Delleker Connections (2010) Flow (mgd) Type Total Inside Bounds Outside Bounds Average Total 256 255 1 0.06 Residential 256 255 1 0.06 Commercial 0 0 0 - Industrial 0 0 0 - Historical and Projected Demand (ADWF in millions of gallons per day)2 2005 3 2010 2015 2020 2025 Unknown 0.04 0.041 0.042 0.043 Service Demand - Crocker Mountain Connections (2010) Flow (gpd) Type Total Inside Bounds Outside Bounds Average Total 44 44 0 3,000 Residential 44 44 0 3,000 Commercial 0 0 0 - Industrial 0 0 0 - Historical and Projected Demand (ADWF in gallons per day)2 2005 3 20104 2015 2020 2025 Unknown 1,500 1,538 1,577 1,617 Note: (1) NA: Not Applicable; NP: Not Provided. (2) Projections are based on the 0.05 percent annual average growth rate projected by DOF for the entire County. (3) The District's has minimal records regarding historical flows prior to 2007. (4) The District does not have flow meters in the Crocker system. 2010 flows are estimated by the District. GLCSD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 277 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY Wastewater Infrastructure - Delleker Wastewater Collection, Treatment & Disposal Infrastructure System Overview Treatment level: Secondary Facility Name Capacity Condition Year Built Delleker WWTF 0.1 mgd Fair Mid-1960s Collection & Distribution Infrastructure Sewer Pipe Miles 6 Sewage Lift Stations 0 Treatment Plant Daily Flow (mgd) ADWF (mgd) % of ADWF Capacity in Use Peak Wet (mgd) Peaking Factor 0.04 40% 0.13 3.25 Infiltration and Inflow The District reported that infiltration and inflow issues are critical due to the age of the Delleker collection system and high ground water conditions. Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies There is a need to make improvements to the collection system to mitigate I/I issues to address high TSS and BOD levels. Wastewater Facility Sharing Facility Sharing Practices The District does not practice facility sharing with regard to wastewater services. Facility Sharing Opportunities Regionalization of sewer services in the Delleker/Portola area is a potential opportunity for facility sharing and regional collaboration. Joint efforts between the two agencies may maximize efficiencies, reduce costs, and aid the agency's to better leverage available resources. The District also identified the opportunity to share specaililzed equipment (i.e., CCTV) among other small wastewater providers in the area. GLCSD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 278 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY Wastewater Infrastructure - Crocker Wastewater Collection, Treatment & Disposal Infrastructure System Overview Treatment level: Primary Facility Name Capacity Condition Year Built Crocker Community Septic Tank 2,500 gallons Fair Mid-1970s 2 Evaporation Ponds 1.8 mg1 Fair Mid-1970s Collection & Distribution Infrastructure Sewer Pipe Miles 1.7 Sewage Lift Stations 0 Treatment Plant Daily Flow (mgd) ADWF (gpd) % of ADWF Capacity in Use Peak Wet (mgd) Peaking Factor 1,500 gpd NA Unknown NA Infiltration and Inflow The District reported that infiltration and inflow issues are not as critical in the Crocker area as they are in the Delleker area. The District has taken efforts to identify manholes and seal them to minimize I/I. The District will continue to smoke test and CCTV to identify any other areas of concern. Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies The primary need identified by the District for the Crocker system is the ability to easily divert flow between the two ponds when necessary for maintenance. There is also a need for flow meters in the system to document the level of demand. Wastewater Facility Sharing Facility Sharing Practices The District does not practice facility sharing with regard to wastewater services. Facility Sharing Opportunities The District identified the opportunity to share specialized equipment (i.e., CCTV) among other small wastewater providers in the area. Note: (1) The District's permit does not report a permitted capacity of the system. Capacity shown here is as estimated by the District. GLCSD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 279 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY Wastewater Rates and Financing Wastewater Rates-Ongoing Charges FY 10-111 g y Rate Description Charges Demand2 Residential Flat monthly charge based on $31.25 250 gpd connection size. Rate Zones None Rate-Setting Procedures Last Rate Change 3/1/2010 Frequency of Rate Changes Wastewater Development Fees and Requirements Fee Approach Fees are established to cover regular operation and maintenance of the system. Connection Fee Amount3 $2,900/connection Wastewater Enterprise Revenues, FY 09-10 Operating Expenditures, FY 09-10 Source Amount Amount Total $155,588 100% Total $236,415 Rates & Charges $126,345 81% Administration $125,874 Property Tax $19,384 12% O & M $108,866 Grants $0 0% Capital Depreciation $1,675 Interest $219 0% Debt $0 Connection Fees $0 0% Other $0 Other $9,640 8% Notes: (1) Rates include wastewater-related service charges and strength and flow charges. Average monthly charges calculated based on average consumption. Rates are rounded for presentation. (2) Wastewater use assumptions by customer type were used to calculate average monthly charges. Assumed use levels are 250 gallons per home per day, and are consistent countywide for comparison purposes. (3) Connection fee amount is calculated for a single-family home. GLCSD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 280 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY GGRRIIZZZZLLYY LLAAKKEE CCOOMMMMUUNNIITTYY SSEERRVVIICCEESS DDIISSTTRRIICCTT DDEETTEERRMMIINNAATTIIOONNSS Growth and Population Projections  The District serves a population of approximately 766.  The District has experienced little growth in recent demand, due to two separate building moratoriums on the systems, which have subsequently been lifted.  Based on DOF projections, the District’s population would increase to approximately 804 in 2020; however, the DOF’s projections may be low given the development potential in the area. Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities and Adequacy of Public Services, Including Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies  In Crocker, peak day demand for water constitutes approximately 13 percent of source capacity. The system has sufficient capacity to handle anticipated growth in demand well into the future.  Peak day demand in Delleker uses 76 percent of total source capacity. Source capacity should be sufficient to cover max day demand if the single largest water source was out; however, the District does not presently achieve this standard. Options for enhanced capacity include an additional well or use of surface water from the new Lake Davis WTP.  A majority of the connections in Delleker and all connections in Crocker lack meters, consequently, the District is unable to charge rates based on water use, track water delivered, and identify any water loss from the distribution systems.  During dry weather, the District uses approximately 43 percent of the capacity of the Delleker WWTF. In the Crocker system, the District uses on average five percent of the system’s discharge capacity. Both systems have adequate capacity for anticipated long-term growth.  Infiltration and inflow issues are critical in the Delleker collection system. The District has implemented a plan to inspect the entire system and identify and correct areas of concern.  There is a need for flow meter devices in the Crocker wastewater system to document daily and annual demands. GRCSD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 281 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY Financial Ability of Agencies to Provide Services  Current financial levels are minimally adequate to deliver services. Numerous foreclosures have resulted in reduced revenue to the District.  The amount collected for streetlighting services does not cover the cost of providing the service. The District should consider raising streetlighting fees.  The District has had challenges in covering expenditures with annual revenue. Service costs exceeded utility revenue sources by $157,000 in FY 09-10. The District had a negative unrestricted net asset balance at the end of the fiscal year.  GLCSD water rates are slightly below the regional median of other water service providers, while wastewater rates are significantly below the median of other wastewater providers in the region. Status of, and Opportunities for, Shared Facilities  The District is collaborating with the City of Portola on the new Lake Davis WTP.  Regionalization of sewer services in the Delleker/Portola area is a potential opportunity for facility sharing and regional collaboration. Joint efforts between the two agencies may maximize efficiencies, reduce costs, and aid the agency's to better leverage available resources.  There is an opportunity to share specialized equipment (i.e., CCTV) among other small wastewater providers in the area. Accountability for Community Service Needs, Including Governmental Structure and Operational Efficiencies  Local accountability is promoted by the relative small size of the District and the inherent degree of local control.  GLCSD demonstrated accountability and transparency in its outreach efforts to constituents and through cooperation with the MSR process.  It is a recommended practice that a District the size of GLCSD maintain a website where all district information is readily available to constituents.  As GLCSD and the City of Portola serve adjacent communities, there is an opportunity to work closely together in joint efforts to provide services in the most efficient, safe and cost effective way. Potential governance options include regionalization of sewer services or a collaborative agreement to share specialized equipment and mutual aid resources. GRCSD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 282 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY  Annexation of GLCSD extraterritorial service areas is an option that would promote logical boundaries. The District currently provides service outside of its bounds to two connections located on SR 70. GRCSD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 283 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY 15. G R I Z Z LY R A N C H COM M U N I T Y S E RVI C ES D I ST R I CT Grizzly Ranch Community Services District (GRCSD) provides retail water delivery, wastewater collection and disposal services, with the facilities to provide wastewater treatment as well. Services are provided through a contract with Pacific Environmental Resources Corporation. This is the first Municipal Service Review for the District. AAGGEENNCCYY OOVVEERRVVIIEEWW Background Grizzly Ranch CSD was formed in 2003321 as a dependent special district of the County. The formation was related to the specific subdivision development project, known as “Grizzly Ranch”. At that time, the territory of the proposed district was uninhabited. The purpose of the formation of the District was to provide “governance over the future community of Grizzly Ranch through an entity with all permitted powers/uses allowed under Community Services District law, and specifically to create powers to the provision of domestic community water delivery and sewer treatment services.”322 The formation resolution indicated that the governing body was to be a Board of Directors consisting of five members elected to staggered four-year terms, but until there are sufficient registered voters in the CSD, the Commission appointed the Board of Supervisors as the initial Board of Directors.323 Currently, the Board of Supervisors is still the governing body. The principal act that governs the District is the State of California Community Services District Law.324 CSDs may potentially provide a wide array of services, including water supply, wastewater, solid waste, police and fire protection, street lighting and landscaping, airport, recreation and parks, mosquito abatement, library services; street maintenance and drainage services, ambulance service, utility undergrounding, transportation, abate graffiti, flood protection, weed abatement, hydroelectric power, among various other services. CSDs are required to gain LAFCo approval to provide those services permitted by the principal act but not performed by the end of 2005 (i.e., latent powers).325 321 Board of Equalization. 322 Resolution 2003-020. 323 Resolution 2003-020. 324 Government Code §61000-61226.5. 325 Government Code §61106. GRCSD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 284 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY GRCSD is located in the eastern part of Plumas County and serves the subdivision of Grizzly Ranch on Grizzly Road. The nearest water and wastewater utility service providers include the City of Portola to the west, Beckwourth CSA to the east and Grizzly Lake CSD to the north. Boundaries GRCSD’s boundary is entirely within Plumas County. The District’s boundaries encompass approximately 1.6 square miles. 326 There have been no annexations to or detachments from the District since its formation. Sphere of Influence As a condition of approval of the District, the developer was to file an application to designate a Sphere of Influence within one year of formation. The developer never filed the application with Plumas LAFCo and the SOI for GRCSD was never adopted. LAFCo will need to adopt an SOI for the District during the SOI updates following the completion of this MSR. LAFCo staff previously found that there were property owners outside of the District that reportedly experienced a loss of water due to the operations of the newly formed GRCSD. While a previous LAFCo Staff Report indicated that these properties may need to be included in the District’s SOI, so they can be later annexed into the District,327 the District reported that there have been no complaints regarding this issue since those received at the commencement of the development. The development permit for Grizzly Ranch stipulated that groundwater monitoring be completed over five year period. As a result of this requirement, a groundwater monitoring report was completed in 2010, which found that “significant groundwater withdrawals by Grizzly Ranch have resulted in no long-term reduction in aquifer storage…even in dry years.” Additionally, it was found that there were no adverse effects on neighboring residential wells as a result of groundwater withdrawals at Grizzly Ranch. Consequently, it appears that drawdown on neighboring properties is not presently a concern. Extra-territorial Services The District does not provide services outside of its boundaries. Areas of interest The District did not identify any areas of interest. 326 Total agency area calculated in GIS software based on agency boundaries as of July 1, 2011. The data is not considered survey quality. 327 Plumas LAFCo Staff Report, Initiating SOI/MSR for Grizzly Ranch, 2004. GRCSD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 285 Grizzly Ranch Community Services District 8 9 10 A R P R O W E P P E L E G R A A F R D S S L N A K D R SORREL LN E P S MI T H C L U B H O 17 16 U S 15 E Z L Y D R Z G BI G G RI L Y R D C K T AI L R D Z A RI Z B L G R E D H A W K D W R O K R R C R E E OX SPA H R D F C N A R GRIZZLY RANCH RD Z Z L Y RI S RIDGE RD G SP R ICE POND RD IN G M E A D O STARFLOWER DR W D R 20 21 22 htroN 32 pihsnwoT htroN 22 pihsnwoT 15-1 Range 14 East Grizzly Ranch CSD Legend ² Resolution: 2003-020 Parcels Adopted: 8/25/2003 Major Roads Sectional Grid (MDB&M) Grizzly Ranch (No SOI) Stream / River Resolution: None Adopted: Waterbodies Grizzly Ranch CSD 0 330 660 1,320Feet Source: Plumas LAFCo Map Created 5/4/2011 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY Accountability and Governance Until there are sufficient registered voters in the District to assume governance responsibilities and elect the Board of Directors, GRCSD is governed by the County Board of Supervisors. Board members are elected by supervisorial district and serve staggered four- year terms. Current board members are Terry Swofford, Robert Meacher, Sherrie Thrall, Lori Simpson, and Jon Kennedy. The Board meets on the first three Tuesdays of every month at 10 in the morning in the Supervisor’s Board Room. Board meeting agendas are posted on the County’s website. Board meeting minutes are available on the County’s website. Figure 15-2: Grizzly Ranch CSD Governing Body Grizzly Ranch CSD District Contact Information Contact: Robert Perreault, Manager Address: 555 Main Street, Quincy, CA 95971 Telephone: 530-283-6222 Fax: N/A Email/website: bobperreault@countyofplumas.com Board of Directors Member Name Position Term Expiration Manner of Selection Length of Term Terry Swofford District 1 December 2012 Elected 4 years Robert Meacher District 2 December 2012 Elected 4 years Sherrie Thrall District 3 December 2014 Elected 4 years Lori Simpson District 4 December 2012 Elected 4 years Jon Kennedy District 5 December 2014 Elected 4 years Meetings Date: First three Tuesdays of every month at 10am. Location: Supervisors Board Room. Agenda Distribution: Posted on the County's website. Minutes Distribution: Posted on the County's website. The County makes available its budget, general plan, emergency operations plan and other documents on its website. Online CSD information includes financial information contained in the County budget and a webpage with a short description on the County website. The County reported that development of a separate website for GRCSD is a short- term goal. As part of its outreach efforts, GRCSD sends out the annually required consumer confidence report on the District’s water quality. If a customer is dissatisfied with the District’s services, complaints may be submitted to the operator or to the clerk who would then refer customers to the operator. The District’s general manager is notified of the complaints and oversees the process till complaints are resolved. Most of the complaints are about faulty equipment and bills. The District had two complaints in 2010. GRCSD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 287 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY Grizzly Ranch CSD demonstrated accountability and transparency in its disclosure of information and cooperation with Plumas LAFCo. The District responded to the questionnaires and cooperated with the document requests. Planning and Management Practices The Plumas County Engineering Department manages the District. The Director of Public Works acts as the general manager of the District and is supported by two other county staff. The District contracts with Pacific Environmental Resources Corporation (PERC) for facility operation and maintenance. PERC maintains one manager and two field staff that handle the day-to-day operations of both the water and wastewater facilities. County employees are evaluated at a minimum of once a year. The County employees track hours worked for GRCSD in a timesheet. PERC is evaluated informally every time the contract is renewed. PERC employees submit timesheets internally within the company. GRCSD reports that it does not perform formal evaluations of overall District performance, such as benchmarking or annual reports. The District is regulated by the Plumas County Public Health Agency – Environmental Health Division. Regular inspections are completed by the Division, which evaluate the District’s system and operations. The most recent inspection was completed in December 2009. The District’s financial planning efforts include an annually adopted budget. The financial statements are done by the County and are not audited. The District provided the adopted budgets for FYs 09, 10, 11 and 12 and financial statements for FYs 09 and 10. Other planning documents regarding district services are the Potable Water Master Plan, Sewer Master Plan and Recycled Water Master Plan. In order to plan for capital improvements, the District plans to conduct a comprehensive engineering report with projections. Existing Demand and Growth Projections The land uses within the District mainly include suburban, recreational and commercial.328 The area within the District’s boundaries is approximately 1.6 square miles. Population The District’s total build-out potential is 380 single family homes and 23 commercial units that include an 18-hole golf course, a golf clubhouse, and some limited commercial facilities such as small stores, shops and offices. When every single family home is constructed, based on an average household size throughout the County of 1.9 people, the estimated population of the subdivision will be 722. 328 Plumas County Parcel Application. GRCSD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 288 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY Presently, 46 homes have been built, and 12 commercial facilities, which equates to an estimated population of 87. Existing Demand The District reported that historically growth in population and service demand had been about one percent annually. Presently, the District provides services to 58 water and wastewater connections and one recycled water connection. Between 2006 and 2010, the District has added 23 connections to the system. Demand is higher in the summer when there is a higher rate of occupancy. Projected Growth and Development The District anticipates growth in population and similarly in service demand in the next few years, as the economy recovers; however, no formal population projections have been made by the District. The State Department of Finance (DOF) projects that the population of Plumas County will grow by five percent in the next 10 years. Thus, the average annual population growth in the County is anticipated to be approximately 0.5 percent. Based on these projections, the District’s population would increase from 87 in 2010 to approximately 91 in 2020. It is anticipated that demand for service within the District will increase minimally based on the DOF population growth projections through 2020. The District reported that Grizzly Ranch subdivision has the potential to experience high growth, but the recent recession stalled the development. Empty lots are located throughout the property. Presently, development is concentrated around the golf course. The District anticipates an increase in demand for services if construction resumes, but reports that there is plenty of capacity to serve it. Grizzly Ranch is a new system that was designed to serve build-out of the entire area. Growth Strategies The District is not a land use authority, and does not hold primary responsibility for implementing growth strategies. The land use authority for unincorporated areas is the County. GRCSD does not have an SOI proposal for the Commission’s consideration at this time. There are limited opportunities for expansion of the District’s boundaries, particularly given that the system was designed for build-out of the Grizzly Ranch subdivision alone. Neighboring areas are primarily lower density areas with private water and septic systems. The District indicated that there may be a potential to grow into Dixie Valley. GRCSD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 289 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY Financing The District reported that the current financing level is adequate to deliver services; however, the District’s revenue has recently waned due to the recession. Due to a slowdown in new development, the District has experienced a decline in connection fee revenue. The District operates out of a single fund for administration costs and both water and wastewater services. The District’s primary revenue source is a benefit assessment (96 percent) on each parcel. Other revenue sources in FY 09-10 included interest on investments (two percent) and connection fees (two percent). The District does not receive revenue from property taxes. The District charges a benefit assessment on each developed and undeveloped parcel regardless of use, which was first assessed in FY 04-05 and increases four percent annually. In FY 09-10, the assessment was $1,328.52 per lot. Based on the budget prepared to determine the assessment, $506.12 is anticipated to be used for water services and $822.40 is anticipated to be used for wastewater services, assuming administration costs are split evenly between the two utilities.329 Since the District operates out of a single fund for both utilities, actual expenditures by service type are not available. The District charges a combined connection fee of $6,000 for hookup to the District’s system for both water and wastewater services. In FY 09-10, there was one new connection to the system. Figure 15-3: GRCSD Revenues and Expenditures Income/Expenses FY 09-10 Budgeted FY 09-10 Actual FY 10-11 Budgeted Income Special Assessment $300,000 76% $386,995 96% $300,000 76% Use of Money $17,000 4% $9,955 2% $17,000 4% Connection Fees $80,000 20% $6,000 2% $80,000 20% Total Income $397,000 100% $402,950 100% $397,000 100% Expenses Salaries & Benefits $5,000 1% $0 0% $5,000 1% Services & Supplies $394,500 85% $358,300 100% $394,500 85% Contigencies $63,198 14% $0 0% $63,198 14% Total Expense $462,698 100% $358,300 100% $462,698 100% Net Income -$65,698 $44,650 -$65,698 329 GRCSD, Proposed Budget, March 3, 2003, p. 16. GRCSD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 290 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY Based on the District’s budgets for FY 09-10 and FY 10-11, the District assumes the same expenditures each year for budgeting purposes, which includes a shortfall of $65,698, regardless of the previous year’s expenditures. The District’s expenditures in FY 09-10 were $358,300. The District’s primary expenditures consisted of payments to the contract service provider (93 percent) and other services and supplies (seven percent). In FY 09-10, no expenditures were attributed to administration of the District by county staff. The monthly charges paid by the District to PERC for operations are $8,998 in 2011. The monthly charges are adjusted annually. There are supplementary services that were identified in the addendum to the contract. The cost of these supplementary services varies depending on the number of hours the contractor puts in each month. In June 2011, the District was billed an additional $4,080. Any necessary capital expenditures are financed through the benefit assessment. Short- term capital improvements are planned for in the District’s annual budget. Overall capital needs through build-out of the subdivision are outlined in the District’s master plans for the sewer and water systems. The District did not have any long-term debt at the end of FY 09-10. The District does not have a reserve goal, but currently maintains about $695,616 in its reserve, which is approximately two years in operating expenditures. The District does not participate in any joint power authorities (JPAs) or joint financing mechanisms. GRCSD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 291 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY WWAATTEERR SSEERRVVIICCEESS Service Overview GRCSD provides retail water services consisting of groundwater extraction, treatment and distribution to scattered developed lots throughout the Grizzly Ranch subdivision. Water system operation and maintenance are provided by a contract operator. The operator dedicates approximately 40 hours to the GRCSD water system each week. The contract operator has a certification level of D1 for distribution and T4 for treatment, which exceeds the required certification levels of the system. Facilities and Capacity The District’s water system infrastructure includes a treatment plant, three wells, a storage tank, and approximately six miles of pipelines. All of the infrastructure has been constructed since 2004 and is considered to be in excellent condition. The construction of the water system for the subdivision has been split into eight separate units, of which four have been completed. The remaining four units will be developed as demand warrants. The District straddles the Sierra Valley Groundwater Basin and an undefined groundwater aquifer. The Department of Water Resources estimates storage capacity of the Sierra Valley Basin to be 7.5 million acre-feet to a depth of 1000 feet.330 Groundwater extraction for agricultural, municipal and industrial uses is estimated to be 3,510 acre-feet annually. Deep percolation of applied water is estimated to be 2,100 acre-feet, meaning that the amount pumped by users is not fully replaced by groundwater recharge. Increases in groundwater development in the mid to late 1970s resulted in the cessation of flow in many artesian wells and large pumping depressions. Since the 1990’s, groundwater levels in the basin have recovered to mid-1970 levels.331 As previously mentioned, a groundwater monitoring report was completed in 2010, which indicated that there had been no long- term reduction in aquifer storage as a result of significant groundwater withdrawals by Grizzly Ranch. The poorest quality groundwater from the Sierra Valley Basin is found in the central west side of the valley where fault-associated thermal waters and hot springs yield water with high concentrations of boron, fluoride, iron, and sodium. Several wells in this area also 330 DWR, Sierra Valley Basin - Groundwater Bulletin 118, 2004, p. 1. 331 DWR, Sierra Valley Basin – Groundwater Bulletin 118, 2004, p. 2. GRCSD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 292 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY have high arsenic and manganese concentrations.332 Due to high-levels of iron, manganese and arsenic in the District’s groundwater, it treats for these minerals. The District owns three wells; however, at present only one well is online and included in the District’s permit. Well 3P2 is currently the District’s single operational permitted source of water supply. The well has a maximum pumping capacity of 225 gpm and a reliable safe yield (and permitted capacity) of 115 gpm. As part of a study related to aquifer in hardrock, DWR revised the capacity of the well to 20 gpm, which defines the well’s current maximum pumping allowed.333 The revised well yield was set to see how the aquifer responds to the recommended extraction rates and recharge. DWR stated that the permit capacity for Well 3P2 could be increased depending on how the aquifer responds to the recommended extraction rates and recharge.334 Well 1P is no longer in use, as it is a challenge to dispose of arsenic contaminated filter backwash water. Well 1P has a maximum pumping capacity of 200 gpm and a reliable safe yield (and permitted capacity) of 30 gpm. DWR has revised the capacity of the well to 135 gpm based on a 90-day sustained yield. Until recently, Well 9M was not connected to the District’s system. When Well 1P was taken offline due to arsenic levels in the treatment backwash, the District needed to find an additional water source to come into compliance with permit requirements. Well 9M was recently connected to the system to ensure adequate source capacity, but was not yet permitted, as of the drafting of this report. The capacity as assigned by DWR is 135 gpm for Well 9M. Average daily demand is approximately 27 gpm, which equates to 135 percent of the Well 3P2’s revised pumping capacity. Once Well 9M is permitted, the average daily flow will be approximately 17 percent of the combined capacity of Wells 3P2 and 9M. The treatment plant provides injection of a sodium hypochlorite solution followed by treatment for iron, manganese and arsenic. Iron, manganese and arsenic are removed by a two-stage filtration process; the first stage is an iron and manganese oxidation and filtration process, and the second stage is an arsenic filtration process. The plant was constructed in 2004 and is considered to be in excellent condition. The plant has the capacity to treat 0.36 mgd. Presently, average daily demand is 0.039 mgd and peak day demand is 0.13 mgd, which is well within the plant’s capacity. The storage tank is composed of welded steel with a capacity of 675,000 gallons. There is sufficient storage to provide two hours of fire flow (240,000 gallons), plus operational 332 Ibid. 333 Plumas County Public Health Agency, Public Water System Inspection Report, 2009, p. 1. 334 Correspondence from DWR, Dan McManus, Groundwater Section – Chief, May 3, 2007. GRCSD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 293 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY (275,000 gallons) and emergency (160,000 gallons) storage for the currently approved 185 connections.335 The distribution system is composed of 6.2 miles of steel and PVC piping. Infrastructure Needs The primary infrastructure need related to water services is an added water source to replace Well 1P and add capacity for full build-out of the subdivision. Discontinuing use of Well 1P limits the available water sources to only Well 3P2, which is not compliant with the District’s operating permit conditions.336 During the Plumas County Public Health Agency’s most recent inspection, the Agency reported that “the CSD must provide and maintain at least two sources of drinking water by either restoring the use of Well 1P or in coordination with an amended water system operating permit, add one or more sources.” Options to address this issue include 1) arsenic treatment changes to reduce arsenic concentrations in backwash water, and 2) connecting Well 9M as a replacement or additional water source. The District has elected to connect Well 9M to the system, but the well is not yet permitted. During the most recent inspection by the Plumas County Public Health Agency, several needs and deficiencies for both wells were identified. For Well 1P the following deficiencies were recognized:  Install a casing vent that opens downward with a fine mesh metal screen;  Provide at least a 100 ft. separation from the well to the water feature pond and stream, and the recycled water irrigation system; and  Modify or replace the enclosure shed to allow for access to maintenance and monitoring equipment and to effectively exclude animals. Needs and deficiencies for Well 1P identified by the Plumas County Public Health Agency include:  Provide at least a 100 ft. separation from the recycled water irrigation system; and  Modify or replace the enclosure shed to allow for access to maintenance and monitoring equipment and to effectively exclude animals. Of these needs and deficiencies, the District reported that all had been adequately addressed by the developer since the inspection in 2009. 335 Plumas County Public Health Agency, Public Water System Inspection Report, 2009, p. 9. 336 Ibid, p.4. GRCSD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 294 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY Challenges The District presently has a particular challenge with arsenic in excess of permitted levels in backwash from treatment that is discharged to the irrigation storage pond. The District has addressed this issue by taking Well 1P offline, and connecting Well 9M in order to come into compliance with the District’s permit conditions. The District has yet to formally add Well 9M to the District’s permit. Service Adequacy This section reviews indicators of service adequacy, including the Plumas County Public Health Agency system evaluation, drinking water quality, and distribution system integrity. Figure 15-4: GRCSD Water Service Adequacy Indicators Water Service Adequacy and Efficiency Indicators Service Adequacy Indicators Connections/FTE 59 O&M Cost Ratio1 6,063,538 MGD Delivered/FTE 0.04 Distribution Loss Rate 10% Distribution Breaks & Leaks (2010) 1 Distribution Break Rate2 16 Water Pressure 36+ psi Total Employees (FTEs) 1 Customer Complaints CY 2010: Odor/taste (0), leaks (0), pressure (0), other (2) Drinking Water Quality Regulatory Information3 # Description Health Violations 0 NA Monitoring Violations 0 NA DW Compliance Rate4 100% Notes: (1) Operations and maintenance costs (exc. purchased water, debt, depreciation) per volume (mgd) delivered. (2) Distribution break rate is the number of leaks and pipeline breaks per 100 miles of distribution piping. (3) Violations since 2000, as reported by the U.S. EPA Safe Drinking Water Information System. (4) Drinking water compliance is percent of time in compliance with National Primary Drinking Water Regulations in 2010. The County Public Health Agency is responsible for the enforcement of the federal and California Safe Drinking Water Acts and the operational permitting and regulatory oversight of public water systems of 199 connections or less. These systems are subject to inspections by the County Public Health Agency. During the Agency’s most recent annual inspection in 2009, the Agency reported that GRCSD’s water system appears to be generally in good condition and overall well managed.337 The inspection report did note a need to update the treatment operations plan to include the elements as specified in the operating permit and create a distribution operations plan. 337 Department of Public Health, Letter to the District Re: Annual Inspection Report, April 25, 2008, p. 1. GRCSD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 295 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY Drinking water quality is determined by a combination of historical violations reported by the EPA since 2000 and the percent of time that the District was in compliance with Primary Drinking Water Regulations in 2010. Since 2000, the District has had no health violations at the wells. By comparison, the other water providers in the eastern region of the County had a median of 21 violations per 1,000 connections served during that same time frame. The median water service provider in the region was in compliance 96 percent of the time in 2010. The District was in compliance with drinking water regulations 100 percent of the time, which was above the regional average. Indicators of distribution system integrity are the number of breaks and leaks in 2010 and the rate of unaccounted for distribution loss. The District reported 16 breaks and leaks per 100 miles of pipe lines in 2010, while other providers in the region had a median rate of 12 breaks per 100 pipe miles. The District loses approximately 10 percent of water between the water source and the connections served, which was relatively high compared to other providers in the area that averaged seven percent distribution losses. GRCSD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 296 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY Figure 15-5: GRCSD Water Service Tables Water Service Configuration & Infrastructure Water Service Provider(s) Water Service Provider(s) Retail Water GRCSD Groundwater Recharge None Wholesale Water None Groundwater Extraction GRCSD Water Treatment GRCSD Recycled Water GRCSD Service Area Description Retail Water Scattered developed properties throughout the District's boundaries. Wholesale Water NA Recycled Water Grizzly Creek Golf Course Water Sources Supply (Acre-Feet/Year) Source Type Average Maximum2 Safe/Firm3 Sierra Valley Basin Groundwater 44 32 1,032 System Overview Average Daily Demand 38,906 gpd Peak Day Demand 126,000 gpd Major Facilities Facility Name Type Capacity Condition Yr Built GRCSD Treatment Plant Treatment 0.36 mgd Excellent 2004 Well 1P Well 135 gpm4 Out of service 2004 Well 3P2 Well 20 gpm4 Excellent 2004 Well 9M Well 135 gpm4 Excellent 2005 Other Infrastructure Reservoirs 1 Storage Capacity (mg) 0.68mg Pump Stations 1 Pressure Zones 3 Production Wells 2 Pipe Miles 6 Facility-Sharing and Regional Collaboration Current Practices: Administration for the District is provided by the County, which operates out of county facilities with other county departments. Opportunities: No further opportunities to share facilities were identified. Notes: (1) NA means Not Applicable, NP means Not Provided, mg means millions of gallons, af means acre-feet. (2) Maximum supply with only Well 3P2 in operation based on revised permitted capacity by DWR. (3) Based on the estimated groundwater recharge rate reported in the District's Potable Water Master Plan. (4) Revised capacity by DWR in a letter to CDPH dated May 3, 2007. GRCSD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 297 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY Water Demand and Supply Service Connections Total Inside Bounds Outside Bounds Total 59 59 0 Irrigation/Landscape 0 0 0 Domestic 46 46 0 Commercial/Industrial/Institutional 12 12 0 Recycled 1 1 0 Other 0 0 0 Average Annual Demand Information (Acre-Feet per Year) 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 Total NA NP 39 40 41 42 43 Residential NA NP1 NP1 NP1 NP1 NP1 NP1 Commercial/Industrial NA NP1 NP1 NP1 NP1 NP1 NP1 Irrigation/Landscape NA NP1 NP1 NP1 NP1 NP1 NP1 Other NA NP1 NP1 NP1 NP1 NP1 NP1 Supply Information (Acre-feet per Year) 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 Total NA NP 44 45 46 47 48 Imported NA 0 0 0 0 0 0 Groundwater NA NP 44 45 46 47 48 Surface NA 0 0 0 0 0 0 Recycled1 NA 0 0 NP NP NP NP Drought Supply and Plans Drought Supply (af)3 Year 1: No change Year 2: No change Year 3: No change Storage Practices Storage is for short-term emergency supply only. Drought Plan None. Water Conservation Practices CUWCC Signatory No Metering No Conservation Pricing No The Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions for Grizzly Ranch set forth minimum requirements for the landscaping of areas of the homesite. Generally, enhanced vegetation zones are the only areas that may receive permanent irrigation systems, and owners are encouraged to minimize irrigated areas on their home sites. The use of traditional spray type systems will generally be limited to turf areas, and drip irrigation Other Practices systems will be required in most landscape situations. Notes: (1) The connections are not metered, and demand by connection type is unknown. (2) The amount of recycled water that is provided in the future will depend on wastewater flows meeting the threshold necessary to turn on the recycled water facility. (3) The District has not estimated available supply during a three year drought. During past droughts, the District reported that it has experienced little difference in groundwater levels. GRCSD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 298 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY Water Rates and Financing Residential Water Rates-Ongoing Charges FY 10-11 Avg. Monthly Rate Description Charges Consumption1 Flat water and sewer assessment per lot Developed and served of $1,328.52, of which water undeveloped lots $ 42.18 7,600 gal/month services are planned to account for 38 (regardless of use) percent of expenditures. Rate-Setting Procedures Most Recent Rate Change 7/1/10 Frequency of Rate Changes Annually Water Development Fees and Requirements Fee Approach The District's benefit assessment was established in 2004 to cover the estimated budgeted costs of operation and maintenance of the water and wastewater systems. The assessment was calculated to cover operational, capital replacement and administration costs. Connection Fee Amount The District charges a flat hook-up fee of $6,000 for both water and sewer services. Water Enterprise Revenues, FY 09-10 Operating Expenditures, FY 09-10 Source Amount % Amount Total $153,511 100% Total $236,478 Rates & charges $0 0% Administration $0 Property tax $0 0% O & M $236,478 Grants $0 0% Capital Depreciation NP Interest $3,792 2% Debt $0 Connection Fees $2,286 1% Purchased Water $0 Other - Benefit Assessment $147,433 96% Other $0 Notes: (1) Water use assumptions were used to calculate average monthly bills. Assumed use levels are consistent countywide for comparison purposes. GRCSD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 299 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY WWAASSTTEEWWAATTEERR SSEERRVVIICCEESS Service Overview The District maintains facilities to provide wastewater services in the form of collection, treatment, and disposal, as well as recycled water for irrigation purposes; however, presently, the District does not provide treatment services, as influent flows do not meet the threshold level needed to turn on the District’s treatment facility. All sewage is pumped and hauled out to a separate facility for treatment by a contractor. Once flows have reached 6,000 gpd, which the District is reportedly nearing during high demand periods in the summer, the treatment facility will be operational. The system is operated by a contract provider with one manger and two field staff who contribute 20 hours per week to the District’s wastewater operations and maintenance. While it is not in the contractor’s agreement, the company presently inspects, maintains and repairs the grinder pumps and force main as a courtesy to the District. The District and the contractor are in the process of adding these services to the contract. The chief operator maintains a Grade III Certification for the treatment facility, which exceeds the required certification level of the system. Facilities and Capacity Constructed facilities include a wastewater treatment/recycled water facility, an emergency storage pond, an irrigation storage pond, and 5.8 miles of collection pipeline. As the facilities have all been constructed since 2004, they are all considered to be in excellent condition. The Grizzly Ranch development has been designed in eight units or phases. The low pressure collection system is constructed and operable in units one through five. The sewer system in unit six has been designed but not constructed. The sewer systems for units seven and eight have been neither designed nor built; however, the flow contribution from these two units has been accounted for in the sizing of the system. The system is designed to serve the community to build-out. The District operates under an NPDES permit (Order No. R5-2005-0170). The order expired in November 2010, but a new permit has not yet been issued. The District is in the process of applying for renewed permit. The owners of the golf course operate under separate requirements for use and management of the recycled water on the golf course. As previously mentioned the treatment facility is not presently in operation, due to low influent flows, and all effluent is collected and hauled to a treatment facility by a contractor. The WWTP has a design capacity of 81,000 gpd, and according to the NPDES permit, the 30-day average daily dry weather discharge flow to Big Grizzly Creek shall not exceed 81,000 gpd. Average daily flows in 2010 were 2,500 gpd, which is approximately three percent of the facility’s permitted capacity. Peak flows are not correlated to wet weather, GRCSD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 300 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY but instead are highest during summer months when the occupancy rate is higher. The peak monthly average daily flow is: 3,600 gallons per day (August 2010), or four percent of the facility’s permitted capacity. According to the District’s NPDES permit, the District shall cease wastewater pumping and hauling from the facility, and begin operation of the facility, no later than the date at which the monthly average dry weather flow to the facility reaches 6,000 gallons per day. Once the treatment facility is operating, treated effluent may be disposed of in the Big Grizzly Creek or the irrigation storage pond for use at the Grizzly Creek Golf Course. Between November 16th and the last Saturday in April, when dilution requirements can be met, effluent may be discharged into the Big Grizzly Creek. When dilution requirements cannot be met, and from the last Saturday in April to November 15th, reuse of the treated effluent (recycled water) for golf course irrigation may be practiced. Backwash water from the water treatment facility is discharged to the irrigation pond. The NPDES permit requires the Discharger to monitor the backwash water to assure excessive arsenic is not being discharged. On several occasions, arsenic levels have exceeded permitted concentrations. The District has had 17 violations due to arsenic level exceedances between 2008 and 2010. The District has ceased use of Well 1P and disconnected it from the system in order to lower arsenic levels in the backwash. The collection system is composed of 5.8 miles. The collection system is a sealed “Low Pressure Collection System” and is pressurized to the wastewater facility via household grinder pump stations. A pressurized sewer system has the additional advantage of reduced inflow and infiltration from rainfall, runoff and groundwater. The peak wet weather flow to the treatment plant is therefore less from a low pressure sewer system than from a gravity sewer. Low pressure sewers provide a more consistent strength of wastewater during heavy rainfall events. Infrastructure Needs As the facilities are new, there are few infrastructure needs. The primary need identified is a means to keep arsenic levels in the water treatment backwash within permitted levels. Options to address this issue include 1) arsenic treatment changes to reduce arsenic concentrations in backwash water, and 2) connecting Well 9M as a replacement or additional water source with lower arsenic levels. Presently, the District has disconnected the well with the highest arsenic content from the system, and has elected to connect Well 9M. Challenges The District presently has a particular challenge meeting permitted arsenic levels in backwash from treatment that is discharged into the irrigation storage pond. It is anticipated that as a result of the replacement of Well 1P with Well 9M, that arsenic levels will no longer pose a challenge to services. GRCSD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 301 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY Service Adequacy This section reviews indicators of service adequacy, including regulatory compliance, treatment effectiveness, sewer overflows and collection system integrity. Figure 15-6: GRCSD Wastewater Service Adequacy Indicators Wastewater Service Adequacy and Efficiency Regulatory Compliance Record, 2005-10 Formal Enforcement Actions 0 Informal Enforcement Actions 2 Description of Violations NA Total Violations, 2005-10 Total Violations 18 Priority Violations 0 Service Adequacy Indicators Treatment Effectiveness Rate1 NA2 Sewer Overflows 2008 - 20103 0 Total Employees (FTEs) 0.5 Sewer Overflow Rate4 0 MGD Collected per FTE 0.005 Customer Complaints CY 10: Odor (0), spills (0), other (0) Source Control and Pollution Prevention Practices None. Collection System Inspection Practices The collection system is not inspected as it is all pressurized. Grinder stations are inspected annually. Notes: (1) Total number of compliance days in 2010 per 365 days. (2) The wastewater facility is not in operation and does not monitor water quality as there is no effluent produced. All sewage is pumped and hauled to a separate facility for treatment. (3) Total number of overflows experienced (excluding those caused by customers) from 2008 to 2010 as reported by the agency. (4) Sewer overflows from 2008 to 2010 (excluding those caused by customers) per 100 miles of collection piping. GRCSD has been issued 18 violations between 2005 and 2010, 17 of which were for exeedances of arsenic levels in discharged backwash. None of the violations were considered priority violations. The violations resulted in two informal enforcement actions by the RWQCB. Eighteen violations equates to approximately 206 violations per 1,000 population served. By comparison, other wastewater providers in the eastern region of the County averaged 38 violations per 1,000 population served. As described, the District is making efforts to remain in compliance with permit requirements regarding arsenic levels. Wastewater treatment providers are required to comply with effluent quality standards under the waste discharge requirements determined by RWQCB. As the District is not presently treating sewage, it does not track the quality of the effluent. Wastewater agencies are required to report sewer system overflows (SSOs) to SWRCB. Overflows reflect the capacity and condition of collection system piping and the effectiveness of routine maintenance. The sewer overflow rate is calculated as the number of overflows per 100 miles of collection piping. The District reported no overflows during the period from 2008 thru 2010, and consequently the overflow rate is zero. Other providers in the region averaged an SSO rate of 3.8 per 100 miles of collection piping. GRCSD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 302 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY There are several measures of integrity of the wastewater collection system, including peaking factors, efforts to address infiltration and inflow (I/I), and inspection practices. As discussed previously, peak demand periods are not related to wet weather flows as the system is pressurized, which minimizes infiltration and inflow into the system. Additionally, as the system is all new, there is little need to address infiltration and inflow at this point. Figure 15-7: GRCSD Wastewater Profile Wastewater Service Configuration and Demand Service Configuration Service Type Service Provider(s) Wastewater Collection GRCSD GRCSD - as the facility is not yet operational, sewage is Wastewater Treatment pumped and hauled by a contractor to another treatment facility. Wastewater Disposal GRCSD Recycled Water GRCSD Service Area The District serves all developed parcels within its Collection: boundaries, which are scattered throughout the District. The District serves all developed parcels within its Treatment: boundaries, which are scattered throughout the District. The District provides recycled water for irrigation purposes Recycled Water: to the golf course. Service Demand Connections (2010) Flow (mgd) Type Total Inside Bounds Outside Bounds Average Total 58 58 0 0.0025 Residential 46 46 0 NP Commercial 12 12 0 NP Industrial 0 0 0 - Historical and Projected Demand (Average annual daily flow in mgd)2 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 0.00002 0.0025 0.0026 0.0026 0.0027 Note: (1) NA: Not Applicable; NP: Not Provided. (2) Projections are based on the 0.05 percent annual average growth rate projected by DOF for the entire County. GRCSD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 303 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY Wastewater Infrastructure Wastewater Collection, Treatment & Disposal Infrastructure System Overview Treatment level: Tertiary Facility Name Capacity Condition Year Built WWTP 0.081 mgd Excellent 2004 Collection & Distribution Infrastructure Sewer Pipe Miles 5.8 Sewage Lift Stations 51 Treatment Plant Daily Flow (mgd) AAF (mgd) % of AAF Capacity in Use Peak Wet (mgd) Peaking Factor 0.0025 3% NA1 NA Infiltration and Inflow The District reported that the collection system is a sealed low pressure collection system and is pressurized all the way to the wastewater facility via household grinder pump stations; consequently, there are no concerns of infiltration and inflow. Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies The primary need identified is a means to keep arsenic levels in the water treatment backwash within permitted levels. Wastewater Facility Sharing Facility Sharing Practices Administration for the District is provided by the County, which operates out of county facilities with other county departments. Facility Sharing Opportunities No further facility sharing opportunities were identified. Note: (1) Peak flows are not correlated with wet weather as the system is sealed and pressurized to the treatment facility. GRCSD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 304 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY Wastewater Rates and Financing Wastewater Rates-Ongoing Charges FY 10-111 g y Rate Description Charges Demand2 Flat water and sewer assessment Developed and per lot served of $1,328.52, of undeveloped lots which wastewater services are $68.53 250 gpd (regardless of use) planned to account for 62 percent of expenditures. Rate Zones None Rate-Setting Procedures Last Rate Change 7/1/2010 Frequency of Rate Changes Annually Wastewater Development Fees and Requirements Fee Approach The District's benefit assessment was established in 2004 to cover the estimated budgeted costs of operation and maintenance of the water and wastewater systems. The assessment was calculated to cover operational, capital replacement and administration costs. Connection Fee Amount The District charges a flat hook-up fee of $6,000 for both water and sewer services. Wastewater Enterprise Revenues, FY 09-10 Operating Expenditures, FY 09-10 Source Amount Amount Total $249,438 100% Total $118,239 Rates & Charges $0 0% Administration $0 Property Tax $0 0% O & M $118,239 Grants $0 0% Capital Depreciation NP Interest $6,162 2% Debt $0 Connection Fees $3,714 1% Other $0 Assessment $239,562 96% Notes: (1) Rates include wastewater-related service charges and strength and flow charges. Average monthly charges calculated based on average consumption. Rates are rounded for presentation. (2) Wastewater use assumptions by customer type were used to calculate average monthly charges. Assumed use levels are 250 gallons per home per day, and are consistent countywide for comparison purposes. GRCSD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 305 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY GGRRIIZZZZLLYY RRAANNCCHH CCSSDD DDEETTEERRMMIINNAATTIIOONNSS Growth and Population Projections  Presently, 46 homes have been built, and 12 commercial facilities, which equates to an estimated population of 87.  Based on DOF projections, the District’s population would increase to approximately 87 in 2020; however, the DOF’s projections may be low given the development potential in the area.  When every single family home is constructed, the estimated population of the subdivision will be 722. Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities and Adequacy of Public Services, Including Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies  Average daily demand for water is approximately 27 gpm, which equates to 135 percent of the Well 3P2’s revised pumping capacity. Once Well 9M is permitted, average daily demand will comprise approximately 17 percent of total source capacity.  The District should work with DWR to get the revised pumping capacity of Well 3P2 increased.  The District presently has a particular challenge with arsenic in excess of permitted levels in backwash from water treatment that is discharged to the irrigation storage pond. The District has addressed this issue by taking Well 1P offline and connecting Well 9M. Well 9M is not yet included in the District’s permit.  All connections lack meters; consequently, the District is unable to charge rates based on water use, track water delivered, and accurately identify any water loss from the distribution systems.  Average daily wastewater flows in 2010 were 2,500 gpd, which is approximately three percent of the facility’s permitted capacity. Peak flows are not correlated to wet weather, but instead are highest during summer months when the occupancy rate is higher. The peak monthly average daily flow is: 3,600 gallons per day (August 2010), or four percent of the facility’s permitted capacity.  As the facilities are new, there are few infrastructure needs. The primary wastewater infrastructure need identified is a means to keep arsenic levels in the water treatment backwash within permitted levels according to the District’s Waste Discharge Requirements. GRCSD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 306 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY Financial Ability of Agencies to Provide Services  The District reported that the current financing level is adequate to deliver services; however, the District’s revenue has recently waned due to the recession. Due to a slowdown in new development, the District has experienced a decline in connection fee revenue.  GRCSD rates were last updated in 2010 and are in line with the average water and wastewater rates charged by other providers in the region.  It is recommended that the District separate water and wastewater expenditures to enhance transparency. Status of, and Opportunities for, Shared Facilities  The District is administered by county staff, which operate out of county facilities shared with other county departments.  There is an opportunity to share specialized equipment (i.e., CCTV) among other small water and wastewater providers in the area. Accountability for Community Service Needs, Including Governmental Structure and Operational Efficiencies  GRCSD demonstrated accountability and transparency by disclosing financial and service related information in response to LAFCo requests.  Development of a website for GRCSD to keep its constituents better informed is a short-term goal.  One potential governance structure option may be transferring governance from the County Board of Supervisors to an independent Board of Directors, as the population of the subdivision has grown significantly since its inception may now meet the threshold population needed to conduct business independently from the County. GRCSD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 307 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY 16. L AST C H A N C E C R E E K WAT E R DISTRICT Last Chance Creek Water District (LCCWD) provides water delivery for agricultural irrigation to 15 landowners by raising money to reimburse the Department of Water Resources (DWR) for operation of Frenchman’s Reservoir. This is the first Municipal Service Review for the District. AAGGEENNCCYY OOVVEERRVVIIEEWW Background Last Chance Creek WD was formed in 1957 as an independent special district.338 The District was formed to finance irrigation water delivery to the area for agricultural purposes. The principal act that governs the District is the California Water District Law.339 The act empowers water districts to produce, store, transmit and distribute water for irrigation, domestic, industrial, and municipal purposes and to provide related drainage services. Districts must apply and obtain LAFCo approval to exercise latent powers or, in other words, those services authorized by the principal act but not provided by the district at the end of 2000.340 Boundaries LCCWD’s boundary is entirely within Plumas County. The District’s boundaries encompass approximately 37 square miles. 341 When the District was first formed, the boundary was drawn larger than the irrigable land. Not all areas within the District are irrigated; there are some residential properties that do not receive water from the District. There have been no annexations to or detachments from the District since its formation. 338 State Board of Equalization. 339 California Water Code §34000-38501. 340 Government Code §56824.10. 341 Total agency area calculated in GIS software based on agency boundaries as of July 1, 2011. The data is not considered survey quality. LCCWD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 308 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY Sphere of Influence An SOI for Last Chance Creek WD was never adopted. Plumas LAFCo will need to adopt an SOI for the District during the SOI updates following the completion of this MSR. Extra-territorial Services Last Chance Creek WD does not provide any extra-territorial services. The District contracts with DWR for Frenchman’s Reservoir operations and water provision. Areas of Interest The District indicated that residential properties could be excluded from the District as they are not receiving services and do not vote in district elections. LCCWD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 309 Last Chance Creek Water District 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 S 1 ta 1 te Route 284 12 18 17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14 13 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 30 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25 ·|}þ 70 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 S 4 tate Route 49 3 2 1 7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 18 17 16 15 14 13 18 17 State Route 49 16 15 14 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 30 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 htroN 32 pihsnwoT htroN 22 pihsnwoT 16-1 Range 15 East Range 16 East PLUMAS COUNTY Last Chance Creek Water District Location Map (Not to Scale) Last Chance Creek Water District Legend Resolution: ·|}þ Adopted: 1957 70 CA State Highway Parcels Last Chance Creek Water District ² Last Chance Creek Water District (SOI) Major Roads Waterbodies Sectional Grid (MDB&M) Resolution: v® Eastern Plumas Adopted: District Hospital Stream / River 0 0.25 0.5 1Miles Source: Plumas LAFCo Map Created 5/1/2011 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY Accountability and Governance LCCWD is governed by a five-member Board of Directors who are to be elected at large to staggered four-year terms. Each landowner has one vote per adjudicated water right. There are currently five board members, all of whom were elected. The last contested election took place in 2000. Current board member names, positions, and term expiration dates are shown in Figure 16-2. The Board meets twice a year or as needed at the President’s place of residence, which is also used as the District’s office. Meetings usually take place at 1:30 in the afternoon on Fridays. The agenda is distributed to all 15 landowners. Minutes are available upon request. The District does not have a website, so its documents are not available online. Figure 16-2: Last Chance Creek WD Governing Body Last Chance Creek Water District District Contact Information Contact: Milton Frei, President Address: P.O. Box 94, Chilcoot, CA 96105 Telephone: 530-993-4605 Email/website: lazyms@psln.com Board of Directors Member Name Position Term Expiration Manner of Selection Length of Term Milton Frei President December 2013 Elected 4 years Donald Cuidici Director December 2011 Elected 4 years Rick Roberti Director December 2011 Elected 4 years Darrin DaMonte Director December 2013 Elected 4 years Mark Botta Director December 2013 Elected 4 years Meetings Date: Twice a year or as needed. Usually at 1:30pm on Fridays. Location: At President's house that also serves as an office. Agenda Distribution: Distributed to all 15 land constituents. Minutes Distribution: Available upon request. In addition to the legally required agendas and minutes, the District occasionally holds meetings to educate members when needed. At the end of the contractual period with DWR, LCCWD holds a special meeting to determine whether any changes to the contract are needed. If a customer is dissatisfied with the District’s services, that customer may file a complaint with any director. Complaints are usually discussed at board meetings, and the President is responsible for ensuring adequate resolution of each complaint. A majority of the complaints in the past were related to environmental issues. A few years ago, the Feather River Coordinated Resource Management Group was concerned about restoring LCCWD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 311 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY the creek. The creek acts as a canal to deliver water; and the Group wanted to create a more permeable creek bed to promote seepage. However, downstream users were having problems getting water. The District’s Board coordinated the repairs and the problem was resolved to all parties’ satisfaction. There have been no other complaints in the last few years. Last Chance Creek WD demonstrated accountability and transparency in its disclosure of information and cooperation with Plumas LAFCo. The District responded to the questionnaires and cooperated with the document requests. Planning and Management Practices Daily operations of the District are managed by the secretary who receives compensation of $600 a year. She is not formally evaluated, but reports to the Board at each meeting. The treasurer also reports at the board meetings. Given the small size and informal nature of the District there is little need for evaluations and work load monitoring of staff. Board members review and approve meeting minutes. The District has a five-year renewable contract with DWR for water provision and Frenchman’s Reservoir operations. At the end of each five-year contract period, LCCWD holds a special meeting to determine any desired changes. The present contract became effective December 31, 2010 and will expire December 31, 2015. LCCWD does not perform formal evaluations of overall district performance, such as benchmarking or annual reports. The District’s financial planning efforts include an annually adopted budget. Financial statements are not audited. The District provided an unaudited financial statement for the 2009 calendar year. The District does not adopt any other planning documents, such as a capital improvement plan or master plan. Capital improvements are performed by individual land owners. Existing Demand and Growth Projections Designated land uses within the District are primarily agricultural.342 The total boundary area of LCCWD is 37 square miles. 342 Plumas County Parcel Application. LCCWD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 312 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY Population The population served by LCCWD is smaller than the total number of residents within the District boundaries. Currently, the District serves 15 landowners. Based on average household size throughout the County of 1.9 people, the estimated population served is 29. Existing Demand The District reported that it observed no change in population growth and service demand in the last few years. Projected Growth and Development The agency anticipates no growth in population and similarly in service demand within the District in the next few years; however, no formal population projections have been made by the District. The demand for water is fixed based on the amount allocated to a property, and each property is reportedly using its maximum allotted amount. The State Department of Finance (DOF) projects that the population of Plumas County will grow by five percent in the next 10 years. Thus, the average annual population growth in the County is anticipated to be approximately 0.5 percent. Based on these projections, the District’s population would increase from 29 in 2010 to approximately 30 in 2020. It is anticipated that demand for service within the District will not increase based on the DOF population growth projections through 2020. The District reports that to their knowledge there are no planned or proposed developments within its boundaries. Growth Strategies The District is not a land use authority, and does not hold primary responsibility for implementing growth strategies. The land use authority for unincorporated areas is the County. Since the District only serves a limited number of properties within its boundaries, there is a potential to reduce the boundary size to only those properties that may vote in the District’s elections. Last Chance Creek WD is not currently considering the possibility of a boundary change, as only landowners with adjudicated water rights are eligible to vote in district elections. Financing The District reported that the current financing level was adequate to deliver services. No challenges to financing were identified. If the District needs additional revenue in the future to pay DWR, it raises more money from the served landowners. The District’s total revenues for the 2009 calendar year were $57,463. Revenue sources included water charges (98 percent) and interest income (2 percent). LCCWD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 313 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY The District charges landowners for provision of irrigation water in accordance with each landowners water rights. The rates are updated annually and are based on decree to adjudicated water rights, priority type and flow amount. Customers are charged late fees and may be withheld delivery of water for late payments. Last Chance Creek WD expenditures were $222,136 in 2009 calendar year. Of this amount, 97 percent was spent on DWR contract charges for a four-year period (2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009), two percent on legal fees, and the remainder on insurance, salary for the secretary, post office box rental, election notices, and postage. Capital improvements are financed and implemented by the individual landowners and DWR; the District does not own any capital. The District does not have a formal reserve policy, but aims to keep aside about $3,000 for emergencies at all times. The District does not participate in any joint power authorities (JPAs) or joint financing mechanisms. WWAATTEERR SSEERRVVIICCEESS Service Overview The District acts as a financing mechanism to collect funds from the 15 landowners and reimburse DWR for operating Frenchman Reservoir and delivering water from Frenchman Dam. The DWR watermaster also maintains the flow meters along the creek at points of diversion onto each of the landowners’ properties to ensure that each property is getting the allotted amount. It is the watermaster’s responsibility to physically regulate diversions within the District. The water users are not permitted to regulate their diversions unless specifically instructed by the watermaster to do so. Facilities and Capacity The District does not own or maintain any facilities. The District also does not hold water rights as an agency. Water is stored and released from Frenchman Reservoir down Last Chance Creek; it flows along the creek on to individual properties for stock, crops and grazing land. Natural flows of Little Last Chance Creek are supplemented by reservoir storage provided by Frenchman Dam, which was built by the Department of Water Resources in 1961. DWR is permitted to store in Frenchman Lake up to 34,962 af per annum. DWR delivers water through controlled irrigation release between April 1 and December 31. The maximum withdrawal in any given year may not exceed 15,194 af according to DWR’s LCCWD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 314 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY license for diversion and use of water.343 Stored water is released as needed under provisions of the water supply contract with LCCWD. Figure 16-3: Water Right Allotments (cfs) Rights to use of the water of Allotments in cubic feet per second Little Last Chance Creek were Priority determined and established by 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th Total decree of the Superior Court of Decreed Water Rights the State of California in 1940. 8.75 13.8 15.6 19.8 16.4 74.35 Water rights are allotted to the Surplus Rights land within the District. There 3.2 5.7 6.95 0 0 15.85 are a total of 8,208 acres with adjudicated rights to a maximum of 14,000 af of water within the District, depending on water availability as determined by DWR. Decreed water right allotments to the landowners are shown in Figure 16-2. In the spring of each year, DWR determines the amount of water that is available for diversion by the District, depending on the amount of water that is in storage in Frenchman Reservoir. In 2010, DWR made available 7,000 AF, of which, the District made use of the entire allotment. Infrastructure Needs As the District does not own or maintain any facilities, there were no identified infrastructure needs or deficiencies. Challenges The District did not identify any particular challenges in providing services. Service Adequacy Indicators for evaluating LCCWD’s service adequacy are limited as the District does not own or operate any facilities, and does not directly offer water services. The District operates purely as a financing mechanism for DWR operations. The District has had no problems collecting funds and covering the contract payments to DWR. The District could enhance accountability to its constituents by holding board meetings at a public meeting space, building a website and hiring a secretary not related to a board member; however, given the small number of district constituents and its location, these options may not be feasible. 343 License 9182, 1956. LCCWD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 315 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY LLAASSTT CCHHAANNCCEE CCRREEEEKK WWAATTEERR DDIISSTTRRIICCTT DDEETTEERRMMIINNAATTIIOONNSS Growth and Population Projections  Currently, the District serves 15 landowners or an estimated population of 29.  There has been no population growth or increase in service demand since the formation of the District.  The agency anticipates no growth in population and similarly in service demand within the District as allocated water rights are fixed. Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities and Adequacy of Public Services, Including Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies  The District does not own or maintain any facilities. The District also does not hold water rights as an agency.  The demand for water is fixed based on the amount allocated to a property, and each property is using its maximum allotted amount.  There were no identified needs or deficiencies.  Capital improvements are financed are implemented by the individual landowners and DWR. Financial Ability of Agencies to Provide Services  Current financing levels are adequate to deliver services.  If the District needs additional revenue, it collects more money from the customers. Status of, and Opportunities for, Shared Facilities  The District makes use of DWR owned and operated facilities for water storage and delivery.  No further opportunities for facility sharing were identified. LCCWD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 316 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY Accountability for Community Service Needs, Including Governmental Structure and Operational Efficiencies  LCCWD demonstrated accountability and transparency by disclosing financial and service related information in response to LAFCo requests.  The District could enhance accountability to its constituents by holding board meetings at a public meeting space, building a website and hiring a secretary not related to a board member; however, given the small number of district constituents and its location, these options may not be feasible.  A governmental structure option is to reduce the boundary size to only those properties with allocated water rights that may vote in the District’s elections. LCCWD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 317 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY 17. P LU M AS- E U R E K A COM M U N I T Y S E RVI C ES D I ST R I CT Plumas-Eureka Community Services District (PECSD) provides fire suppression, emergency medical, water, wastewater, snow removal and road maintenance services. In 2008, Plumas LAFCo passed a resolution initiating a Municipal Service Review (MSR) and Sphere of Influence update for PECSD;344 however, the review was never completed. This is the first MSR for PECSD. AAGGEENNCCYY OOVVEERRVVIIEEWW Background PECSD was formed in 1993 as an independent special district.345 The area was originally served by County Service Area (CSA) 8, until 1989 when the CSA was dissolved. Following the dissolution, the Board of Directors (County Board of Supervisors) of the dissolved CSA formed the CSD to continue providing services formerly provided by the CSA to the residents and land owners of Plumas-Eureka Estates and Eureka Springs Subdivision, such as water and wastewater. In addition, the newly formed CSD took on the responsibility of fire services,346 which had been operating under the direction of the developer of the community with cooperation from Plumas County since 1981. The District currently provides the same services as when it was formed. PECSD is considering adding parks and recreation to the list of its services. A piece of land was donated to PECSD in 2010, and the District is now planning to turn it into either a dog park or a picnic area. The principal act that governs the District is the State of California Community Services District Law.347 CSDs may potentially provide a wide array of services, including water supply, wastewater, solid waste, police and fire protection, street lighting and landscaping, airport, recreation and parks, mosquito abatement, library services; street maintenance and drainage services, ambulance service, utility undergrounding, transportation, abate graffiti, flood protection, weed abatement, hydroelectric power, among various other 344 LAFCo Resolution No. 2008-SOI-003. 345 LAFCo Resolution No. 92-2. 346 There are no records to indicate if 347 Government Code §61000-61226.5. PECSD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 318 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY services. CSDs are required to gain LAFCo approval to provide those services permitted by the principal act but not performed by the end of 2005 (i.e., latent powers).348 PECSD is located in the heart of the Plumas National Forest, in the eastern part of Plumas County. The District borders Graeagle FPD in the south, Plumas National Forest in the west and Feather River in the north and east. Across the river in the east there is the Little Bear RV Park, and in the north, another small RV Park and mostly wilderness. Boundaries The PECSD boundary is entirely within Plumas County. The District’s boundaries encompass approximately half of a square mile. 349 There has been one annexation to and no detachments from the District since its formation. In 1994, the District annexed Eureka Springs Subdivision, which encompassed 62 acres or 0.1 square miles. Now the District consists of the Plumas Eureka Estates, the Eureka Springs Subdivision, and the Village of Plumas Pines Subdivision, and surrounds the Plumas Pines golf course. Many of the residential homes are located adjacent to the golf course. Sphere of Influence The SOI for PECSD was adopted in 1994.350 A map of the SOI that was adopted in 1994 was not attached to the LAFCo Resolution, and no other records are available to indicate what area the SOI encompasses. For the purposes of this MSR and the upcoming SOI update, it is assumed that the SOI is coterminous with the District’s boundaries, as reported by the District General Manager and directed by the LAFCo Executive Officer. Based on LAFCo records, it appears that the District has never had a sphere of influence update or amendment since it was first adopted. The District’s SOI is assumed to include the same half of a square mile area as the boundary area. Extra-territorial Services Through an informal agreement with the Sheriff’s Office, which is discussed in more detail in the Fire Service Section, the District responds outside of its boundaries. The District’s fire service area extends beyond its boundaries to the east and south and includes an area of 20 square miles compared to half a mile of boundary area. PECSD provides fire protection services to two property owners in the community of Johnsville. 348 Government Code §61106. 349 Total agency area calculated in GIS software based on agency boundaries as of July 1, 2011. The data is not considered survey quality. 350 LAFCo Resolution 94-1. PECSD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 319 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY The District provides extra-territorial fire services to the communities of Blairsden, Graeagle, Clio and Whitehawk under a joint automatic aid dispatch with GFPD. It also has informal mutual aid agreements with all other fire service providers in Eastern Plumas County. The District does not provide any extra-territorial water and wastewater services. Areas of Interest There are a few areas of interest that were identified for PECSD. One is the community of Johnsville that is located to the south of PECSD. Johnsville does not currently belong to a fire district. Some individual property owners contract with PECSD for fire services and others with GFPD. At this time, there is only one active signed contract with one of the property owners who is charged $250 for fire services by PECSD. All other previous contracts were not renewed by homeowners. PECSD would like to expand its SOI to include Johnsville and eventually annex it, because the District believes that its proximity to the community and availability of resources make it the most suitable candidate for fire service provision there. The District believes that the community of Johnsville would like to be annexed into PECSD, but lacks funds to start the process. Graeagle FPD believes that Johnsville’s wish is to be annexed by GFPD. Another area of interest is Little Bear RV Park located across Feather River to the east. The District would like to explore the possibility of expanding its SOI to include the RV Park area. There is also Johnsville Public Utility District (JPUD) that provides community water service. At one time it provided limited fire protection services, but now there is an opportunity for JPUD to contract with PESCD for fire protection and EMS services. Currently, a meeting hall in Johnsville in the St. John’s Catholic Church has an active contract with the Graeagle FPD as a condition of the County’s Special Use Permit. However, Johnsville is now within the response area of PECSD which may create a conflict. Two more areas that are of interest to PECSD are Eagle Ridge RV Park and Red Road area. Eagle Ridge RV Park is a newly developed recreational area located within GFPD SOI. However, GFPD thought that the Park was going to be placed in PECSD SOI which created confusion about which agency would be serving the new recreation area. Red Road area is the 560-acre ranch surrounded by State Park and National Forest lands. Its primary access is via private unimploved roads leading form the County Road in Johnsville. The area does not conform to fire safe standards; it is outside of a fire district but within PECSD service area. PECSD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 320 Plumas Eureka Community Services District 29 28 27 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 ·|þ} 4 70 ASPEN CIR NL WODAEM PONDEROSA DR 23N37 CEDAR L L U N NDY LN S S U PI G NI A O R N P PI IN N E E CLINR SEQUOIA CIR 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 EVERGREEN CIR TIMBER LN POPLAR VALLEY RD COTTON T WOOD A DR MAR EU A R CK EK P A L SPRINGS DR 9 GRAEAGLE JOHNSVILLE RD 17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 htroN 22 pihsnwoT Range 11 East Range 12 East Plumas Eureka CSD Legend Parcels Plumas Eureka CSD LAFCo File: 2-DRA-93 Major Roads Resolution: 93-5498 ·|}þ 70 CA State Highway State Responsibility Area Plumas Eureka SOI ² Adopted: 6/15/1993 (Federal Responsibility lies Streets outside hatched area.) Plumas Eureka SOI Stream / River Sectional Grid (MDB&M) Fire Stations Resolution: 94-1 Waterbodies Adopted: 0 0.25 0.5 1Miles Source: Plumas LAFCo Map Created 4/13/2011 htroN 32 pihsnwoT htroN 12 pihsnwoT 17-1 Johnsville FPD Service Area PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY Accountability and Governance PESCD is governed by a five-member Board of Directors who are to be elected at large to staggered four-year terms. There are currently five members, all of whom were elected. There has never been a contested election in the history of the District. The District encourages voter participation through its semi-annual newsletter and website. Current board member names, positions, and term expiration dates are shown in Figure 17-2. The Board meets on the second Wednesday of each month at nine in the morning in the PECSD building in Plumas-Eureka Estates. Board meeting agendas are posted on the website, four bulletin boards throughout the community and on the door of the PECSD building. Minutes are posted on the website and are available upon request. Figure 17-2: PECSD Governing Body Plumas-Eureka Community Services District District Contact Information Contact: Frank Motzkus, General Manager Address: 200 Lundy Lane, Blairsden, CA 96103 Telephone: 530-836-1953 Email/website: teresa.pecsd@digitalpath.net, www.pecsd.org Board of Directors Member Name Position Term Expiration Manner of Selection Length of Term Elmer Tretten Chairman December 2011 Elected 4 years Larry Walker Vice Chairman December 2013 Elected 4 years Frank Shepard Member December 2013 Elected 4 years Vern Wiemeyer Member December 2011 Elected 4 years Richard Machado Member December 2013 Elected 4 years Meetings Date: Second Wednesday of each month at 9am. Location: PECSD building located at 200 Lundy Lane in Plumas-Eureka Estates. Agenda Distribution: Posted on the website, 4 community bulletin boards and PECSD building door. Minutes Distribution: Available on the website and upon request. In addition to the legally required agendas and minutes, the District does public outreach through its website, word of mouth, newspaper ads, a semi-annual newsletter, the fire department store, and fundraising events organized through the fire department auxiliary. The fundraising events include, but are not limited to, a charity golf tournament, pancake breakfasts on Labor Day and Memorial Day, and a Fourth of July event. If a customer is dissatisfied with the District’s services, that customer may submit a complaint via email or on the website. There will be a spot on the website for general complaints and there is already an online form for water-related complaints. All complaints in the last two years were regarding water quality and odor. From 2009 to the present, there were two complaints. The General Manager of the CSD is responsible for handling the complaints. In his absence, the Chairman of the Board assumes the responsibility. PECSD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 322 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY Plumas-Eureka CSD demonstrated accountability and transparency in its disclosure of information and cooperation with Plumas LAFCo. The District responded to the questionnaires and cooperated with the document requests. Planning and Management Practices Daily operations of the District are managed by the general manager, operations and maintenance manager and administrative manager. All of which are full-time paid personnel. In addition, there is a full-time paid laborer who assists the operations and maintenance manager. The fire department has 11 staff members—a fire chief, an assistant chief, two fire captains, two engineers, four firefighters and one administrative secretary who is also the administrative manager for the whole district. Ten personnel are sworn firefighters. The chief is paid a monthly stipend. He does not have set hours and fulfills his duties on his own schedule. The assistant fire chief and two captains also receive small monthly stipends. The Board of Directors oversees the general manager and the administrative manager. The operations and maintenance manager manages the facilities operator (which is vacant at this time) and is accountable to the general manager. According to the organizational chart, the laborer is accountable to the facilities operator, but due to the vacancy, the laborer reports to the operations and maintenance manager. The fire chief reports to the general manager and the Board of Directors, and oversees the assistant chief. The captains are accountable to the assistant chief, and the firefighters report to the captains. The employees of the District are evaluated annually by the general manager. The new hires are evaluated on semi-annual basis. The Board of Directors evaluates the overall performance of the District. The Board has adopted long-term goals for the District, and at every board meeting the members discuss these goals and evaluate the progress made towards realizing them. Many of the established goals have been completed, so this April 2011, the Board will set new goals for the future. To track the workload and productivity of the agency and its employees, district staff perform daily checks on water systems and conduct monthly reports. The employees fill out time cards and are paid every two weeks. The District’s fire department regularly evaluates its staff to confirm that training has been effective. Training takes place every Wednesday, and participation is documented. The fire department also tracks service calls by documenting them in a call log. Workload monitoring of the agency and its employees helps the District improve its productivity. In the case of water and wastewater services, it helps avoid repetitious situations and streamlines system operations. In the case of fire services, it helps the fire department determine where high volume call areas are. It also aids the fire department in estimating anticipated call volume during the summer months and make appropriate preparations. When applying for grants, the District uses its recorded demand and work history to demonstrate and justify a need for funds. PECSD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 323 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY The District reported that it makes an effort to participate in regional plans, such as the Regional Basin Plan and the Grizzly Lake Improvement District reorganization study, through public comments only. The District encourages its residents to submit comments about any development-related projects near Plumas-Eureka CSD. In addition, one of the PECSD Board Members is the president of the Plumas County Special District Association. The District’s financial planning efforts include an annually adopted budget, audited financial statements and a capital improvement plan. The financial statements were last audited for FY 09-10. They are audited annually. The District provided the adopted budgets for FY 09-10 and FY 10-11, audited financial statements for FY 09-10, and the capital improvement plan. The CIP has a planning horizon of five years and is updated on annual basis. Existing Demand and Growth Projections Designated land uses within the District are primarily residential and recreational.351 The total boundary area of PECSD is half of a square mile. Population The District reported that its approximate population is 200 to 300 people in winter and 1,700 people in summer. According to the 2000 Census, the Plumas Eureka Census Designated Place had a permanent population of 320. Population information at the census tract level was not yet available for the 2010 census, as of the drafting of this report; however, based on the lack of growth experienced throughout the County over the last decade, and in some cases population decline, it can be assumed that the approximate population has not changed much since 2000. Existing Demand The District reported having peak demand during summer months when the population significantly increases due to seasonal residents and tourists. Calls for medical emergencies are consistently high throughout the year, similar to other providers. 351 Plumas County Parcel Application. PECSD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 324 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY Figure 17-3: PECSD Number of Fire Calls (2006-10) The District reported that it has 70 observed a minimal change in 60 service demand in the last few years; however, based on the 50 number of service calls received by 40 the fire department, demand has generally increased over the last 30 five years, partially due to automatic 20 aid agreement with GFPD. Demand 10 doubled from 2006 to 2007. After that, it remained relatively constant 0 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 in 2007 and 2008. There was an unusually high call volume in 2009. Plumas-Eureka FD reported that most service calls generally occur in the late afternoons or early evenings. Projected Growth and Development PECSD anticipates little growth in population and similarly in service demand within the District in the next few years; however, no formal population projections have been made by the District. PECSD projects its service needs based on its own experience and history. The State Department of Finance (DOF) projects that the population of Plumas County will grow by five percent in the next 10 years. Thus, the average annual population growth in the County is anticipated to be approximately 0.5 percent. Based on these projections, the District’s population would increase from 320 in 2010 to approximately 335 in 2020. It is anticipated that demand for service within the District will increase minimally based on the DOF population growth projections through 2020. The District reported that to their knowledge there is one planned development within its boundaries called Village of Plumas Pines. Growth is concentrated within the southwest portion of the District, in the community of Eureka Springs, which has plenty of in-fill space. PECSD appears to have the capacity to serve projected development. The District did not identify any areas within the agency’s future growth area to which it would be difficult to provide an adequate level of service. Growth Strategies The District is not a land use authority, and does not hold primary responsibility for implementing growth strategies. The land use authority for unincorporated areas is the County. The County enforces the codes that it has enforcement power over, which does not encompass all State fire codes. The County ensures that new construction meets the PECSD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 325 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY requirements of the latest adopted edition of the California Building Standards. The County enforces the County codes that have been adopted in lieu of the California Fire Safe regulations. The County does not have authority to enforce PRC 4291, which requires defensible space around structures; however, the County does have some enforcement authority over vegetation removal around buildings that was adopted prior to PRC 4291. In addition, the Board of Supervisors, through the adoption of the General Plan and county codes, regulates development standards to be followed in processing subdivisions, including fire protection. The proposals for new developments are sent for review to the appropriate fire provider if a development is within district’s boundaries. The County reported that as SOI maps have not been digitized, is has been challenging to ensure that proposals go to the appropriate district if a proposed development was within that district’s SOI but outside its boundaries. The County and Plumas LAFCo are working together on a process to ensure that all appropriate districts are contacted for review of proposed developments. The County Board of Supervisors is discussing a possibility of hiring a fire marshal, part of whose responsibilities may be code enforcement and building inspections. However, thus far, no decision has been made on the responsibilities of the position.352 The County has several policies in the existing general plan, which impact the fire providers of new developments. 1) Turnouts are now required in every new development.353 2) The County encourages development to be located adjacent to or within areas where fire services already exist or can be efficiently provided.354 3) The County requires new developments within areas not currently served by a fire provider to be annexed into an existing fire district or create a funding mechanism, such as a CSD, to cover the costs of fire service provision.355 4) Sustainable timber and biomass production and harvesting as well as intensive forest management practices are encouraged to reduce the danger of catastrophic wildfires.356 5) There is a minimum requirement of two roadway access points, which are maintained on a year-round basis by the County or the State. 357 352 Correspondence with Becky Herrin, Plumas County Senior Planner, September 8, 2011. 353 Plumas County Code of Ordinances, Title 9 Section 9-4.604 (k). 354 Plumas County, General Plan, 1984, pp. 28 & 29. 355 Ibid., p. 28. 356 Ibid, p. 32. PECSD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 326 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY 6) Minimum public and private road standards: roads providing access to two or more lots have to conform to a two-lane standard of no less than 16-foot traveled way.358 7) Bridges are required to be designed for an 80,000 pound vehicle load.359 8) All access roads must be marked with an approved sign; and all lots must be identified by an address.360 9) All developments within boundaries of a structural fire service provider may be required to contribute to the maintenance of the structural service proportionate to the increase in demand for fire service resulting from the development.361 10) As a condition of development it is required to provide long-term maintenance of private roads to the standards of original improvements, including roadside vegetation management.362 11) The County encourages biomass thinning programs in high fire risk areas.363 The District reported concerns that new developments in the County were not being required to comply with existing requirements.364 The County reported that only one agency had come to the County regarding these concerns, which were unfounded at the time. No conjecture is made by the authors of this report as to the accuracy of these statements. It should be noted that one of the purposes of the newly formed Emergency Service Feasibility Group is to address these concerns. The County is in the process of updating its general plan. The suggested new policies in the General Plan update that would impact fire service providers, but had not yet been adopted as of the drafting of this report, include: 12) The County shall review and update its Fire Safe ordinance to attain and maintain defensible space though conditioning of tentative maps and in new development at the final map or building permit stage. 357 Ibid., p. 16. 358 Ibid., 359 Ibid. 360 Ibid. 361 Ibid. 362 Plumas County Code of Ordinances, Title 9 Section 9-4.601. 363 Plumas County Code of Ordinances, Title 4 Section 4-2.101. 364 Profile comments from Chief Greg McCaffrey, May 3, 2011. PECSD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 327 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY 13) The County will consult Fire Hazard Severity Zone Maps during the review of all projects. The Countywill work with fire protection agencies to develop community fire plans and require appropriate building setbacks and fuel modification requirements within fire hazard zones. 14) In order for the new development to be approved, the County must conclude that adequate emergency water flow, fire access and firefighters and equipment are available. 15) New developments have to show that they have adequate access for emergency vehicles to access the site and for private vehicles to evacuate the area. 16) New developments within high and very high fire hazard areas are required to designate fuel break zones that comply with fire safe requirements. 17) The County will work with Forest Service and fire districts in developing fire prevention programs, identifying opportunities for fuel breaks in zones of high and very high fire hazard and educating public. 18) Fire, law enforcement, EMS, resource management, and public health response partners are encouraged to conduct joint training exercises.365 The County has not adopted the new standards for development yet. The revised General Plan may be adopted towards the end of 2012. County zoning code will then go through a revision process in order for the zoning code to implement the General Plan. In 2007, the Board of Supervisors formed the Emergency Services Advisory Committee to “evaluate the funding feasibility of providing uniform and comprehensive emergency services to all of Plumas County.” The Committee attempted to look for opportunities to increase funding for emergency services, but faced a considerable challenge in the difficult economic times. Most recently, it focused on mitigating efforts through building and development standards improvements and the General Plan update process, and encouraging local fire service providers to share resources and realize economies of scale in preparing grant applications, conducting training and engaging in other joint programs. With regard to future growth areas, the District would like to include the community of Johnsville and the Little Bear RV Park in its SOI. Financing The District reported that the current financing level is not adequate to deliver services. Increased costs to providing services is a particular strain on the District’s level of financing, such as increased electrical costs, chemical costs, as well as medical and retirement coverage. Prior to five years ago, PECSD had minimal medical and retirement 365 Plumas County General Plan, Draft Goals, Policies and Implementation Measures, 2010. PECSD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 328 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY coverage, and since updating these employee benefits in 2007, overall service costs have dramatically increased. Because of the recession, PECSD did not want to burden its residents by raising rates to cover increasing costs. The District has been able to tap into its reserves and sustain itself. However, the District reported that this year rates will have to be updated to reflect the increased service costs. While most district residents were able to continue paying service fees and taxes, the District did experience a decrease in income due to an increased vacancy rate, foreclosures and liens. As a result, the District reported that instead of a normal rate of loss of two percent, PECSD has experienced a rate of loss of between five and six percent. The amount of debt to the District from unpaid fees therefore increased. The District operates out of a governmental fund for fire services and separate enterprise funds for water and wastewater services. Figure 17-4: PECSD Revenues and Expenses Income/Expenses FY 09-10 Budgeted FY 09-10 Actual FY 10-11 Budgeted Income Assessments $29,799 4% $29,653 4% $29,799 4% Property Taxes $30,000 4% $31,996 4% $30,000 4% Charges for Services $645,385 84% $656,644 84% $645,385 84% Interest Income $26,500 3% $3,756 0% $26,500 3% Donations $5,000 1% $395 0% $5,000 1% ERAF reimbursement $8,500 1% $8,500 1% $8,500 1% Feeram/mitigation $19,819 3% $36,321 5% $19,819 3% Other $0 0% $13,269 2% $0 0% Total Income $765,003 100% $780,534 100% $765,003 100% Expenses Water Services $226,418 39% $236,647 31% $239,028 41% Wastewater Services $218,320 38% $201,207 26% $210,108 36% Public Protection $83,141 14% $101,801 13% $80,899 14% Depreciation NA $136,148 18% NA Support Services $19,000 3% $14,632 2% $19,750 3% Interest on Debt $34,259 6% $69,704 9% $34,259 6% Total Expenses $581,138 100% $760,139 100% $584,044 100% Net Income $183,865 $20,395 $180,959 The District’s total revenues for FY 09-10 were $780,534. Primary revenue sources included charges for water and wastewater services (84 percent), property taxes that are used for fire department only (four percent), benefit assessments (four percent), Fire Engine Equipment Replacement and Maintenance fees (three percent) and interest income (three percent). PECSD charges its residents fees for the services it provides. The fee and rate schedule is outlined in an ordinance written in 1998 and last updated in 2007. Separate fees are charged based on subdivision, applicable reserve funds and long-term debt financing for PECSD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 329 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY historical projects. The fees are adjusted annually based on the adopted budget, not based on inflation. Specific fees are listed below. Water and wastewater rates are covered in the utility-specific sections. For fire services, the District charges a fire assessment on each property. The assessment depends on location and whether the property is improved or not. Land owners in Plumas Eureka Estates are charged $43.12 for an improved lot and $20 for an unimproved lot. Residents of Eureka Springs Subdivision and The Village are assessed $43.12 for improved lot and $58 for unimproved lot. PECSD also charges a Fire Engine Equipment Replacement and Maintenance (FEERAM) fee. This revenue is dedicated to fire- related capital expenses over $500. The FEERAM fee for all properties throughout the District is $32.88 for improved lot and $18 for unimproved lot. Finally, the District collects fire protection fees for services in the Eureka Springs Subdivision and The Village—$75 and $150 annually per improved lot, respectively. Based on these fees for fire services, land owners of developed lots in Plumas Eureka Estates pay a total of $76 annually, land owners in Eureka Springs pay $151 annually, and land owners in The Village pay $226. In addition, for new development, a fire mitigation fee is levied on all properties— $1,039 per lot . The fire mitigation fee is to be used for capital expansion necessary to provide adequate services to the additional demand from new development. In addition, the District charges per incident for providing services outside of its boundaries. PECSD charges water and wastewater capital reserve fees with the monthly service fee bills. The water capital reserve fee depends on the size of the connection, and ranges from $144 for a residential connection to $380 annually for the largest commercial connection. The wastewater reserve fee is a flat rate of $133.44 annually regardless of connection size or location. Depending on location, and what wastewater facilities are in use, the District also collects fees to finance bonds for previous capital improvements and to finance leach field maintenance. All residents with sewer service are charged $136.56 annually for the Dynamite Hill Leachfield Bond. The wastewater service charge is $136.56 per year. Additionally, nine Plumas Eureka Estates residents pay $42 annually for leach field maintenance and $87.76 for the 2006 sewer revenue bond, while residents in Eureka Springs and the Village pay a sewer revenue bond fee of $509.59 annually. Since the ordinance establishing fees for fire department is about 13 years old, the District finds it necessary to be redone this year. Currently, PECSD is in search of a contractor to perform an engineering study to adjust the fire assessment. The District is in the process of receiving proposals to conduct the study and compile the report. The water and sewer rates until 2010 were increased based on the proposed annual budget as opposed to a certain percentage. This year, the plan is to propose a certain fixed increase over the next few years in order to avoid revisiting the fees issue every year. The District’s expenditures in FY 09-10 were $760,139. The District’s primary expenditures consist of water services (31 percent), wastewater services (26 percent), depreciation (18 percent), and fire protection services (13 percent). Other expenses are detailed in Figure 17-3. PECSD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 330 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY PECSD has a capital improvement program with a five-year planning horizon, which is updated on an annual basis. Capital improvements are budgeted for separately from the main budget and are financed through the District’s multiple reserve funds. Money is put aside on a regular basis to replace the equipment that is depreciating. The reserve fund is financed through reserve fees. The reserve fund is an adopted policy outlined in the Ordinance. The District does not have an adopted policy regarding a reserve target, but funds set aside have generally constituted about 1.5 to 2 percent of the budgeted operation and maintenance funds. At the end of FY 09-10, the District had unrestricted fund balances of $508,171 and $294,827 for water and wastewater capital improvements. The Board has designated these funds for road maintenance, plant expansion, and equipment reserve needs. While there are no unrestricted funds designated for fire service capital needs, the District does maintain a Fire Engine Equipment Replacement and Maintenance (FEERAM) reserve account for capital expenses over $500. At the end of FY 09-10, there was a balance of $25,221 in the FEERAM account. The District does not have a formal policy or target for reserves for emergency operational needs. At the end of FY 09-10, the District maintained unrestricted undesignated fund balances in each of the funds that could finance about three months of operations for wastewater services, approximately one month of operations for water services, and almost eight months of operations for fire services (based on annual operational expenditures in FY 09-10). The District’s long term debt is represented by two sewer revenue bonds and refinancing for certificates of participation also for sewer related capital improvements.  Sewer Revenue Bond, Series 2006A: This $683,000 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Rural Development revenue bond was issued in 2006 to finance the repair and expansion of WWTP 7. The bond is payable from the revenues of the District’s sewer enterprise. The balance with interest as of June 2010 was $662,400.  Sewer Revenue Bond, Series 2006B: This funding with the USDA, Rural Development, in the original amount of $439,850, was also secured to finance the expansion of WWTP 7. The bond is payable from the revenues of the District’s sewer enterprise. The balance with interest as of June 2010 was $478,960.  2008 Private Placement Refunding: The proceeds of this $391,600 loan refinanced the 1996 Certificates of Participation, which financed the construction of a replacement community leach field and other capital improvements. As of June 2010 the balance with interest was $348,800. The District participates in the CALPERS program, which it joined in 2007. For FY 09- 10, the District contributed $40,597, and district employees made their own contributions equal to seven percent of wages. PECSD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 331 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY FFIIRREE SSEERRVVIICCEESS Service Overview Plumas-Eureka Fire Department (PEFD), which is a department of PECSD, was established in 1981 to provide local fire protection. In 1994, the staff began being trained in Emergency Medical Services (EMS). Currently, the fire department provides fire suppression and Basic Life Support services to the communities of Plumas-Eureka and Johnsville. Despite a small commercial base, the District tries to conduct annual fire inspections. Ambulance service is provided by Eastern Plumas Healthcare District (EPHCD). Care Flight, Mountain LifeFlight and California Highway Patrol provide air ambulance services. Fire suppression helicopter service is provided by USFS and CalFire. Collaboration The District has a joint automatic aid dispatch with GFPD under which the District provides fire services to the communities of Blairsden, Graeagle, Clio and Whitehawk. In addition, there are automatic aid agreements with EPRFPD and Long Valley Fire Department, however, the Dispatch Center has not recognized them. PEFD is a member of the Plumas County Fire Chief’s Association and has signed the Plumas County Master Mutual Aid Agreement under which it provides mutual aid to other fire providers in Plumas County. PEFD is also a part of CalEMA (California Emergency Management Agency, formerly known as OES) under which it provides assistance to State-wide emergencies if need be. The fire department occasionally responds to wild fires and gets reimbursed for it from the federal government. In addition, the PEFD conducts weekly trainings with GFPD. Dispatch The County Sheriff is the Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP); consequently, most land line emergency calls (9-1-1 calls) are directed to the Sheriff. Most cell phone emergency calls (9-1-1 calls) are answered by CHP and redirected to the Sheriff. The Sheriff provides dispatching for most fire providers in the County except for the ones in the northern part of the County, which are served by the CHP Susanville Dispatch Center. The Forest Service has its own dispatch. The sheriff dispatch center has a first responder map, which it uses to identify what provider to dispatch to an incident. All territory within the County has a determined first responder; although, many areas lie outside the LAFCo- approved boundary of the districts and lack an officially designated fire provider. According to the District, there could be many potential improvements to dispatch, such as better communication between the fire units in the field and during dispatch, collaboration among fire departments to set up mutual aid and multi-jurisdictional dispatches to incidents, and Sheriff’s participation in quarterly meetings with the County Fire Chiefs Association. PECSD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 332 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY When there is a need for mutual aid assistance, the Jurisdiction Having Authority (JHA) puts out a request for mutual aid through Fire Control and specifies how many and of what type of fire equipment is needed. The JHA establishes an Incident Commander using ISC Standards who coordinates the responders and incident. The District reports that Plumas County currently has a very good radio interoperable system in place. However, there are issues that will need to be addressed in the foreseeable future. All Plumas County fire agencies will have to switch to narrow banding by January 1, 2012 and will be required to be P-25 compliant by 2015. This may cause a heavy financial burden on a lot of fire departments. The District reports that its repeater system needs upgrades and ongoing maintenance for which PECSD lacks funding. Staffing PECSD has ten sworn personnel—one fire chief, one assistant fire chief, two captains, two engineers and four firefighters. The fire chief, assistant chief and two captains are paid a monthly stipend. In addition, firefighters are paid per call. The pay for a firefighter is from $18 to $24 per call depending on firefighter certification. Firefighters are also reimbursed for attending training at the rate of two dollars and fifty cents an hour. Checks to firefighters are issued monthly. The median age of the fire fighters is 58, with a range from 36 to 75. The District reports that recruitment and retention of volunteers have been major challenges for PEFD. The main reason for these issues is that Plumas-Eureka is a bedroom and retirement community with a senior citizen and aging population. The department tries to recruit volunteers through its website where it describes the requirements, time commitment and benefits of being a volunteer firefighter. Other ongoing efforts include going door to door, sending flyers and newsletters, and conducting fundraising events where the department actively seeks new recruits and displays a large recruitment banner. According to the California State Fire Marshal, all volunteer and call firefighters must acquire Firefighter I certification; however, there is no time limit as to how long they may work before attaining certification. Firefighter I certification requires completion of the 259-hour Firefighter I course, which includes training on various fireground tasks, rescue operations, fire prevention and investigation techniques, and inspection and maintenance of equipment. In addition to this course, Firefighter I certification also requires that the applicant have a minimum of six months of volunteer or call experience in a California fire department as a firefighter performing suppression duties.366 PECSD has four Firefighter I certified personnel; the same four are Firefighter II certified. The fire department has three EMT I certified firefighters. The Department’s regular trainings in fire suppression, emergency medical services, hazardous materials response, rescue, and public assist take place every week on Wednesdays from 6pm to 9pm. Supplemental training programs held on occasional 366 State Fire Marshall, Course Information and Required Materials, 2007, p. 44 PECSD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 333 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY Saturdays include classroom and hands-on field training. The Department conducts evaluations to confirm that the training has been effective. The minimum training standards require the District’s firefighters to attend the Quincy Fire Academy. PEFD volunteer firefighters spend about 200 hours annually on training. The following trainings are to be completed within 24 months:  CFSTES Volunteer Firefighter 1;  CPR and AED;  First Responder (Nor Cal EMS);  ICS-100 and 200 (FEMA online);  NWCG S-130, 131 and 190;  CSTI Hazardous Materials First Responder Operational and Decontamination;  Auto extrication; and  Practice in a burn trailer.367 Facilities and Capacity PECSD operates one fire station located in Plumas Eureka Estates, at the same location as the main office for the CSD. The station, which is owned by the District, was built 1984 and was reported to be in poor condition. The facility is used as a fire station and fire department headquarters. It is also used by the CSD staff for administration purposes and to house district equipment and vehicles. The station is typically staffed between seven in the morning and 3:30 in the afternoon. It contains two Type I engines, one Type III fire engine and one Type II rescue vehicle. Command vehicle is in possession of the fire chief at all times. The District’s water reserves are represented by two bolted steel storage tanks totaling 590,000 gallons. PEFD reported that its capacity to provide fire service to future development will depend on the size of development and whether the department could recruit more volunteers from within the new development. The District anticipated that there would not be any difficulties providing adequate service to new development, due to the automatic aid agreement with GFPD. 367 http://www.pecsd.org/training.html. PECSD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 334 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY Infrastructure Needs The District reported that the existing station used to be a stand-alone facility until the CSD was formed, at which time the PECSD took over the fire station. Since then, there have been some modifications to the building with regards to storage and providing more space to house the District’s equipment and vehicles. The Fire Department reports that it has been increasingly difficult for both the fire department and the other district functions to co-exist in the same building, due to limited office and storage space and undersized parking areas for the fire apparatus. But, although it would be desirable to have separate facilities for the fire station and all other CSD operations, the District does not see any fiscally responsible way to construct another facility. PECSD is not eligible for grant funding due to its high level of per capita income. The fire department identified a need for new fire engines. The existing ones are 22 to 30 years old. PEFD does not presently have sufficient funds to purchase new fire engines. The fire department enhances its financing for new purchases through the fire auxiliary (PECAUX). The auxiliary raises money for new fire equipment and emergency medical equipment through fundraising events held throughout the year.368 Challenges One of the primary challenges for the fire department at this time is the lack of volunteer firefighters. Due to the County’s unemployment rate and community’s aging population, it is increasingly difficult to recruit and retain volunteers. PEFD identified two difficult-to-serve areas—the community of Johnsville and the area known as Red Dirt Road located to the north of Johnsville. A majority of the roads in Johnsville are uphill and it takes more than 12 minutes to get to an incident in the summer. The fire hydrants in Johnsville are not accessible in the winter due to the snow. The Red Dirt Road area is primarily comprised of dirt roads, which are very narrow, with poor or no signage and overgrown with no vegetation management. Red Dirt Road is not reachable in the winter. There is also no emergency water supply in the area. The chief identified a few areas where he sees opportunities for fire service improvement. Dispatching could be improved by the Sheriff’s Office working more closely with the Fire Chiefs Association and discussing fire providers’ current dispatching needs. There is a need for a County Fire Warden who could act as a fire inspector for all fire agencies in the County. Vehicle maintenance could be handled by the County Road Department’s mechanics. According to the chief, there is a potential for most of the fire departments to consolidate to make fire service provision in the County more efficient. As a first step, the fire providers could enter into a JPA to share expenses on equipment, 368 http://www.pecsd.org/pecauxauxiliary.html PECSD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 335 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY maintenance, training, staffing, fire prevention programs, insurance, workers’ compensation, calls, and administrative duties. Service Adequacy While there are several benchmarks that may define the level of fire service provided by an agency, indicators of service adequacy discussed here include ISO ratings, response times, and level of staffing and station resources for the service area. Fire services in the communities are classified by the Insurance Service Office (ISO), an advisory organization. This classification indicates the general adequacy of coverage. Communities with the best fire department facilities, systems for water distribution, fire alarms and communications, and equipment and personnel receive a rating of 1. PECSD’s fire department has an ISO rating of 3 in urban areas and 5 in rural areas. The District was last evaluated in 2004. The guideline established by the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) for fire response times is six minutes at least 90 percent of the time, with response time measured from the 911-call time to the arrival time of the first-responder at the scene. The fire response time guideline established by the Center for Public Safety Excellence (formerly the Commission on Fire Accreditation International) is 5 minutes 50 seconds at least 90 percent of the time.369 Emergency response time standards vary by level of urbanization of an area: the more urban an area, the faster a response has to be. The California EMS Agency established the following response time guidelines: five minutes in urban areas, 15 minutes in suburban or rural areas, and as quickly as possible in wildland areas. The District’s response zones include wildland classifications. The District’s reported average response time is five to eight minutes. An area that PEFD can improve upon is calculating its median and 90th percentile response times. The service area size370 for each fire station varies between fire districts. The median fire station in eastern Plumas serves approximately 20 square miles. Sierra Valley FPD serves the most expansive area, with 111 square miles served per station on average. Densely populated areas tend to have smaller service areas. For example, the average service area for the City of Portola is 3.8 square miles. By comparison, a fire station in PECSD serves approximately 20 square miles. The number of firefighters serving within a particular jurisdiction is another indicator of level of service; however, it is approximate. The providers’ call firefighters may have differing availability and reliability. A district with more firefighters could have fewer 369 Commission on Fire Accreditation International, 2000. 370 Service area refers to the area that the agency will respond to, based on a first responder map used by the Sherriff’s office. PECSD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 336 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY resources if scheduling availability is restricted. Staffing levels in eastern Plumas vary from eight call firefighters per 1,000 residents in City of Portola service area to 42 in Beckwourth FD. By comparison, PECSD has approximately 30 firefighters per 1,000 residents. PECSD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 337 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY Figure 17-5: Plumas-Eureka Community Services District Fire Profile Fire Service Facilities Firestation Location Condition Staff per Shift Vehicles Plumas-Eureka Fire 200 Lundy Poor Unstaffed 2 Type 1 engines, 1 Type 3 engine, 1 Type Department Lane, 2 Rescue, Command vehicle. Blairsden, CA 96103 Facility Sharing Current Practices: The Fire Department shares its facilities with PECSD water and wastewater offices. Future opportunities: The District does not see any opportunities to share facilities with other agencies, except in the event of a fire district consolidation. PECSD also recognized an opportunity for the County to provide necessary vehicle maintenance on each provider's fire engines. Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies There is a need for separate facilities for fire department and other CSD offices. PEFD needs new fire engines. District Resource Statistics Service Configuration Service Demand Staffing Base Year 2010 Configuration Base Year 2010 Statistical Base Year 2010 Fire Stations in District 1 Fire Suppression Direct Total Service Calls 45 Stations Serving District 1 EMS Direct % EMS 54% Sq. Miles Served per Station 20 Ambulance Transport EPHCD % Fire/Hazardous Materials 43% Total Staff2 10 Hazardous Materials Direct % False 2% Total Full-time Firefighters 0 Air Rescue/Ambulance HelicopterCareFlight % Misc. emergency 0% Total Call Firefighters 10 Fire Suppression Helicopter CalFire, USFS % Non-emergency 0% Total Sworn Staff per Station 10 Public Safety Answering Point Sheriff % Mutual Aid Calls 38% Total Sworn Staff per 1,000 30 Fire/EMS Dispatch Sheriff Calls per 1,000 people 138 Service Adequacy Service Challenges Lack of volunteers, uphill roads and inaccessible fire hydrants in winter in Response Time Base Year 2010 Johnsville and run-down narrow roads in Red Dirt Road area. Median Response Time (min) NP Training Trainings are held every Wednesday from 6pm to 9pm. Supplemental 90th Percentile Response Time (min) NP training includes classroom and hands-on field training. The minimum training, to be achieved within first 24 months, inlude completing multiple ISO Rating 3/5 (2004) training types at the Quincy Fire Academy. Mutual & Automatic Aid Agreements PECSD has an automatic aid agreement with Graeagle FPD, EPRFPD and Long Valley FD. Notes: 1) Primary service area (square miles) per station. 2) Total staff includes sworn and non-sworn personnel. 3) Based on ratio of sworn full-time and call staff to the number of stations. Actual staffing levels of each station vary. PECSD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 338 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY WWAASSTTEEWWAATTEERR SSEERRVVIICCEESS Service Overview The District owns and operates the wastewater collection and treatment system that serves the community. All services are provided directly by district staff, with the exception of collection system cleaning which is provided by contractors. There are 1.5 FTEs dedicated to wastewater services. As of 2011, the District provides sewer services to 318 connections. Wastewater services are provided only within the District’s boundaries. The District does not provide wastewater services outside of its bounds. Less than half of the residential lots in each basin are currently provided sewer service by the District. The District estimates that there are approximately 224 developed lots that rely on private septic systems, including a restaurant and shop at the golf course clubhouse. The areas that rely on septic systems were developed prior to the formation of PECSD, and include the areas from the middle of the District’s bounds to the northeast, as well as the southwest territory of the District. As the private septic systems fail that are within 200 feet of a main, the landowners are required by the County to connect to the PECSD system. Additionally, the eastern most portion of the District that lies next to the Feather River, is largely undeveloped with only two or three residences and does not receive wastewater services. (Water and fire services are provided in this area.) Flood plain concerns and topography issues pose challenges to development and extending wastewater services to this area of the District. Facilities and Capacity The existing wastewater collection system is comprised of two separate and distinct collection and treatment systems—WWTP 6 and WWTP 7. The WWTP 6 tributary area includes residences on Aspen Circle and West Ponderosa Drive. Basin 6 also includes a portion of the residential areas west of Poplar Valley Road. The WWTP 7 service area includes areas in the south and west portion of the District that are connected to the collection system. The collection system consists of a total 3.4 miles of pipes, 3.3 miles of which are gravity fed. All lines are PVC pipe with sealed manholes. To date there have been no mainline stoppages. The system was originally installed in the mid-80s. The last major addition to the system was a section of main along Ponderosa Drive, which was privately funded in 2009. The collection system is generally considered to be in good condition by the District. The District reported that there are some concerns about infiltration and inflow as flows can go up 20 to 30 percent during the winter, or when there is high groundwater. The peaking factor is 1.6, meaning peak flows are 1.6 times the ADWF. The District regularly PECSD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 339 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY assesses the system for manholes that need to be sealed, which appears to be the primary contributor to the infiltration and inflow.371 Based on the District’s engineer’s calculations, less than 10 percent of the capacity of any given pipeline in a majority of the collection system was in use in 2001, with the exception of a few pipelines around Ponderosa Drive that are up to 52 percent full.372 Sewage is collected and conveyed to one of the two wastewater treatment plants— WWTP 6 and WWTP 7. Both treatment plants treat to secondary levels. The design capacity of WWTP 6 is 25,000 gpd; treatment consists of a trickling filter system.373 Treated effluent is discharged to the community leachfield or the golf course during irrigation season. Treated wastewater is collected at WWTP 6 in three 10,000- gallon storage tanks to be used for irrigation of the golf course. The District reported that WWTP 6 is in relatively good condition. The ADWF in 2010 to WWTP 6 was 0.01 mgd or 40 percent of the WWTP’s design capacity. The peak day demand during 2010 was .028 mgd or 112 percent of the capacity of WWTP 6. WWTP 7 makes use of activated sludge treatment with disposal to the community leach field. According to the District’s waste discharge requirements, WWTP 7 originally had the design capacity to treat 50,000 gpd.374 As part of the WWTP repair and expansion in 2007 the design of the treatment plant was upgraded to 70,000 gpd; however this expansion is not reflected in the District’s permit from 1998. WWTP 7 is considered to be in excellent condition by the District. The ADWF in 2010 to WWTP 7 was .024 mgd or 34 percent of the WWTP’s permitted capacity. The PWWF during 2010 was 0.098 mgd or 140 percent of the capacity of WWTP 7. The Dynamite Community Leachfield was installed in 1996, to replace the previously used common leachfields. The leachfield has a capacity of 100,000 gpd. The District reported that it is in good condition. The District has a contract to provide reclaimed water to the golf course for irrigation purposes. Based on the District’s waste discharge requirements there is no limit as to how much treated effluent can be used for irrigation. The golf course is irrigated from ten in the evening till six in the morning and will generally accept as much reclaimed water as the 371 Interview with Frank Motzkus, PECSD General Manger, April 25, 2011. 372 PECSD, Collection System Evaluation, 2001, p. 14. 373 The District is operating under Waste Discharge Requirments issued by the Central Valley Region Water Quality Control Board (Order No. 98-007). The permit does not indicate for what period or season the permitted capacity is applicable (i.e., ADWF or PWWF). 374 The District is operating under Waste Discharge Requirments issued by the Central Valley Region Water Quality Control Board (Order No. 98-007). The permit does not indicate for what period or season the permitted capacity is applicable (i.e., ADWF or PWWF). PECSD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 340 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY District can provide between April and October. Presently, the District only supplies enough water to irrigate the first nine holes of the course. The current system appears to have sufficient capacity for average dry weather flows, but occasionally exceeds the capacity of the WWTPs during wet weather and peak demand periods in the summer. Excess flow is stored prior to treatment in order to stay in compliance with permit conditions. At build-out, the District’s Collection System Evaluation estimates that there will be a total of 686 connections contributing to the District’s wastewater collection system with a daily flow of 115,900 gpd.375 Expansion of the District’s facilities will be necessary to serve build-out of all territory within the District’s bounds. Infrastructure Needs PECSD addresses rehabilitation and replacement by categorizing repairs and system deficiencies into three categories; immediate needs, short term actions, and long term goals. Presently, there are no immediate or short-term needs for the wastewater system. The District has created reserve funds to save for several potential long-term capital improvements, which include:  Upgrading the WWTP 6 treatment system – It is likely that RWQCB will have more stringent requirements for reclaimed water when the PECSD’s waste discharge requirements are reviewed and reissued. In anticipation of the requirements, the District is looking to update or replace WWTP 6 with an activated sludge treatment process. The District will likely do the upgrades when they are required, but has begun saving in anticipation. The District estimates that a new plant will cost approximately $2 million.  Relocation of the WWTP 7 lift station – The lift station is approximately 40 years old and is located near private property. The District would like to relocate this lift station when the station becomes inoperable and needs to be replaced. The existing lift station is still operating at satisfactory levels, so there are no plans to replace it in the short-term.  Improvements to treatment system to tertiary levels – Presently, WWTP 6 only has the capacity to provide reclaimed water for the first nine holes of the golf course. The District hopes to install filters at WWTP 7 so that additional reclaimed water can be made available for the back nine holes. The District has not made specific plans on when this will occur, but has begun reserving funds. 375 Total flow at build-out based on the assumption of 200 gpd per connection for each new connection. PECSD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 341 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY Challenges Challenges to providing wastewater services, as reported by the District, consist of 1) relying on outside parties to do significant cleaning and repairs and 2) retaining appropriately licensed operators with system knowledge and no training needs. Service Adequacy This section reviews indicators of service adequacy, including regulatory compliance, treatment effectiveness, sewer overflows and collection system integrity. Figure 17-6: PECSD Wastewater Service Adequacy Indicators Wastewater Service Adequacy and Efficiency Regulatory Compliance Record, 2005-10 Formal Enforcement Actions 0 Informal Enforcement Actions 2 Formal Enforcement Action Type Description of Violations NA Total Violations, 2005-10 Total Violations 2 Priority Violations 0 Service Adequacy Indicators Treatment Effectiveness Rate2 100% Sewer Overflows 2009 - 20103 1 Total Employees (FTEs) 1.5 Sewer Overflow Rate4 29.412 MGD Treated per FTE 0.022 Customer Complaints CY 10: Odor (0), spills (0), other (0) Source Control and Pollution Prevention Practices There are no commercial or industrial connections to the PECSD system, which limits the possibility for the discharge of fats, oil, grease, and debris into the sewer system. Collection System Inspection Practices The collection system is cleaned on a three year cycle. The system has been divided into thirds and one section is cleaned out each year. This service is contracted out. Video inspections are done only if possible problems are found during the cleaning process. Lift stations are cleaned during the annual collection system cleaning on an "as needed" basis. Notes: (1) Order or Code Violations include sanitary sewer overflow violations. (2) Total number of compliance days in 2010 per 365 days. (3) Total number of overflows experienced (excluding those caused by customers) from 2008 to 2010 as reported by the agency. (4) Sewer overflows from 2009 to 2010 (excluding those caused by customers) per 100 miles of collection piping. PECSD has been issued two violations between 2005 and 2010, both of which were informal enforcement orders due to violations of order conditions. Neither of the violations were considered priority violations. Two violations equates to approximately five violations per 1,000 population served. By comparison, other wastewater providers in the eastern region of the County averaged 38 violations per 1,000 population served. Wastewater treatment providers are required to comply with effluent quality standards under the waste discharge requirements determined by RWQCB. The District reported that PECSD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 342 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY in 2010, it was never out of compliance with effluent quality requirements. Other wastewater providers in the eastern region of Plumas County were out of compliance on average nine days in 2010. Wastewater agencies are required to report sewer system overflows (SSOs) to SWRCB. Overflows reflect the capacity and condition of collection system piping and the effectiveness of routine maintenance. The sewer overflow rate is calculated as the number of overflows per 100 miles of collection piping. The District reported one overflow during the period from 2008 thru 2010, and consequently the overflow rate is 29. Other providers in the region averaged an SSO rate of 3.8 per 100 miles of collection piping. There are several measures of integrity of the wastewater collection system, including peaking factors, efforts to address infiltration and inflow (I/I), and inspection practices. As discussed previously, the District has a peaking factor of four in the WWTP 7 system and 2.8 in the WWTP 6 system. Other wastewater providers in the region have an average peaking factor of 4.3. PECSD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 343 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY Figure 17-7: PECSD Wastewater Profile Wastewater Service Configuration and Demand Service Configuration Service Type Service Provider(s) Wastewater Collection PECSD Wastewater Treatment PECSD Wastewater Disposal PECSD Recycled Water PECSD Service Area The District's boundaries less 224 developed lots that rely on private septic systems which are located in the middle of the District’s bounds to the northeast, as well as the Collection: southwest territory of the District. Treatment: Same as the collection service area above. Recycled Water: Plumas Pines Golf Course Service Demand Connections (2010) Flow (mgd) Type Total Inside Bounds Outside Bounds Average Total 318 318 0 0.033 Residential 318 318 0 - Commercial 0 0 0 - Industrial 0 0 0 - Historical and Projected Demand (ADWF in millions of gallons per day)2 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 0.029 0.034 0.035 0.036 0.037 Note: (1) NA: Not Applicable; NP: Not Provided. (2) Projections are based on the 0.05 percent annual average growth rate projected by DOF for the entire County. PECSD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 344 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY continued Wastewater Infrastructure Wastewater Collection, Treatment & Disposal Infrastructure System Overview Treatment level: Secondary Disposal method: Treated effluent is either discharged into the community leachfield or used to irrigate the golf course. Facility Name Capacity Condition Year Built Unit 6 WWTP 0.025 mgd Good Mid 1980s Unit 7 WWTP 0.07 mgd Excellent 2007 Community leachfields 0.10 mgd Good 1996 Collection & Distribution Infrastructure Sewer Pipe Miles 3.4 Sewage Lift Stations 2 Treatment Plant Daily Flow (mgd) WWTP 6 ADWF (mgd) % of ADWF Capacity in Use Peak Wet (mgd) Peaking Factor 0.01 40% 0.028 2.80 WWTP 7 ADWF (mgd) % of ADWF Capacity in Use Peak Wet (mgd) Peaking Factor 0.024 34% 0.098 4 Infiltration and Inflow The District reported that there are some concerns about infiltration and inflow as flows can go up 20 to 30 percent during the winter, or when there is high groundwater. The District regularly assesses the system for manholes that need to be sealed, which appears to be the primary contributor to the infiltration and inflow. Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies Presently, there are no immediate or short-term needs for the wastewater system. The District has created reserve funds to save for several potential long-term capital improvements, which include: upgrading the WWTP 6 treatment system, relocating the WWTP 7 lift station, and improvements to treatment system to tertiary levels. Wastewater Facility Sharing Facility Sharing Practices The District does not practice facility sharing with other agencies or organizations related to wastewater services. Facility Sharing Opportunities The District did not identify future opportunities for facility sharing. PECSD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 345 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY Water Rates and Financing Residential Water Rates-Ongoing Charges FY 10-111 Avg. Monthly Rate Description Charges Consumption2 Residential-Plumas A flat monthly rate of $39.75 depending on $39.75 Eureka Estates and subdivision, but regardless of usage and (developed lots 7,600 gal/month The Village connection type. only) A flat monthly rate of $52.25 depending on $52.25 Residential-Eureka subdivision, but regardless of usage and (developed lots 7,600 gal/month Springs connection type. only) Rate-Setting Procedures Most Recent Rate Change 7/1/07 Frequency of Rate Changes Annually Water Development Fees and Requirements Fee Approach The District charges separate fees for water system buy-in and water system hook up. Connection Fee Amount $1,000/Single Family Unit Development Impact Fee $5,329/Single Family Unit Water Enterprise Revenues, FY 09-10 Operating Expenditures, FY 09-10 Source Amount % Amount Total $297,587 100% Total $273,730 Rates & charges $293,491 99% Administration $98,445 Property tax $0 0% O & M $138,202 Grants $0 0% Capital Depreciation $37,083 Interest $2,292 0.8% Debt $0 Connection Fees $0 0% Purchased Water $0 Other $1,804 1% Other $0 Notes: (1) Rates include water-related service charges and usage charges. (2) Water use assumptions were used to calculate average monthly bills. Assumed use levels are consistent countywide for comparison purposes. PECSD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 346 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY WWAATTEERR SSEERRVVIICCEESS Service Overview PECSD provides retail water services for consumption and irrigation purposes. The District owns and operates the water storage, wells, treatment and distribution system that serves the community. All services are provided directly by district staff. There are 1.5 FTEs dedicated to water services, including two operators and the general manager that assists as needed. As of 2011, the District provides water services to 548 active connections. The District does not provide water services outside of its bounds. All developed lots within the District’s bounds are connected to the District’s water system, and do not rely on private wells. Facilities and Capacity Water Supplies Water Source and Rights The current source of PECSD’s water supply is groundwater pumped at two wells. The District pumps water from the Mohawk Valley Groundwater Basin. The Department of Water Resources estimates storage capacity of the basin to be 90,000 acre-feet to a depth of 200 feet.376 Groundwater extraction by PECSD averages approximately 190 acre-feet annually. Deep percolation of applied water is estimated to be 330 acre-feet by the Department of Water Resources, meaning that the amount pumped by municipal users is presently replaced by groundwater recharge. PECSD and Clio Public Utility District are the only public water systems that make use of the Mohawk Valley Basin; however, there are other agencies that make use of the groundwater basin area Neither agency has a groundwater management plan. The District monitors the groundwater level of the aquifer. PECSD reported that there had been no periods of significant drawdown and there is little change in available water during droughts. Water service to the community was previously provided with surface water from Lake Madora, until 1982 when growth required a better quality water supply. The lake water is presently used to irrigate the golf course. All of the lake water conveyance facilities are owned and operated by the golf course. 376 Department of Water Resources, California’s Groundwater Bulletin 118 – Mohawk Valley Groundwater Basin, 2004, p. 1. PECSD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 347 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY Quality Groundwater in the Mohawk Valley Basin has locally high iron, manganese, ammonia, phosphorus, ASAR and boron levels.377 The District has detected iron and manganese levels that occasionally exceed the secondary standard. Additionally, approximately eight months of the year, PECSD is in violation of the MCL standard of 10 μg/L for arsenic in their drinking water. The current arsenic level in the drinking water varies with season, and ranges from about 6 μg/L to 18 μg/L. Typically, the arsenic concentration falls in the winter and climbs during the summer, and generally exceeds the standards between April and December.378 In order to comply with the arsenic standard, either the arsenic level in the water must be lowered through treatment, or an alternative source of low-arsenic water identified and brought into the system. As part of an engineer’s report on options to address the arsenic issue, other water supply possibilities in the area were researched. The groundwater in the vicinity was found to have similar arsenic content. Possible surface water supplies include the Feather River, or Jamison Creek through Madora Lake. The engineer’s report found that the Feather River source was not reliable enough to meet system demands during drought years. Developing the Jamison Creek source was found to be more expensive than construction of an arsenic treatment facility for the groundwater.379 After the completion of the engineer’s report, in the fall of 2010, the District had two test wells drilled—one of which was found to have no or low arsenic levels which meets the MCL. The District will be investigating if water from this well can be blended with the water from the existing wells to lower the arsenic levels and comply with MCL requirements. CDPH has issued a statement to the District indicating that blending is a viable option if it is substantiated in an engineer’s report. The District anticipates that by fall 2011, they will have the results of the testing and engineer’s analysis and will have determined what strategy the District will use to address the arsenic issue. Existing and Projected Water Use While the two wells have a reported maximum capacity of 920 gpm, DPH reported that the sustainable long-term yield when both wells are operating at the same time is 335 gpm.380 The maximum day demand (in 2010) of the system was 555 gpm, which exceeds the District’s sustainable yield, but is well within the maximum capacity of the two wells. The average monthly demand is 118 gpm, which is approximately 35 percent of the long- term yield from the two wells. 377 DWR, Groundwater Bulletin 118 – Mohawk Valley Groundwater Basin, February 27, 2004, p. 2. 378 PECSD, Preliminary Engineering Report For the Plumas Eureka Water System Improvements, June, 2009, p. 1. 379 Ibid. 380 DPH, Annual Inspection Report, April 24, 2008, p. 2. PECSD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 348 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY Demand for water differs greatly throughout the year, as the District’s population spikes in July and August during the tourism season. Both wells are needed to meet peak day demands during the summer months. If one well fails or is off-line, the system cannot meet peak day demands. California Waterworks Standards require that a system be able to supply peak day demand with the largest well off line. The District plans to construct a third well as part of a cumulative capital improvement of the entire system to address the arsenic as well as any other identified issues. Based on the DOF’s projection of 0.5 percent average annual growth throughout the County, the average monthly demand for water will exceed the District’s sustainable water supply in 2026. Treatment and Distribution Facilities The District operates two wells that were both drilled in 1982. While the equipment that operates the two wells was reported to be in good condition by the District, PECSD is struggling with arsenic levels in both wells that exceed federal and State MCLs. Both wells are still online and the District has made the public aware of the situation. As discussed previously, the District is the process of researching alternatives to address this issue. Both wells are equipped with well head treatment systems—one with chlorine gas and one with sodium hypochlorite. The District plans to transition the chlorine gas system to sodium hypochlorite by the end of summer 2011. The District’s distribution system is composed of primarily PVC piping with less than one percent iron piping. The District intends to completely replace all of the iron piping; although, the timing of the replacement is unknown. DPH described the system as being in good or excellent condition with the exception of the portion of iron piping.381 Storage Facilities and Emergency Supply The District maintains two bolted steel storage tanks—one with a storage capacity of 400,000 gallons and the other with a capacity of 190,000 gallons. The tanks were built in 1979 and 1981. The larger of the two tanks needs to be cleaned, but is considered to be in good condition by the District. The smaller tank is considered to be in fair condition, due to seismic safety concerns. The tank is planned to be replaced as part of the capital projects to address the arsenic issue. DPH reported that for a system the size of PECSD, the District should have 400,000 gallons of water storage to meet Waterworks Standards for storage. The District exceeds this standard with 590,000 gallons of available water storage. The District does not have any interties with other water providers to provide a backup potable water supply should PECSD’s water supply be interrupted. If necessary, the District would have to truck in water for consumption. Should additional water be needed for fire flow purposes, untreated water from Lake Madora could be used. An intertie spool is available and can readily be installed to connect the lake to the District’s system. 381 Ibid, p. 4. PECSD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 349 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY The District reported that adequate pressure (between 50 and 80 psi) is maintained during fire flow events. Infrastructure Needs The following infrastructure needs and deficiencies were identified for the District by the engineer’s report:  Arsenic treatment or additional groundwater supply for blending to come into compliance with the arsenic MCL.  Additional well capacity to meet maximum day demand while one well is off line.  Transition to hypochlorite from chlorine gas at the well head treatment.  Replacement of the 190,000-gallon storage tank and recoating of the other tank.  Installation of radio read meters at each connection in order to promote conservation. These projects are estimated to cost approximately $7.3 million. Once the District has determined the appropriate approach to addressing the arsenic levels, it will begin searching for a funding source for the projects combined, potentially a USDA rural development loan. Additionally, the final remaining portion of iron pipe may be replaced this year, depending on financing. Challenges The District reported that staying in compliance with ever evolving regulatory requirements for a small utility provider can pose a challenge, particularly if it involves significant capital investment. Service Adequacy This section reviews indicators of service adequacy, including the Department of Public Health’s (DPH) annual system evaluation, drinking water quality, and distribution system integrity. The DPH is responsible for the enforcement of the federal and California Safe Drinking Water Acts and the operational permitting and regulatory oversight of public water systems. Domestic water providers of at least 200 connections are subject to inspections by DPH. During the Department of Public Health’s most recent annual inspection in 2008, DPH reports that the District’s water system appears to be “in reasonably good condition PECSD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 350 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY and conscientiously operated.”382 The inspection report did note a need for the District to test back flow devices annually, which the District had failed to do in 2006, 2007 and 2008. Drinking water quality is determined by a combination of historical violations reported by the EPA since 2000 and the percent of time that the District was in compliance with Primary Drinking Water Regulations in 2010. Since 2000, the District has had 13 health violations due to arsenic exceedances at the wells. This equates to approximately 24 violations per 1,000 connections served. By comparison, the other water providers in the eastern region of the County had a median of 21 violations per 1,000 connections served during that same time frame. The median water service provider in the region was in compliance 96 percent of the time in 2010. In 2010, the District was out of compliance with the arsenic MCL for one of the two wells all four quarters; however, the well with the highest arsenic content is usually offline. Indicators of distribution system integrity are the number of breaks and leaks in 2010 and the rate of unaccounted for distribution loss. The District reported no breaks and leaks per 100 miles of pipe lines in 2010, while other providers in the region had a median rate of 12 breaks per 100 pipe miles. The District loses approximately four percent of water between the water source and the connections served, which was relatively low compared to other providers in the area that averaged seven percent distribution losses. Figure 17-8: PECSD Water Service Adequacy Indicators Water Service Adequacy and Efficiency Indicators Service Adequacy Indicators Connections/FTE 365.33333 O&M Cost Ratio1 $801,331 MGD Delivered/FTE 0.11 Distribution Loss Rate 4% Distribution Breaks & Leaks (2010) 0 Distribution Break Rate2 0.0 Water Pressure 50-80 psi Total Employees (FTEs) 1.5 Customer Complaints CY 2010: Odor/taste (0), leaks (0), pressure (1), other (6) Drinking Water Quality Regulatory Information3 # Description Health Violations 13 Exceedances of arsenic MCL (2007, 2008, 2009, 2010) Monitoring Violations 0 In 2010, the District was out of compliance with the arsenic MCL for one of the two wells all four quarters; however, the well with the highest arsenic content is usually offline from DW Compliance Rate4 0% October through April. Notes: (1) Operations and maintenance costs (exc. purchased water, debt, depreciation) per volume (mgd) delivered. (2) Distribution break rate is the number of leaks and pipeline breaks per 100 miles of distribution piping. (3) Violations since 2000, as reported by the U.S. EPA Safe Drinking Water Information System. (4) Drinking water compliance is percent of time in compliance with National Primary Drinking Water Regulations in 2010. 382 Department of Public Health, Annual Inspection Report, April 25, 2008, p. 1. PECSD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 351 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY Figure 17-9: PECSD Water Service Tables Water Service Configuration & Infrastructure Water Service Provider(s) Water Service Provider(s) Retail Water PECSD Groundwater Recharge PECSD Wholesale Water None Groundwater Extraction PECSD Water Treatment PECSD Recycled Water PECSD Service Area Description Retail Water All developed parcels within the District's boundaries Wholesale Water NA Recycled Water Plumas Pines Golf Course Water Sources Supply (Acre-Feet/Year) Source Type Average Maximum Safe/Firm Mohawk Valley Groundwater 193 1,485 330 2 Groundwater Basin System Overview Average Daily Demand 0.17 mgd Peak Day Demand 0.8 mgd Major Facilities Facility Name Type Capacity Condition Yr Built Well 1B Well 420 gpm Good 1982 Well 2 Well 500 gpm Good 1982 Storage Tank #1 Storage 400,000 gallons Good 1979 Storage Tank #2 Storage 190,000 gallons Fair 1982 Other Infrastructure Reservoirs - Storage Capacity (mg) 0.59 mg Pump Stations 0 Pressure Zones 2 Production Wells 2 Pipe Miles 12 Facility-Sharing and Regional Collaboration Current Practices: PECSD does not practice facility sharing with other agencies or organizations. Opportunities: The District reported that future opportunities for facility sharing were limited. Notes: (1) NA means Not Applicable, NP means Not Provided, mg means millions of gallons, af means acre-feet. (2) Based on the groundwater recharge rate reported by the Department of Water Resources. PECSD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 352 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY Water Demand and Supply Service Connections Total Inside Bounds Outside Bounds Total 548 548 0 Irrigation/Landscape 4 4 0 Domestic 542 542 0 Commercial/Industrial/Institutional 1 1 0 Recycled 1 1 0 Other 0 0 0 Average Annual Demand Information (Acre-Feet per Year)1 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 Total 190 194 185 192 197 202 202 Residential NP NP NP NP NP NP NP Commercial/Industrial NP NP NP NP NP NP NP Irrigation/Landscape NP NP NP NP NP NP NP Other NP NP NP NP NP NP NP Supply Information (Acre-feet per Year) 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 Total 198 202 193 200 205 210 210 Imported 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Groundwater 198 202 193 200 205 210 210 Surface 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Recycled Unknown 3.2 2.2 3.0 3.5 3.5 3.5 Drought Supply and Plans Drought Supply (af)2 Year 1: No change Year 2: No change Year 3: No change Storage Practices Storage is for treatment and short-term emergency supply only. Drought Plan The District has a five-stage conservation program for periods of drought or emergency outages. Water Conservation Practices CUWCC Signatory No Metering No - all new connections are required to be metered. Conservation Pricing No Other Practices The County has a requirement that all new development must be equipped with low flow devices. Notes: (1) Annual projected demand as estimated by the District less 4 percent system loss. Connections are not metered, consequently, the District does not track consumption by connection type. (2) The District has not estimated available supply during a three year drought. During past droughts, the District reported that it has experienced little difference in groundwater and spring levels. PECSD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 353 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY Water Rates and Financing Residential Water Rates-Ongoing Charges FY 10-111 Avg. Monthly Rate Description Charges Consumption2 Residential-Plumas A flat monthly rate of $39.75 depending on $39.75 Eureka Estates and subdivision, but regardless of usage and (developed lots 7,600 gal/month The Village connection type. only) A flat monthly rate of $52.25 depending on $52.25 Residential-Eureka subdivision, but regardless of usage and (developed lots 7,600 gal/month Springs connection type. only) Rate-Setting Procedures Most Recent Rate Change 7/1/07 Frequency of Rate Changes Annually Water Development Fees and Requirements Fee Approach The District charges separate fees for water system buy-in and water system hook up. Connection Fee Amount $1,000/Single Family Unit Development Impact Fee $5,329/Single Family Unit Water Enterprise Revenues, FY 09-10 Operating Expenditures, FY 09-10 Source Amount % Amount Total $297,587 100% Total $273,730 Rates & charges $293,491 99% Administration $98,445 Property tax $0 0% O & M $138,202 Grants $0 0% Capital Depreciation $37,083 Interest $2,292 0.8% Debt $0 Connection Fees $0 0% Purchased Water $0 Other $1,804 1% Other $0 Notes: (1) Rates include water-related service charges and usage charges. (2) Water use assumptions were used to calculate average monthly bills. Assumed use levels are consistent countywide for comparison purposes. PECSD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 354 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY PPLLUUMMAASS EEUURREEKKAA CCSSDD DDEETTEERRMMIINNAATTIIOONNSS Growth and Population Projections  The District has a permanent population of 320. During the summer, the District serves a seasonal population approximately 1,700.  There has been minimal growth in population within the District over the last 10 years; however, there has been an increase in demand for district services, particularly fire services. Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities and Adequacy of Public Services, Including Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies  PEFD reported that its capacity to provide fire service to future development will depend on the size of development and whether the department could recruit more volunteers from within the new development. The District anticipated that there would not be any difficulties providing adequate service to new development, due to the automatic aid agreement with GFPD and other mutual aid agreements in place.  The fire department identified a need for new fire engines. The existing ones are 22 to 30 years old. PEFD does not presently have sufficient funds to purchase new fire engines.  An area that PECSD can improve upon is calculating its median and 90th percentile response times and making it available to the public.  It is recommended that the County Sheriff’s Office work with the fire districts to update the ESN map that is used for dispatching, in order to adequately address any communication concerns and recent boundary changes.  Based on dry weather flows, 40 percent of the capacity of WWTP 6 is in use, while 34 percent of the capacity of WWTP 7 is in use. While dry weather flows are well within the capacity of the treatment facilities, peak wet weather flows greatly exceed the capacity of WWTP 7, due to relatively high I/I. Peak flows are stored prior to treatment to ensure that the permitted capacity of the system is not exceeded.  The current sewer system appears to have sufficient capacity for both dry and wet weather peak sewer flows. Expansion of the District’s facilities will be necessary to serve build-out of all territory within the District’s bounds.  Presently, there are no immediate or short-term needs for the wastewater system. PECSD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 355 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY  The maximum day demand exceeds the District’s water source sustainable yield, but is well within maximum water source capacity. The average monthly demand is approximately 35 percent of the long-term yield from the two wells.  Infrastructure needs and deficiencies identified for the District’s water system include 1) Arsenic treatment or additional groundwater supply, 2) additional well capacity to meet maximum day demand while one well is off line, 3) transition to hypochlorite from chlorine gas at the well head treatment, 4) replacement of the 190,000-gallon storage tank and recoating of the other tank, and 5) installation of radio read meters at each connection in order to promote conservation. Financial Ability of Agencies to Provide Services  The District reported that the current financing level is not adequate to deliver services. Increased costs to providing services is a particular strain on the District’s level of financing, such as increased electrical costs, chemical costs, as well as medical and retirement coverage.  At the end of FY 09-10, the District maintained unrestricted undesignated fund balances in each of the funds that could finance about three months of operations for wastewater services, approximately one month of operations for water services, and almost eight months of operations for fire services.  PECSD has a capital improvement program with a five-year planning horizon, which is updated on an annual basis. Capital improvements are budgeted for separately from the main budget and are financed through the District’s multiple reserve funds. Money is put aside on a regular basis to replace the equipment that is depreciating.  Water and wastewater rates were last updated in 2007. The District charges the median water rate in the region, while wastewater rates are the highest among the providers in the region. Status of, and Opportunities for, Shared Facilities  PECSD collaborates with other fire providers in Plumas County through informal mutual aid agreements, contracts and common trainings.  The District does not practice facility sharing and did not see any opportunities to do so with regard to water and wastewater utilities. Accountability for Community Service Needs, Including Governmental Structure and Operational Efficiencies  Plumas-Eureka CSD demonstrated accountability and transparency in its disclosure of information and cooperation with Plumas LAFCo. The District responded to the questionnaires and cooperated with the document requests. PECSD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 356 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY  The District practices extensive public outreach to enhance transparency through its website, word of mouth, newspaper ads, a semi-annual newsletter, the fire department store, and fundraising events.  Workload monitoring of the agency and its employees helps the District improve its productivity by avoiding repetitious situations, streamlining system operations, identify peak demand periods, and anticipate future demand levels. When applying for grants, the District uses its recorded demand and work history to demonstrate and justify a need for funds.  PECSD would like to expand its SOI to include Johnsville and Little Bear RV Park with the potential to eventually annex these areas, because the District believes that its proximity to the communities and availability of resources make it the most suitable candidate for fire service provision there.  The County of Plumas is considering hiring a countywide fire marshal whose responsibilities may include enforcing fire code and conducting building inspections.. PECSD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 357 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY 18. P ORTOLA CEMETERY DISTRICT Portola Cemetery District (PCD) provides cemetery maintenance, operations, endowment, and interment services. Interment services provided by the District include excavation, backfill for caskets, the set-up of greens, chairs and lowering device, and moving and replacing headstones to accommodate a burial. AAGGEENNCCYY OOVVEERRVVIIEEWW Background Portola Cemetery District was formed in 1958 as an independent special district.383 The District was formed to support and maintain the Whispering Pines Cemetery, Shady Grove Cemetery, Vinton Cemetery, Chilcoot Cemetery, and Sharkey’s Cemetery.384 The principal act that governs the District is the Public Cemetery District Law.385 The principal act authorizes the district to own, operate, improve, and maintain cemeteries, provide interment services within its boundaries, and to sell interment accessories and replacement objects (e.g., burial vaults, liners, and flower vases). Although the district may require and regulate monuments or markers, it is precluded from selling them. The principal act requires the district to maintain cemeteries owned by the district.386 The law allows the district to inter non-residents under certain circumstances.387 Districts must apply and obtain LAFCo approval to exercise latent powers or, in other words, those services authorized by the principal act but not provided by the district at the end of 2000.388 383 State Board of Equalization. 384 Blomberg & Griffin Accountancy Corporation, Portola Cemetery District Financial Statements and Independent Auditor’s Report, June 30, 2009, p. 10. 385 California Health and Safety Code §9000-9093. 386 California Health and Safety Code §9040. 387 Non-residents eligible for interment are described in California Health and Safety Code §9061, and include former residents, current and former taxpayers, family members of residents and former residents, family members of those already buried in the cemetery, those without other cemetery alternatives within 15 miles of their residence, and those who died while serving in the military. 388 Government Code §56824.10. PCD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 358 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY The District is located in the eastern part of Plumas County and encompasses the communities of Chilcoot, Vinton, Beckwourth, Lake Davis, Delleker, Iron Horse, Gold Mountain, and the City of Portola. Portola Cemetery District borders Sierra County in the south, Lassen County in the east, the Plumas National Forest in the north, and Mohawk Cemetery District in the east. Boundaries Portola Cemetery District’s boundary is entirely within Plumas County. The present bounds encompass approximately 217 square miles. 389 Following formation, the District undertook two annexations. The first one took place in 1968. The annexed territory is unknown as the Board of Equalization records do not report a project or location name. The second annexation occurred in 1999 and involved the territory of Gold Mountain. Figure 18-1: Portola Cemetery District List of LAFCo Approved Border Changes Project Name Type of Action Year Recording Agency Portola Cemetery District Formation 1958 SBOE Unknown territory Annexation 1968 SBOE Gold Mountain territory Annexation 1985 SBOE, LAFCo Sphere of Influence The Sphere of Influence for the District was adopted in 1976.390 The PCD SOI is coterminous with its bounds. There have been no SOI changes since its adoption. Extra-territorial Services While the District does not provide cemetery services outside of its bounds, the District will service any non-resident of the District for additional fees. Areas of Interest The District did not identify any areas of interest. 389 Total agency area calculated in GIS software based on agency boundaries as of July 1, 2011. The data is not considered survey quality. 390 LAFCo resolution No. 76-61. PCD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 359 ï ·|þ} ï 07 ï ï ·|þ} 07 ï State Route 284 94 etuoR etatS dR eniplaC htruowkceB Beckwourth Genesee Rd Grizzly Rd dR sivaD ekaL dR sraelCcM alotroP tcirtsiD yretemeC alotroP 92 03 52 62 72 82 92 03 52 62 72 82 92 03 52 62 72 82 92 03 63 53 43 33 23 13 63 23 13 63 53 43 33 23 13 63 53 43 33 23 13 63 53 43 33 23 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 4 5 6 3 21 11 01 9 8 7 21 7 21 11 01 9 8 7 21 11 01 9 8 7 21 11 01 9 8 7 31 31 41 51 61 71 81 31 81 41 51 61 71 81 31 41 51 61 71 81 31 41 51 61 71 81 42 32 22 12 02 91 42 91 42 32 22 12 02 91 42 32 22 12 02 91 42 32 22 12 02 91 52 62 72 82 92 03 52 03 52 62 72 82 92 03 52 62 72 82 92 03 52 62 72 82 92 03 63 53 43 33 23 13 63 13 63 53 43 33 23 13 63 53 43 33 23 13 63 53 43 33 23 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 21 11 01 9 7 21 7 21 11 01 9 8 7 21 11 01 9 8 7 21 11 01 9 8 7 8 31 41 51 61 71 81 31 81 31 41 51 61 71 81 31 41 51 61 71 81 41 51 61 71 81 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 31 42 32 22 12 02 91 42 42 32 22 12 02 91 42 32 22 12 02 91 42 32 22 12 02 91 52 62 72 82 92 03 52 52 62 72 82 92 03 52 62 72 82 92 03 52 62 72 82 92 03 63 53 43 33 23 13 63 53 43 33 23 13 63 53 43 33 23 13 63 0 43 33 23 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 htroN 32 pihsnwoT htroN 22 pihsnwoT 2-81 tsaE 61 egnaR tsaE 51 egnaR tsaE 41 egnaR tsaE 31 egnaR tcirtsiD yretemeC alotroP ² dnegeL :noituloseR tcirtsiD yretemeC alotroP slecraP 8591/61/1 :detpodA sdaoR rojaM ·|þ} )IOS( tcirtsiD yretemeC alotroP )IOS( tcirtsiD yretemeC alotroP alotroP fo ytiC yawhgiH etatS AC 07 16-67 :noituloseR ï reviR / maertS :detpodA yretemeC )M&BDM( dirG lanoitceS seliM8.1 9.0 54.0 0 seidobretaW 1102/1/5 detaerC paM oCFAL samulP :ecruoS PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY Accountability and Governance Portola Cemetery District is governed by a five-member board of directors who are appointed by the County Board of Supervisors. The chairman and secretary are elected by the Board. There are presently no vacancies on the Board. Current board member names, positions, and term expiration dates are shown in Figure 18-3. The Board meets on the third Wednesday of the week of February, May, August, and November from seven to nine in the evening at the Plumas County Library in Portola. Board meeting agendas are posted at the post offices in Portola and Chilcoot and at the Plumas County Library. In addition, agendas are distributed to each board member and county supervisors that oversee the District. Minutes are available upon request. Figure 18-3: Portola Cemetery District Governing Body Portola Cemetery District District Contact Information Contact: Carolyn Johnson, Secretary/Treasurer Address: P.O. Box 3, Portola, CA 96122 Telephone: 530-592-5387 Email/website: topauhu@yahoo.com Board of Directors Member Name Position Term Expiration Manner of Selection Length of Term Curtis Marshall Chairman NP Appointed 1 year Carolyn Johnson Secretary/Treasurer NP Appointed 4 years George (Bare) Ellis Member NP Appointed 4 years Pat Fuchtenicht Member NP Appointed 4 years Gary France Member NP Appointed 4 years Meetings Date: Wednesday of third week of February, May, August, and November 7-9pm. Location: Plumas County Library in Portola. Agenda Distribution: Posted at the post offices in Portola and Chilcoot and at the Plumas County Library. Minutes Distribution: Availble upon request. Besides the required agendas and minutes, the District does not conduct any other public outreach activities. If a customer is dissatisfied with the District’s services, the complaints may be submitted to the cemetery caretaker. If the caretaker is not able to resolve a complaint, it is transferred to the Board. The Board of Directors then handles it at a board meeting as one of the agenda items. There were no complaints in 2009 and one complaint in 2010, which was regarding debris and branches that fell on the parking lot causing possible liability to parked cars. Portola Cemetery District demonstrated accountability and transparency in its disclosure of information and cooperation with Plumas LAFCo. While the District PCD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 361 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY responded to the questionnaires and cooperated with the document requests, the District was unable to provide data on the number of recent and total interments in each of the cemeteries. Planning and Management Practices The Board of Directors manages the operations of the District. The Secretary/Treasurer receives a small monthly stipend. The District has no other employees, but has contractors that manage the operations of the cemeteries—a property caretaker and two assistants, a funeral director and a person who does grave excavation and some maintenance and snow removal. The District does not perform evaluations of the employee or contractors. If there were a complaint about one of them, the issue would be brought up at a board meeting. Such an issue has never occurred before. The District does not evaluate district performance as a whole, such as benchmarking or annual reports. However, informally, the Chairman of the Board checks on the state of the cemeteries three to four times a month. Portola Cemetery District tracks its contractors’ workload through timesheets and invoices—the caretaker submits timesheets and the two other contractors submit monthly invoices. Before the invoices get forwarded to the County, two board members must sign off on them. This system helps the District evaluate the adequacy of the workload. The District reports that the workload is sufficient for its present staffing level. The District’s financial planning efforts include an annually adopted budget. The financial statements are audited once every two years through the County. The first audit took place in 2009. The District provided an audited financial statement for FY 08-09. The District does not adopt other planning documents, such as a capital improvement plan or master plan. Capital improvement projects are planned for in the budget annually. Existing Demand and Growth Projections Designated land uses within the District are primarily wildland and agricultural with some residential, suburban and recreational uses around the communities of Chilcoot, Lake Davis, Delleker, and City of Portola.391 The total boundary area of Portola Cemetery District is about 217 square miles. 391 Plumas County Parcel Application. PCD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 362 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY Population There are approximately 3,744 residents within the District, based on the census designated place population in the 2000 census.392 Population information at the census designated place level was not yet available for the 2010 census, as of the drafting of this report; however, based on the lack of growth experienced throughout the County over the last decade, and in some cases population decline, it can be assumed that the approximate population has not changed significantly since 2000. Existing Demand The District reported that it had observed no growth in service demand in the last few years. There have been on average approximately 25 burials per year. Projected Growth and Development The District anticipates little or no growth in population and similarly in service demand within the District in the next few years; however, no formal population projections have been made by the District. The State Department of Finance (DOF) projects that the population of Plumas County will grow by five percent in the next 10 years. Thus, the average annual population growth in the County is anticipated to be approximately 0.5 percent. Based on these projections, the District’s population would increase from 3,744 in 2010 to approximately 3,935 in 2020. It is anticipated that demand for service within the District will increase minimally based on the DOF population growth projections through 2020. There are three planned developments within the District’s boundaries in the City of Portola, which have the potential to add an additional 1,220 dwelling units to the District, or approximately 2,440 additional residents. The Portola 192 development, comprised of 200 dwellings on 192 acres, is located in the very western part of the City of Portola. The final map for Portola 192 has been approved; however, the development is presently on hold until the economy recovers. The Woodbridge development consists of 1,005 dwelling units on 398 acres and extends from the Portola High School in the north to the southern boundary of the city. The City has approved a tentative map for the Woodbridge development and is working with the developer on final conditions. Mountain View Estates is an eight-acre development with 14 planned dwelling units. A tentative map for the subdivision was approved in 2008, but no progress toward a final map has been made since then. There are a number of other potential developments outside of the City but within the boundaries of Portola Cemetery District: one small 21-home development within Sierra Valley FPD, empty lots throughout the Gold Mountain subdivision, and the Willow Creek development located three and a half miles west of Delleker that would consist of 210 392 Census designated places Chilcoot-Vinton, Beckwourth, Lake Davis, Delleker, Iron Horse, and City of Portola in Plumas County. PCD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 363 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY residential units. Due to the unpredictable nature of the existing economy and housing market, these areas will likely not be developed within the short-term; however, they may be indicative of the long-term potential for growth. The District is anticipating service demand will decline in the future due to migration of many people out of the area; however, given the number and size of the planned and proposed developments, the population of the District has the potential to nearly double at build-out of the projects. So, while the District is anticipating little or negative growth, the potential exists for strong growth once the housing market strengthens. Growth Strategies The District is not a land use authority, and does not hold primary responsibility for implementing growth strategies. The land use authority for unincorporated areas is the County. The District did not identify any prospective growth areas outside of its bounds where it is interested in serving in the future. Financing The District reported that the current financing level is adequate to deliver services. No challenges to financing were identified. However, there were some negative effects of the recession. Interest revenues of the District decreased because of a decline in interest rates. The interest revenues are expected to decrease by additional 10 to 20 percent.393 The County keeps accounts for the District’s finances and tracks revenues and expenditures. The District’s two largest sources of income are revenues from the sale of gravesites and other services and property taxes. The District’s total revenues for FY 09-10 were $75,450. Revenue sources included property taxes (75 percent), sale of lots and services (20 percent), interest income (four percent), and revenues from the State, such as homeowners property tax relief and timber yield (one percent). The District has a fee schedule for the cemetery services it provides. The plot price for a district resident is $360 and for a non-resident it is $560. In addition, both residents and non-residents have to pay an endowment fee of $225. The District charges residents $207.50 and non-residents $257.50 for a baby plot with an endowment fee of $67.50. The urn garden plot price for both, a resident and a non-resident, is $284.50, with a $40.50 endowment fee. Veteran residents are not charged plot or endowment fees at the veterans sections of cemeteries. The District currently charges endowment fees. The District recently updated its fee schedule and now meets the legally required minimum 393 Blomberg & Griffin Accountancy Corporation, Portola Cemetery District Financial Statements and Independent Auditor’s Report, June 30, 2009, p. 3. PCD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 364 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY endowment fee of $4.50 per plot square foot for all plot types..394 Opening and closing of a grave with graveside set-up of greens, chairs and lowering device for adults cost $450, $100 for a baby, and $150 for an urn. The fees that are charged for grave excavation services are $450 at all cemeteries.. Portola Cemetery District expenditures were $64,304 in FY 09-10. Of this amount, 84 percent was spent on services and supplies, eight percent on salaries and wages, one percent on employee benefits, and seven percent on other expenditures. Capital improvement needs are identified throughout the year and are recorded in the annual budget. The Chairman of the Board conducts cemetery checks three to four times a month and receives feedback from caretakers and other contractors on cemetery needs. The financial reserve of the District is accounted for in the budget under the miscellaneous items fund. It is not a set percentage, but a set constant amount every year. It is not a formal policy of the District, but a common practice required by the treasurer. At the end of FY 08-09 the unrestricted reserve balance was $193,028,395 which is 14 years of operating revenue. The District has an endowment care fund and provides endowment care to its cemeteries, as required by law. Approximately in 2006, the District stopped charging for endowment care on plots sold. It was recommended by the independent auditor that the District resume charging endowment fees to “provide for future maintenance of the cemeteries.”396 In 2010, the District resumed charging for endowment care; endowment fund fees are listed on Portola Cemetery District price list. The endowment fund balance at the end of FY 08-09 was $67,281. Cemetery districts are required to establish an endowment care fund and may only use the interest of the fund to finance the care of the facilities.397 In FY 08-09, the District had interest income of $10,433 on its endowment care fund, which it could use for maintenance of the facilities. The District does not participate in any joint power authorities (JPAs) or joint financing mechanisms. 394 Health and Safety Code §8738. 395 Blomberg & Griffin Accountancy Corporation, Portola Cemetery District Financial Statements and Independent Auditor’s Report, June 30, 2009, p. 6. 396 Blomberg & Griffin Accountancy Corporation, Portola Cemetery District Financial Statements and Independent Auditor’s Report, June 30, 2009, p. 19. 397 Health and Safety Code §9065. PCD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 365 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY CCEEMMEETTEERRYY SSEERRVVIICCEESS Service Overview Portola Cemetery District provides cemetery maintenance, operations, endowment, and interment services. Interment services provided by the District include excavation, backfill for caskets, opening and closing of a grave with the set-up of greens, chairs and lowering device, and moving and replacing headstones to accommodate a burial. The District has plots available for purchase. There are three types of plots: adult (five by ten feet), baby (three by five feet) and urn (three by three feet). The District reports that there are no restrictions on who may purchase a plot, only a fee differential by place of residence, as mentioned in the Financing Section. In addition to the cost of the plot there is a mandatory endowment fee that varies by plot type. Portola Cemetery District collaborates with other cemetery districts in the County through its membership in Portola Association of Cemetery Districts. Staffing The District has one part-time employee who is also a member of the Board of Directors; the Secretary/Treasurer receives a monthly stipend. Portola Cemetery District hires contractors to perform a number of responsibilities. The caretakers are responsible for the general operations of the cemeteries. The funeral director is in charge of funeral home and crematory services. Another individual provides excavation, maintenance and snow removal services. Facilities and Capacity The District owns and operates five cemeteries: Chilcoot, Shady Grove, Sharkey, Vinton, and Whispering Pines. None of them have hours of operation. Anyone can come in any time of day or night. All cemeteries were reported to be in good condition.398 As reported by the District’s caretaker, none of them have any significant problems or needs. The District does not keep comprehensive records of recent and historical burials and was unable to provide the number of occupied and unoccupied plots, as well as the number of burials for 2009 and 2010. As a majority of historical records were lost, it is also 398 Facility condition definitions: Excellent-relatively new (less than 10 years old) and requires minimal maintenance. Good- provides reliable operation in accordance with design parameters and requires only routine maintenance. Fair- operating at or near design levels; however, non-routine renovation, upgrading and repairs are needed to ensure continued reliable operation. Poor- cannot be operated within design parameters; major renovations are required to restore the facility and ensure reliable operation. PCD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 366 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY unknown when the cemeteries were acquired or built and when the earliest burial took place in each of them. Consequently, the remaining capacity of each facility is unknown. The District reports that currently its facilities have adequate capacity to provide cemetery services to its service area. There is also available space for future expansion. Portola Cemetery District owns some equipment, such as mower, lawn tractor, shovels, drapery, and cleaning tools. The rest of the equipment used in the cemeteries is owned by the contractors. Infrastructure Needs The caretaker of the cemetery reported that none of the cemeteries require major upgrades or replacements. Only minor routine repairs are needed.399 According to the Board Members, cemetery fences need to be replaced and roads have to be repaired. These improvements were budgeted for at the beginning of the year.400 Service Adequacy The following are indicators of service adequacy for cemetery districts, as defined by law or best practices. In some areas Portola Cemetery District meets or exceed service standards for adequate services, while other aspects could be improved upon as shown below.  Districts that provide maintenance services on a year-round basis tend to be those with larger populations and property tax bases. Those that provide minimal maintenance tend to be those with smaller populations and less property tax. Portola Cemetery District provides maintenance services on a year-round basis.  Health and Safety Code §9068 requires cemetery districts to have non-resident fees. Portola Cemetery District lists non-resident fees for each plot type in its price schedule.  Health and Safety Code §9065 requires cemetery districts to have an endowment fee. Portola Cemetery District charges all residents and non-residents an endowment fee that varies by plot type.  According to Health and Safety Code §8738, a minimum endowment care fee must be $4.50 per plot square foot. Portola Cemetery District updated its fees in 2011 and now meets the requirement.. 399 Phone interview with Susan Arterburn, Cemetery Caretaker, 4/19/2011. 400 Phone interview with Carolyn Johnson, Secretary/Treasurer, and Curtis Marshall, Chairman, January 2011. PCD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 367 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY  Cemetery districts can legally provide services to non-residents if the deceased satisfies the eligibility requirements of a non-district resident per Health and Safety Code §9061, and the non-resident fee is paid. The principal act limits interments at cemetery districts to residents, former residents who purchased plots when they were residents, property taxpayers in District bounds, former property taxpayers who purchased plots, eligible nonresidents, and the family members of any of the above. By allowing anybody to purchase a plot in one of its cemeteries, the District is non-compliant with legal constraints on the burial of non-residents.  In order to adequately plan for existing and future demand and capacity needs, cemeteries track the number of interments annually. It is recommended that PCD begin keeping burial records and assess the remaining capacity of the existing facilities. Figure 18-4: Portola Cemetery District Service Profile Cemetery Services Facilities Cemetery Location Condition Acres Chilcoot 94939 Prospect Road, SR 70, Chilcoot, CA Good NP Shady Grove 516 Grove Avenue, Portola, CA Good NP Sharkey Plumas County Road A23, Beckwourth, CA Good NP Vinton 93137 SR 70, Vinton, CA Good NP Whispering Pines 5916 Cemetery Road, Beckwourth, CA Good NP Plots Cemetery Total Occupied Available Chilcoot NP NP NP Shady Grove NP NP NP Sharkey NP NP NP Vinton NP NP NP Whispering Pines NP NP NP Service Challenges None identified. Facility Needs/Deficiencies There is a need to build new fences and repair roads. Facility Sharing Current Practices: The District does not share facilties with other agencies. Future Opportunities: The District does not see opportunities to share facilities with other service providers. Service Adequacy Acres per Resident NP Available plots per resident NP Residents per Facility 749 PCD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 368 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY PPOORRTTOOLLAA CCEEMMEETTEERRYY DDIISSTTRRIICCTT DDEETTEERRMMIINNAATTIIOONNSS Growth and Population Projections  There are approximately 3,744 residents within the District.  Over the past few years, the District has not experienced an increase in population.  The District is anticipating service demand will decline in the future due to migration of many people out of the area; however, given the number and size of the planned and proposed developments within the District’s boundaries, the population of the District has the potential to nearly double at build-out of the projects. So, while the District is anticipating little or negative growth, the potential exists for significant growth once the housing market strengthens. Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities and Adequacy of Public Services, Including Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies  The District’s current facilities reportedly have the capacity to adequately serve existing demand.  In order to adequately plan for existing and future demand and capacity needs, cemeteries track the number of interments annually. It is recommended that PCD begin keeping burial records and assess the remaining capacity of the existing facilities.  The District identified a need to replace fences and repair roads.  Capital improvement needs are identified throughout the year and are recorded in the annual budget. The District should consider adopting a capital improvement plan to identify financing needs and potential revenue sources for these needs.  The District could improve upon service adequacy by operating within legal requirements for cemetery districts. By allowing anybody to purchase a plot in one of its cemeteries, the District is non-compliant with legal constraints on the burial of non-residents. Financial Ability of Agencies to Provide Services  The District reports that current financing levels are adequate to deliver services; however, revenues may decrease due to economic conditions. PCD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 369 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY Status of, and Opportunities for, Shared Facilities  The District does not share facilities and does not see any opportunities to share facilities with other service providers in the future. Accountability for Community Service Needs, Including Governmental Structure and Operational Efficiencies  The District demonstrated accountability and transparency in its disclosure of information and cooperation with Plumas LAFCo; however, the District was unable to provide data on the number of recent and total interments in each of the cemeteries.  The District does not conduct outreach efforts except for the required activities. It is recommended that all agencies maintain websites where public documents are made available in order to ensure transparency.  No governmental structure options were identified with regard to PCD. PCD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 370 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY 19. S I E R R A VA L L EY F I R E P ROTECT I O N D I STR I CT Sierra Valley Fire Protection District, also known as the Sierra Valley Volunteer Fire Department (SVVFD), provides fire protection, basic life support response and some fire prevention programs. This is the first municipal service review for Sierra Valley FPD. AAGGEENNCCYY OOVVEERRVVIIEEWW Background SVVFD was formed in 1948 as an independent special district.401 The District was formed to provide structural fire and basic life support services. The principal act that governs the District is the Fire Protection District Law of 1987.402 The principal act empowers fire districts to provide fire protection, rescue, emergency medical, hazardous material response, ambulance, and any other services relating to the protection of lives and property.403 Districts must apply and obtain LAFCo approval to exercise services authorized by the principal act but not already provided (i.e., latent powers) by the district at the end of 2000. SVVFD is one of the largest fire protection districts in Plumas County based on the total area within its boundaries. It is located in the eastern part of the County and is surrounded by territory served by the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management. The District borders Beckwourth FPD in the west, Hallelujah Junction FPD of Lassen County in the east, Lassen County in the north, and Sierra County in the south. Boundaries SVVFD’s boundary is entirely within Plumas County. The District’s boundaries encompass approximately 220 square miles,404 which include ranches, remote homes, residential sections, a mobile park, businesses and a lake/campground recreation area.405 Since its formation, there have never been any annexations to or detachments from SVVFD. 401 State Board of Equalization. 402 Health and Safety Code §13800-13970. 403 Health and Safety Code §13862. 404 Total agency area calculated in GIS software based on agency boundaries as of July 1, 2011. The data is not considered survey quality. 405 Assistance to Firefighter Grants, Sierra Valley FPD Grant Application, 2010. SVVFD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 371 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY Sphere of Influence The SOI for SVVFD was adopted in 1982406 and made coterminous with the District’s boundaries. In 1994, it was reduced to a significantly smaller area. The current District’s SOI includes the communities of Chilcoot and Vinton along SR 70 and encompasses eight square miles compared to 220 square miles of boundary area. Extra-territorial Services The District provides extra-territorial fire and emergency services to Hallelujah Junction Fire Protection District (HJFPD) of Lassen County. Previously, these services were approved by LAFCo through an out-of-area service agreement (OASA). The agreement became effective January 1, 2006 and expired at the end of 2010. The territory under the agreement included areas on both sides of SR 395 and along both sides of SR 70 east of SVVFD’s boundaries. These areas are shown in Figure 19-1.407 The OASA was not renewed in January 2011, because LAFCo advised the District that according to California Government Code §56133 it was not necessary to have an OASA for two public agencies.408 SVVFD will continue to provide services to HJFPD under contract, which was voted to be extended by the District’s Board of Directors on January 10, 2011. The contract will be valid for three years with an automatic two year extension. The District also occasionally responds to wildland fires when requested. Response to a wildland fire in federal and state responsibility areas is reimbursed by the federal government if the firefighters are on the fire for more than three hours. Through an informal agreement with the Sheriff’s Office, which is discussed in more detail in the Fire Service Section, the District responds outside of its boundaries to a small area along the county line in the south. The area is shown in Figure 19-1. Except for this small area that encompasses about two square miles, the District’s service area is the same as its boundaries. Areas of Interest The only area of interest reported by the District is the Maddalena Tree Farm. Currently, the area is within the boundaries of SVVFD, but Beckwourth FPD would like to add it to its own boundaries.409 Beckwourth FD reported that it was in closer proximity to the Beckwourth FD stations than the SVVFD stations. In addition, SVVFD has to go through Beckwourth FD territory to access the Maddalena Tree Farm, which makes it even more of a challenge to serve this territory. 406 LAFCo resolution 82-07.11. 407 2005-OASA-002. 408 Interview with John Benoit, Plumas LAFCo Executive Officer, February 3, 2011. 409 Interview with Russ Dickman, the treasurer and Tom, assistant chief of SVVFD, November 10, 2010. SVVFD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 372 Sierra Valley Fire Protection District Frenchm en Lake Road ·|þ} 70 9 4 e ut o R e at St htroN 32 pihsnwoT htroN 22 pihsnwoT Range 15 East Range 16 East PLUMAS COUNTY Sierra Valley FPD Location Map (Not to Scale) Legend Sierra Valley FPD Sierra Valley FPD ·|}þ 70 CA State Highway Parcels Sierra Valley FPD (SOI) ² R Ad e o so p l t u e t d io : n 1 : /20/1948 State Responsibility Area Major Roads (Federal Responsibility lies FPD Service Area Sierra Valley FPD (SOI) Roads outside hatched area.) Resolution: 82-07 Stream / River Sectional Grid (MDB&M) Adopted: Waterbodies Fire Stations 0 1 2 4Miles Source: Plumas LAFCo Map Created 4/1/2011 YTNUOC NESSAL 19-1 Lassen County Parcels H ighw ay 395 Service Area in Lassen County contractural agreement with Sierra Valley FPD PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY Accountability and Governance The principal act orders that the governing body of a fire protection district must have an odd number of members, with a minimum of three and a maximum of 11 members. Directors may be appointed or elected.410 SVVFD is governed by a five-member Board of Directors who are elected to staggered four-year terms. When board members resign before the end of their terms, the County Board of Supervisors appoints replacements. There are currently four members, all of whom were elected. The Board of Directors has one vacancy. There has never been a contested election. Current board member names, positions, and term expiration dates are shown in Figure 19-2. The Board meets once a month on the second Monday of the month at 6pm at the Chilcoot fire station. Board meeting agendas are posted at the Chilcoot station and at the Chilcoot post office. Minutes of every board meeting are available upon request. The District has a website, but the agendas and minutes are not published there. Figure 19-2: SVVFD Governing Body Sierra Valley Fire Protection District District Contact Information Contact: Russ Dickman, Treasurer Address: P.O. Box 211, Chilcoot, CA 96105 Telephone: (530)993-4541 Email/website: www.sierravalleyfire.org Board of Directors Member Name Position Term Expiration Manner of Selection Length of Term Mike Shehorn Chair December 2013 Elected 4 years Russ Dickman Treasurer December 2011 Elected 4 years Ron Matock Member December 2011 Elected 4 years Gary Williams Member December 2013 Elected 4 years Vacancy Meetings Date: Second Monday of every month at 6 pm Location: Chilcoot fire station Agenda Distribution: Posted at the Chilcoot fire station and Chilcoot post office Minutes Distribution: Provided upon request In addition to the required agendas and minutes, the District does public outreach through its website and occasional newsletters. The Sierra Valley Fire auxiliary also holds regular fundraisers to raise money for the District and reach out to constituents. 410 Health and Safety Code §13842. SVVFD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 374 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY If a customer is dissatisfied with District’s services, complaints may be submitted by calling the office. After that, they are forwarded to the Board, which is responsible for resolving them. The District reported that no complaints have been submitted in the last few years (since 2008). SVVFD demonstrated accountability and transparency in its disclosure of information and cooperation with Plumas LAFCo. The District responded to the questionnaires and cooperated with document requests. Planning and Management Practices Daily operations are managed by the chief. There are 15 staff—none of whom are paid. All the volunteer personnel are firefighters, including the bookkeeper. The sworn personnel include a chief, an assistant chief, three captains and 10 firefighters. Firefighters are accountable to captains; captains are accountable to the assistant chief; and the assistant chief reports to the chief. The chief reports to the Board of Directors through monthly reports. Personnel are evaluated by the chief, and the chief is evaluated by the Board annually. The Board appoints the chief every two years. The District tracks its staff workload through a training log and maintenance log. The District also tracks who responds to each call for service. SVVFD reported performing no formal evaluations of overall district performance, such as benchmarking or annual reports. The District’s financial planning efforts include an annually adopted budget. The financial statements are audited on an as-needed basis. The latest audit took place in FY 08- 09. The District provided the adopted budget for FY 10-11, audited financial statements for FY 08-09, up-to-date unaudited financial statements for FY 09-10 and financial statements for its fundraising auxiliary for FY 09-10. SVVFD does not adopt other planning documents, such as a capital improvement plan or master plan. The District’s capital improvement projects are included in the budget. Existing Demand and Growth Projections Most of the land uses within the District are wildland and agricultural. The densest residential and suburban areas are located in the community of Chilcoot and along SR 49.411 The territory north of Frenchman Lake is what the District referred to as a no-man’s zone, which is part of SVVFD, but is extremely hard to reach. There are almost no residences 411 Plumas County Parcel Application. SVVFD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 375 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY approximately north of Dotta-Guidici Road and Rutting Deer Road.412 The total square mileage of the District’s boundary area is approximately 220.413 Population There are approximately 447 residents within the District, based on the census block population in the 2000 census.414 Population information at the census block level was not yet available for the 2010 census, as of the drafting of this report; however, based on the lack of growth experienced throughout the County over the last decade, and in some cases population decline, it can be assumed that the approximate population has not changed much since 2000. SVVFD publishes on its website that it serves 684 people. The District estimates that visiting tourists add approximately 13,000 additional people to its boundaries during peak tourism seasons. The contract with HJFPD increases the population served by an additional 190 people.415 412 Interview with Russ Dickman, SVFPD Treasurer, and Tom, Assistant Chief of SVVFD, November 10, 2010. 413 http://www.sierravalleyfire.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1&Itemid=2 414 Census Blocks 4597, 4603, 4606, 4584, 4599, 4590, 4595, 4585, 4593, 4592, 4591, 4594, 4586, 4573, 4315, 4316, 4374, 4285, 4314, 4238, 4615, 4288, 4283, 4284, 4287, 4263, 4269, 4286, 4292, 4299, 4278, 4291, 4289, 4279, 4280, 4283, 4284, 4287, 4288, 4313, 4285, 4311, 4312, 4507, 4588, 4589, 4605, 4590, 4604, 4586, 4313, 4277, 4272, 4271, 4281, 4282, 4265, 4266, 4267, 4398, 4309, 4305, 4294, 4223, 4268, 4217, 4207, 4206, 4218, 4222, 4204, 4224, 4226, 4227, 4230, 4268, 4269, 4228, 4230, 4229, 4199, 4203, 4292, 4992, 4202, 4295, 4296, 4212, 4216, 4215, 4210, 4207, 4217, 4222, 4260, 4228, 4229, 4243, 4336, 4234, 4230, 4243, 4185, 4186, 4172, 4171, 4180, 4184, 4214, 4180, 4186, 4170, 4259, 4194, 4192, 4207, 4203, 4199, 4230, 4243, 4245, 4246, 4247, 4194, 4198, 4250, 4197, 4248, 4200, 4201, 4203, 4245, 4199, 4243, 4116 in Tract 3, Block Group 4 in Plumas County. The Census Blocks used in the estimate are located south of Frenchman Lake because the District reported that the area north of the Lake is extreme wilderness and nobody lives there. 415 Assistance to Firefighter Grants, Sierra Valley FPD Grant Application, 2010. SVVFD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 376 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY Existing Demand Figure 19-3: SVVFD Number of Calls (2006-10) The District reported peak demand 120 during snow season, due to driving 100 accidents and during fire season. Calls 80 for medical emergencies are consistently high throughout the year, 60 similar to other providers. 40 The District reported that it has 20 observed a decrease in service demand 0 from 2006 to 2009. The number of calls 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 slightly went up from 2009 to 2010. Projected Growth and Development The Agency anticipates little or no growth in population and similarly in service demand within the District in the next few years; however, no formal population projections have been made by the District. The State Department of Finance (DOF) projects that the population of Plumas County will grow by five percent in the next 10 years. Thus, the average annual population growth in the County is anticipated to be approximately 0.5 percent. Based on these projections, the District’s population would increase from 447 in 2010 to approximately 470 in 2020. It is anticipated that demand for service within the District will increase minimally based on the DOF population growth projections through 2020. The District reported that to their knowledge there is one planned development within its boundaries that consists of 21 homes, which is on hold due to economic difficulties. The subdivision was planned, but no permits had been issued as of the drafting of this report. The District does not anticipate a significant increase in demand if the development is built and populated. Currently, the Agency appears to have the capacity to serve the possible small growth in the area. SVVFD did not identify any areas within the District’s future growth area to which it would be difficult to provide an adequate level of service. Growth Strategies The District is not a land use authority, and does not hold primary responsibility for implementing growth strategies. The land use authority for unincorporated areas is the County. The County enforces the codes that it has enforcement power over, which does not encompass all State fire codes. The County ensures that new construction meets the requirements of the latest adopted edition of the California Building Standards. The County enforces the County codes that have been adopted in lieu of the California Fire Safe regulations. The County does not have authority to enforce PRC 4291, which requires SVVFD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 377 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY defensible space around structures; however, the County does have some enforcement authority over vegetation removal around buildings that was adopted prior to PRC 4291. In addition, the Board of Supervisors, through the adoption of the General Plan and county codes, regulates development standards to be followed in processing subdivisions, including fire protection. The proposals for new developments are sent for review to the appropriate fire provider if a development is within district’s boundaries. The County reported that as SOI maps have not been digitized, is has been challenging to ensure that proposals go to the appropriate district if a proposed development was within that district’s SOI but outside its boundaries. The County and Plumas LAFCo are working together on a process to ensure that all appropriate districts are contacted for review of proposed developments. The County Board of Supervisors is discussing a possibility of hiring a fire marshal, part of whose responsibilities may be code enforcement and building inspections. However, thus far, no decision has been made on the responsibilities of the position.416 The County has several policies in the existing general plan, which impact the fire providers of new developments. 1) Turnouts are now required in every new development.417 2) The County encourages development to be located adjacent to or within areas where fire services already exist or can be efficiently provided.418 3) The County requires new developments within areas not currently served by a fire provider to be annexed into an existing fire district or create a funding mechanism, such as a CSD, to cover the costs of fire service provision.419 4) Sustainable timber and biomass production and harvesting as well as intensive forest management practices are encouraged to reduce the danger of catastrophic wildfires.420 5) There is a minimum requirement of two roadway access points, which are maintained on a year-round basis by the County or the State. 421 416 Correspondence with Becky Herrin, Plumas County Senior Planner, September 8, 2011. 417 Plumas County Code of Ordinances, Title 9 Section 9-4.604 (k). 418 Plumas County, General Plan, 1984, pp. 28 & 29. 419 Ibid., p. 28. 420 Ibid, p. 32. 421 Ibid., p. 16. SVVFD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 378 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY 6) Minimum public and private road standards: roads providing access to two or more lots have to conform to a two-lane standard of no less than 16-foot traveled way.422 7) Bridges are required to be designed for an 80,000 pound vehicle load.423 8) All access roads must be marked with an approved sign; and all lots must be identified by an address.424 9) All developments within boundaries of a structural fire service provider may be required to contribute to the maintenance of the structural service proportionate to the increase in demand for fire service resulting from the development.425 10) As a condition of development it is required to provide long-term maintenance of private roads to the standards of original improvements, including roadside vegetation management.426 11) The County encourages biomass thinning programs in high fire risk areas.427 The District reported concerns that new developments in the County were not being required to comply with existing requirements.428 The County reported that only one agency had come to the County regarding these concerns, which were unfounded at the time. No conjecture is made by the authors of this report as to the accuracy of these statements. It should be noted that one of the purposes of the newly formed Emergency Service Feasibility Group is to address these concerns. The County is in the process of updating its general plan. The suggested new policies in the General Plan update that would impact fire service providers, but had not yet been adopted as of the drafting of this report, include: 12) The County shall review and update its Fire Safe ordinance to attain and maintain defensible space though conditioning of tentative maps and in new development at the final map or building permit stage. 13) The County will consult Fire Hazard Severity Zone Maps during the review of all projects. The Countywill work with fire protection agencies to develop community 422 Ibid., 423 Ibid. 424 Ibid. 425 Ibid. 426 Plumas County Code of Ordinances, Title 9 Section 9-4.601. 427 Plumas County Code of Ordinances, Title 4 Section 4-2.101. 428 Profile comments from Chief Greg McCaffrey, May 3, 2011. SVVFD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 379 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY fire plans and require appropriate building setbacks and fuel modification requirements within fire hazard zones. 14) In order for the new development to be approved, the County must conclude that adequate emergency water flow, fire access and firefighters and equipment are available. 15) New developments have to show that they have adequate access for emergency vehicles to access the site and for private vehicles to evacuate the area. 16) New developments within high and very high fire hazard areas are required to designate fuel break zones that comply with fire safe requirements. 17) The County will work with Forest Service and fire districts in developing fire prevention programs, identifying opportunities for fuel breaks in zones of high and very high fire hazard and educating public. 18) Fire, law enforcement, EMS, resource management, and public health response partners are encouraged to conduct joint training exercises.429 The County has not adopted the new standards for development yet. The revised General Plan may be adopted towards the end of 2012. County zoning code will then go through a revision process in order for the zoning code to implement the General Plan. In 2007, the Board of Supervisors formed the Emergency Services Advisory Committee to “evaluate the funding feasibility of providing uniform and comprehensive emergency services to all of Plumas County.” The Committee attempted to look for opportunities to increase funding for emergency services, but faced a considerable challenge in the difficult economic times. Most recently, it focused on mitigating efforts through building and development standards improvements and the General Plan update process, and encouraging local fire service providers to share resources and realize economies of scale in preparing grant applications, conducting training and engaging in other joint programs. The District reported that it would like to decrease its boundary area by detaching the portion north of Frenchman Lake. This area is an extreme wilderness area, which is very hard to access in case of an incident. However, to consider this option it would be desirable to identify which agency would provide summer fire protection and medical response to the wilderness area instead of SVVFD. Additionally, the financial impacts of removing this territory should also be considered, given that the District presently receives a majority of its revenue from property taxes. Consolidation with one or more fire districts is an option for SVVFD, but it is not formally being discussed. The District also reported that there were discussions about a 429 Plumas County General Plan, Draft Goals, Policies and Implementation Measures, 2010. SVVFD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 380 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY countywide fire chief to oversee the activities of all of the agencies, but these discussions had not come to fruition as of the drafting of this report. Financing The District reports that current financing levels are fairly adequate to deliver services, but would like to increase funding levels to be more prepared for a larger emergency. The financing levels are adequate for ordinary activities; however, funding is reportedly inadequate to handle large fires. The primary financing challenge for the District is the impact of the recent recession. The District faced declining property tax revenue in FY 07 and FY 08 as a result of a drop in assessed property values and little or no new development. In order to augment funding, the District applies for grants and partners with a fundraising auxiliary that raises money for its operations.430 Figure 19-4: SVVFD Revenues and Expenses Income/Expenses FY 09-10 Budgeted FY 09-10 Actual FY 10-11 Budgeted Income Property Tax $43,485 76% $53,796 66% $36,250 66% Use of Money $650 1% $424 1% $450 1% State and Federal Aid $300 1% $298 1% $300 1% Charges for Services $0 0% $6,000 11% $6,000 11% Other Miscellaneous $12,738 22% $11,726 21% $12,000 21% Total Income $57,173 100% $53,796 100% $55,000 100% Expenses Services & Supplies $78,188 100% $39,916 93% $83,393 95% Loan Repayment $0 0% $2,877 7% $4,124 5% Total Expense $78,188 100% $42,794 100% $87,517 100% Net Income -$21,015 $11,002 -$32,517 The County keeps accounts for the District’s finances and tracks revenues and expenditures. The District’s total revenues for FY 09-10 were $53,796. Revenue sources include property tax revenue (66 percent), use of money and properties (one percent), state and federal aid (one percent), charges for services (11 percent) and other revenue (21 percent). A portion of the District’s revenue is donated by the Sierra Valley Fire Auxiliary—a fundraising organization that does its own accounting. In FY 09-10, the Auxiliary’s total revenue from donations and fundraisers was $8,084, $2,334 of which was donated to the District. 430 Interview with Russ Dickman, the treasurer and Tom, assistant chief of SVVFD, November 10, 2010. SVVFD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 381 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY SVVFD provides out-of-area services to HJFPD for which it charges $100 for each residential structure and no more than $500 per parcel. Commercial and industrial parcels are charged $200 per structure but no more than $1,000 per parcel. Both charges increase two percent annually. The payments are made by HJFPD twice a year. Under the contract that is currently being written, the charges will remain the same. The District responds to wildland fires when requested. It is reimbursed by the federal government if the firefighters are on the fire for more than three hours. Sierra Valley Fire Protection District is authorized to collect a fee for each new parcel approved by the County within its boundaries by County Ordinance (PCC 9-3.314) and by District resolution, although neither the Planning Department nor the District seem to have a copy of the resolution. The purpose of the fee is to mitigate the impacts of development to the fire district. The District’s expenditures in FY 09-10 were $42,794. Expenditures were composed of services and supplies (93 percent) and a Proposition 1A loan payment (seven percent). Although the Proposition 1A loan is included in the financial statements of the District as part of the expenditures, in reality this loan to the State is not an expense. Due to the State budget crisis, in July 2009, the State legislature voted to suspend Proposition 1A, which ensures local property tax and sales tax revenues remain with the counties, cities and special districts. Consequently, all local agencies were required to loan eight percent of apportioned property tax revenues to the State with repayment plus interest by June 30, 2013. To mitigate the impact of the loss of revenues on the local agencies, the Proposition 1A Securitization Program enables local agencies to sell their Proposition 1A Receivables for cash proceeds to be paid in two installments in January and May 2010. SVVFD decided not to participate in the securitization program, and will receive its money back by 2013. The District performs no formal capital improvement planning. Immediate capital improvement projects are included in the annual budget. Most of the projects include repair and maintenance of equipment and vehicles. In 2010, SVVFD applied for a federal grant through the Assistance to Firefighter Grants and requested, among other grant activities, funds for firefighting equipment acquisition. The District is awaiting a decision, but believes that it will be awarded the grant.431 The District currently does not have a financial reserve or reserve policy. The District relies on its fundraising auxiliary for an emergency reserve. The District does not participate in any joint power authorities (JPAs) or joint financing mechanisms. 431 Assistance to Firefighter Grants, Sierra Valley FPD Grant Application, 2010. SVVFD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 382 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY FFIIRREE AANNDD EEMMEERRGGEENNCCYY SSEERRVVIICCEESS Service Overview SVVFD provides fire protection and basic life support response. The District has limited prevention programs that mostly concentrate on medical services. The District also conducts some fire inspections on buildings. Ambulance service is provided by Eastern Plumas Healthcare District (EPHCD). Care Flight and My Life Flight provide air ambulance services. Fire helicopter services are provided by USFS and CalFire. Collaboration SVVFD has a formal mutual aid agreement with Graeagle FPD. The District also has informal mutual aid agreements with Beckwourth FPD, Loyalton FD and EPRFPD. The District has an automatic aid agreement with EPHCD. EPHCD provides ambulance services to SVVFD. In return, the District provides fire services to EPHCD when the need arises. The District is also a member of the Fire Chief’s Association. It participates in quarterly meetings with other fire agencies and fire chiefs. The District collaborates with USFS and CalFire, which provide fire services within the District’s boundaries. Dispatch The County Sheriff is the Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP); consequently, most land line emergency calls (9-1-1 calls) are directed to the Sheriff. Most cell phone emergency calls (9-1-1 calls) are answered by CHP and redirected to the Sheriff. The Sheriff provides dispatching for most fire providers in the County except for the ones in the northern part of the County, which are served by the CHP Susanville Dispatch Center. The Forest Service has its own dispatch. The Sheriff Dispatch Center has a first responder map, which it uses to identify what provider to dispatch to an incident. All territory within the County has a determined first responder; although, many areas lie outside the LAFCo approved boundary of the districts and lack an officially designated fire provider. SVVFD shares the same dispatch and radio frequencies with adjacent providers. The District reported that dispatch can occasionally be slow causing delayed response. Staffing SVVFD has 15 sworn personnel—one fire chief, one assistant fire chief, three captains and 10 firefighters. None of the personnel are paid. The median age of the fire fighters is 48, with a range from 20 to 79. The District reports that its staffing levels have decreased in the last few years. Due to the recession, people have moved out of the County. The District is in constant search of new firefighters. It tries to recruit volunteers through posting signs. SVVFD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 383 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY According to the California State Fire Marshal, all volunteer and call firefighters must acquire Firefighter I certification; however, there is no time limit as to how long they may work before attaining certification. Firefighter I certification requires completion of the 259-hour Firefighter I course, which includes training on various fireground tasks, rescue operations, fire prevention and investigation techniques, and inspection and maintenance of equipment. In addition to this course, Firefighter I certification also requires that the applicant have a minimum of six months of volunteer or call experience in a California fire department as a firefighter performing suppression duties.432 SVVFD has no Firefighter I certified personnel. Two firefighters are currently testing for BLS I certification. The District has an officer who is in charge of training. SVVFD conducts training drills once or twice a week. The volunteers are required to attend a minimum of four hours per month of training. The District requires Firefighter I and II, medical EMT first responder and EMT 1 trainings.433 Facilities and Capacity SVVFD operates two fire stations—one in Chilcoot built in 1970, and the second one in Vinton built in 1940. The District owns both stations. By 2015 the SVVFD anticipates acquiring a third station.434 There are no set hours when the stations are staffed. Volunteers are always on call. The Chilcoot Station, which is the main station, was reported to be in good condition. The Vinton Station was reported to be in poor condition.435 Both are used to house vehicles and equipment. The Chilcoot Station houses seven vehicles—one rescue, one Type 3 brush engine, one water tender, two Type 1 engines, one air trailer, and one small Type 4 brush truck. Vinton station is used to store one out-of-service water tender. The District’s water reserves are represented by four 30,000-gallon buried tanks. Infrastructure Needs The Vinton Station requires upgrades. The District also identified a need for a new training facility and office space. There are currently no specific plans for facility upgrades or construction. 432 State Fire Marshall, Course Information and Required Materials, 2007, p. 44 433 Interview with Russ Dickman, the treasurer and Tom, assistant chief of SVVFD, November 10, 2010. 434 2005-OASA-002. 435 Facility condition definitions: Excellent-relatively new (less than 10 years old) and requires minimal maintenance. Good- provides reliable operation in accordance with design parameters and requires only routine maintenance. Fair- operating at or near design levels; however, non-routine renovation, upgrading and repairs are needed to ensure continued reliable operation. Poor- cannot be operated within design parameters; major renovations are required to restore the facility and ensure reliable operation. SVVFD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 384 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY With regard to equipment and vehicles, SVVFD reported that it needed a new water tender. In addition, the District reported a general need for more fire hydrants throughout its territory, similar to other rural fire districts. The District regularly applies for grants to upgrade existing equipment and purchase new equipment and vehicles. Challenges The District reported several constraints to providing adequate services:  Lack of fire hydrants within boundaries and SOI,  A potential for fires as CalFire allows burn barrels in certain zip codes,  During the snow season, access to about 45 residences is completely cut off north of Frenchman Lake,  Acquiring and retaining well trained personnel, and  Obtaining costly newer equipment. Service Adequacy While there are several benchmarks that may define the level of fire service provided by an agency, indicators of service adequacy discussed here include ISO ratings, response times, and level of staffing and station resources for the service area. Fire services in the communities are classified by the Insurance Service Office (ISO), an advisory organization. This classification indicates the general adequacy of coverage. Communities with the best fire department facilities, systems for water distribution, fire alarms and communications, and equipment and personnel receive a rating of 1. SVVFD has an ISO rating 8B. The District was last evaluated in 2010. The guideline established by the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) for fire response times is six minutes at least 90 percent of the time, with response time measured from the 911-call time to the arrival time of the first-responder at the scene. The fire response time guideline established by the Center for Public Safety Excellence (formerly the Commission on Fire Accreditation International) is 5 minutes 50 seconds at least 90 percent of the time.436 Emergency response time standards vary by level of urbanization of an area: the more urban an area, the faster a response has to be. The California EMS Agency established the following response time guidelines: five minutes in urban areas, 15 minutes in suburban or rural areas, and as quickly as possible in wildland areas. The District’s response zones 436 Commission on Fire Accreditation International, 2000. SVVFD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 385 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY include rural and wildland classifications. The District reports that its response times vary due to the fact that all firefighters are volunteers and it usually takes them extra time to respond from home or work place. An area that SVVFD can improve upon is tracking of its response time for each incident, as it was unable to provide exact response times. The service area size437 for each fire station varies between fire districts. The median fire station in eastern Plumas serves approximately 20 square miles. Sierra Valley FPD serves the most expansive area, with 111 square miles served per station on average. Densely populated areas tend to have smaller service areas. For example, the average service area for the City of Portola is 3.8 square miles. The number of firefighters serving within a particular jurisdiction is another indicator of level of service; however, it is approximate. The providers’ call firefighters may have differing availability and reliability. A district with more firefighters could have fewer resources if scheduling availability is restricted. Staffing levels in Eastern Plumas vary from eight call firefighters per 1,000 residents in City of Portola service area to 42 in Beckwourth FD. By comparison, SVVFD has approximately 33 firefighters per 1,000 residents. 437 Service area refers to the area that the agency will respond to, based on a first responder map used by the Sherriff’s office. SVVFD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 386 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY Figure 19-5: Sierra Valley Fire Protection District Fire Profile Fire Service Facilities Firestation Location Condition Staff per Shift Vehicles Chilcoot Station SR 70, Chilcoot, Good Unstaffed 1 rescue, 1 Type 3 Brush Engine, 1 water CA tender, 2 Type 1 Engines, 1 air trailer, 1 small Type 4 brush truck. Vinton Station Vinton, CA Poor Unstaffed 1 out-of-service water tender Facility Sharing Current Practices: The District does not currently share its facilities with other agencies. Future opportunities: The District does not see any opportunities to share facilities with other agencies. Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies The District identified a need for a new training facility, office space and a water tender. District Resource Statistics Service Configuration Service Demand Staffing Base Year 2010 Configuration Base Year 2010 Statistical Base Year 2010 Fire Stations in District 2 Fire Suppression Direct Total Service Calls 57 Stations Serving District 2 EMS Direct % EMS 70% Sq. Miles Served per Station 111 Ambulance Transport EPHCD % Fire/Hazardous Materials 28% Total Staff2 15 Hazardous Materials Direct % False 2% Total Full-time Firefighters 0 Air Rescue/Ambulance HelicopterCareFlight % Misc. emergency 0% Total Call Firefighters 15 Fire Suppression Helicopter USFS, CalFire % Non-emergency 0% Total Sworn Staff per Statio 7.5 Public Safety Answering Point Sheriff % Mutual Aid Calls 11% Total Sworn Staff per 1,000 33 Fire/EMS Dispatch Sheriff Calls per 1,000 people 125 Service Adequacy Service Challenges Lack of fire hydrants. Limited access areas. Burn barrels. Lack of new Response Time Base Year 2010 equipment. Lack of qualified personnel. Median Response Time (min) NP Training Trainings take place once or twice a week. The training officer is in 90th Percentile Response Time (min) NP charge of training sessions. Volunteers are required to attend at least 2.5 hours per week. The District requires Firefighter I and II, medical EMT ISO Rating 8B first responder and EMT 1 trainings. Mutual & Automatic Aid Agreements SVVFD has a mutual aid agreement with Graeagle FPD. The District has an informal agreement with Beckwourth FPD, Loyalton FD and EPRFPD. Notes: 1) Primary service area (square miles) per station. 2) Total staff includes sworn and non-sworn personnel. 3) Based on ratio of sworn full-time and call staff to the number of stations. Actual staffing levels of each station vary. SVVFD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 387 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY SSIIEERRRRAA VVAALLLLEEYY FFPPDD DDEETTEERRMMIINNAATTIIOONNSS Growth and Population Projections  There are approximately 447 residents within the District.  Over the past decade the District has not experienced a significant increase in population.  No or slow growth is expected within the District over the next 10 years. There is a single fairly small proposed development, which is currently on hold. Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities and Adequacy of Public Services, Including Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies  The District’s current facilities appear to have the capacity to adequately serve current demand and short-term growth; however, the District’s stations each serve an expansive 111 square miles, which results in lengthy response times.  The District identified a need for a new training facility and office space, as well as a new water tender. SVVFD regularly applies for grants to attempt to address these needs.  Currently, capital improvement projects are identified in the annual budget. The District should consider adopting a capital improvement plan to identify financing needs, as well as potential revenue sources and timing to address these needs.  It is recommended that the County Sheriff’s Office work with the fire districts to update the ESN map that is used for dispatching, in order to adequately address any communication concerns and recent boundary changes.  As the District presently has no volunteers with Firefighter I certification, SVVFD could improve its level of service by promoting certification.  It is recommended that all fire providers track response times for each incident. Financial Ability of Agencies to Provide Services  The District reports that current financing levels are adequate to deliver regular activities, but are not adequate for large emergencies or fires.  The District may require increased revenues to finance upgrades to the Vinton station, which is in poor condition. SVVFD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 388 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY  The District hopes to increase funding by regularly applying for grants. Status of, and Opportunities for, Shared Facilities  SVVFD collaborates with other fire providers in Plumas County, and outside of it, through automatic aid agreements, mutual aid agreements, contracts and membership in the Fire Chiefs Association.  The District currently does not share its facilities with other agencies.  The District does not see opportunities for shared facilities with other agencies. Accountability for Community Service Needs, Including Governmental Structure and Operational Efficiencies  SVVFD demonstrated accountability and transparency by disclosing financial and service related information in response to LAFCo requests.  The County of Plumas is considering hiring a countywide fire marshal whose responsibilities may include enforcing fire code and conducting building inspections.  A governmental structure option is detachment from the District of the area north of Frenchman Lake, which generally is not accessible during the winter.  The District hopes to improve its operational efficiency through applying for grants and purchasing newer equipment. SVVFD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 389 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY 20. WHITEHAW K RANCH COM M U N I T Y S E RVI C ES D I STR I CT Whitehawk Ranch Community Services District (WHRCSD) provides park and recreation services, including owning and operating a number of recreational facilities. The facilities may be used by the community residents and their guests. AAGGEENNCCYY OOVVEERRVVIIEEWW Background The District was formed in 1996438 to provide services such as fire protection, recreation facilities, trails and meeting and event facilities to the community of Whitehawk Ranch. In 2006, Whitehawk Ranch CSD dissolved the fire department and the property owners in the District voted to annex into the Graeagle Fire Protection District. The annexation was approved by LAFCo in 2007.439 The principal act that governs the District is the State of California Community Services District Law.440 CSDs may potentially provide a wide array of services, including water supply, wastewater, solid waste, police and fire protection, street lighting and landscaping, airport, recreation and parks, mosquito abatement, library services; street maintenance and drainage services, ambulance service, utility undergrounding, transportation, abate graffiti, flood protection, weed abatement, hydroelectric power, among various other services. CSDs are required to gain LAFCo approval to provide those services permitted by the principal act but not performed by the end of 2005 (i.e., latent powers).441 The District encompasses the private community of Whitehawk Ranch located in Clio, California in eastern Plumas County, approximately 50 miles northwest of Truckee in Sierra County and eight miles south of the town of Graeagle. The territory of WHRCSD is included in GFPD for fire services. 438 LAFCo Resolution No. 2-F-96 and SBOE. 439 LAFCo Resolution No. 2007-014. 440 Government Code §61000-61226.5. 441 Government Code §61106. WHRCSD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 390 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY Boundaries WHRCSD boundary is entirely within Plumas County. The District’s boundaries encompass approximately 951 acres or 1.5 square miles. 442 There have been no annexations to or detachments from WHRCSD since its formation. Sphere of Influence The District has not had an SOI adopted by LAFCo. The Commission will adopt an SOI during the SOI updates to follow this MSR. Extra-territorial Services The District does not provide any extra-territorial services. Areas of Interest The District did not identify any areas of interest. 442 Total agency area calculated in GIS software based on agency boundaries as of July 1, 2011. The data is not considered survey quality. WHRCSD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 391 Whitehawk Ranch Community Services District 25 30 29 28 89 C A R M IC H A EL R D 33 32 31 36 BOBCAT TRAIL PROSPECTOR DR LAZY LN MINER'S PASSAGE FO MINER'S PASSAGE QUAIL VIEW CIR MCKENZIE TRL X TA IL LN WHITEHAWK DR WHITEHAWK DR SADDLE RI H D A G W E R K D RDG W D R RIVER RUN O D S M E A BOULDER DR 4 5 6 1 OLD HATCHERY RD htroN 22 pihsnwoT Range 13 East ² Legend ·|}þ Whitehawk Ranch CSD 70 CA State Highway Parcels Resolution: 2-F-96 Adopted: 8/29/1996 Major Roads Sectional Grid (MDB&M) Whitehawk Ranch CSD (SOI) Resolution: Adopted: Stream / River Waterbodies 0 0.125 0.25 0.5Miles Source: Plumas LAFCo Map Created 5/2/2011 htroN 12 pihsnwoT 20-1 Whitehawk Ranch CSD Streets PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY Accountability and Governance WHRCSD is governed by a five-member board of directors who are to be elected to staggered four-year terms. There are currently five members, three of whom were elected. Two other members had two year appointments to four year terms. There has never been a contested election. Current board member names, positions, and term expiration dates are shown in Figure 17-2. The Board of Directors holds regular meetings on the second Tuesday of each month from April through November starting at 4 in the afternoon at Whitehawk Ranch community center. The Board does not meet December through March unless there is a need for a special meeting. Board meeting agendas are posted on the District website, at the Clio post office and in the community kiosk. Minutes are available on the website or upon request as paper copies. Figure 20-2: WHRCSD Governing Body Whitehawk Ranch Community Services District District Contact Information Contact: Ivan Randal, Chairman Address: 1231 Whitehawk Drive, Clio, CA 96106 Telephone: 530-836-1289 Email/website: whitehawk2@mac.com, www.whitehawkranch.org Board of Directors Member Name Position Term Expiration Manner of Selection Length of Term Ivan Randal Chairman December 2011 Elected 4 years Bob stein Director December 2011 Elected 4 years Bill Gilbert Director December 2013 Elected 4 years Dennis Blanc Director December 2013 Appointed 4 years Ron Kvikstad Director December 2013 Appointed 4 years Meetings Date: Second Tuesday of every month from April through November at 4pm. Location: Whitehawk Ranch community center. Agenda Distribution: Posted on the webiste, at the Clio post office and in the community kiosk. Minutes Distribution: Availble on the website and upon request. In addition to the required agendas and minutes, the District does public outreach through its website and HOA newsletter. CSD issues are also usually included on meeting agendas of the HOA. The WHRCSD policies and procedures manual indicates that if a customer is dissatisfied with the District’s services, that individual has to first discuss the matter with the office manager and then with the general manager. However, since the District does not have any employees, the board of directors is responsible for resolving complaints. A dissatisfied customer may come to a board meeting and voice the complaint. The Chairman of the Board is responsible for handling the complaints. The District reported that a majority of WHRCSD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 393 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY complaints in the past were regarding a lack of 24-hour access to community facilities. The District reported that it was unable to allow 24-hour access due to a lack of oversight during night hours. The situation is currently being resolved through installation of identity key locks and a keyless coded entry system. According to the District, there were no complaints in 2009 and 2010. WHRCSD demonstrated full accountability and transparency in its disclosure of information and cooperation with Plumas LAFCo. The District responded to the questionnaires and cooperated with interview and document requests. Planning and Management Practices The District does not have a general manager or any other employees. The administration and management operations are conducted by the Board of Directors. WHRCSD contracts for bookkeeping and maintenance services. The principal act calls for community service districts to appoint a general manager to implement board policies (Government Codes §61050). Per §61040(e), the general manager may not be a member of the board. As required by the Community Services District Law, the District was advised to consider hiring a general manager. In April, 2011 the District passed a motion to fill the General Manager position. It plans to resolve the issue by the end of summer of 2011. Whitehawk Ranch Mutual Water Company performs facility maintenance, including cleaning the pool and mowing the lawns, for the District. The water company has all the necessary maintenance employees and equipment and is willing to provide all maintenance services. The contract for maintenance services is put out annually for bid, but there has not been a competitive bid from a company that is willing to provide all required services. The District reported that it is more efficient to use a single maintenance company. The maintenance contractor’s services are evaluated informally every year. Similarly, the District puts out a bid for bookkeeping services each year; however, the same person has been providing these services for the last few years. The Board tracks the work load of the contractors through monthly reports submitted to the Board. The District reported performing no formal evaluations of district performance as a whole, such as benchmarking or annual reports. The District attempts to track the usage of its facilities through a sign-in sheet for residents and their guests when using the pool and the gym. However, in reality, the facility use is based on an honor system, and guests regularly do not sign in. The District attempts to monitor facility usage, but believes that the numbers have been inaccurate. The new access system will allow for more accurate tracking. The District’s financial planning efforts include an annually adopted budget and reserve study. The financial statements are audited every two years. The latest audit took place in FY 08-09. The District provided the adopted budget for FY 10-11, audited financial statements for FY 08-09, up-to-date unaudited financial statements for FY 09-10 and the WHRCSD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 394 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY reserve study. WHRCSD has compiled a capital improvement plan, which is part of the reserve study. The planning horizon for the study is 2041. The CIP is updated annually or sometimes more often depending on what expenditures have been made and any other identified needs. Existing Demand and Growth Projections Designated land uses within the District are primarily residential and recreational, with a couple of commercial properties.443 Total boundary area of WHRCSD is about one tenth of a square mile. Population The District’s number of structures in 2006 was 179. Based on average household size throughout the County of 1.9 people, the estimated population served by WHRCSD in 2006 was about 340 people. Based on the negative growth seen around the County between 2006 and 2010, it is assumed that the District has also experienced little or no growth during that time. The District reports that there are 269 property owners. Majority of the residents of Whitehawk Ranch are part time residents. Existing Demand The District reported that the period of peak demand for its recreation facilities, in particular the pool, is during summer time and on holidays. Overall, WHRCSD observed no significant change in service demand in the last few years. Projected Growth and Development The agency anticipates little or no growth in population and similarly in service demand within the District in the next few years; however, no formal population projections have been made by the District. The State Department of Finance (DOF) projects that the population of Plumas County will grow by five percent in the next 10 years. Thus, the average annual population growth in the County is anticipated to be approximately 0.5 percent. Based on these projections, the District’s population would increase from 340 in 2010 to approximately 357 in 2020. It is anticipated that demand for service within the District will increase minimally based on the DOF population growth projections through 2020. The District reported that because of the recession it is anticipating no growth in the next ten years. Previous pre-recession ten year growth forecasts projected new developments; however, any potential developments are presently on hold until the 443 Plumas County Parcel Application. WHRCSD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 395 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY housing market recovers. Accordingly, the District will need to slow down planned improvements to stay within budget. To District’s knowledge, there are currently three areas within its boundaries that remain to be developed. One of them, called Phase XII, consists of 35 lots or 100 acres of single family homes. The property is for sale by the current owner. Another area, Phase XIV, is zoned for seven homes, three acres each, and is now in foreclosure. The last potential development, Phase VIII, consists of 16 acres. The District has the capacity to provide adequate services to the existing levels of demand; however, if growth occurs, facilities will need to be expanded.444 WHRCSD did not identify any areas within its future growth area to which it would be difficult to provide an adequate level of service. Growth Strategies The District is not a land use authority, and does not hold primary responsibility for implementing growth strategies. The land use authority for unincorporated areas is the County. Financing The District reported that the current financing level is adequate to deliver services. No challenges to financing were identified. When the District provided fire services, it was a burden on the District’s revenues; however, after fire services were taken on by GFPD, WHRCSD’s special property tax income remained intact. Consequently, WHRCSD reported no significant financial difficulties. The principal impact of the recession identified by the District, was the suspension of developments in the area, which forced WHRCSD to re-evaluate its previous growth projections. The District projects slow or no growth for the next ten years, thus, it needs to slow down its rate of improvements to stay within budget. In addition, the District reported that it wished for an increase of about $100 in special property taxes. The District may request a special election to increase the CSD assessment sometime within the next three to five years depending on budget projections. This increase might be necessary to provide current services within budget for the next ten to twenty years. The District’s total revenues for FY 09-10 were $136,442. Revenue sources include a special tax on each parcel (98 percent), interest (one percent), and other income (one percent). Almost all of WHRCSD income comes from a special property tax. Each property owner pays $420 per parcel. The County charges a fee of $2.50 for collection services. The District obtains $417.50 per parcel. The tax is not adjusted annually. Most of the District’s facilities are free for use by the residents of Whitehawk Ranch. The District has a fee schedule for the use of the Community Center and Gazebo. The use of the Center for WHR community sponsored events is free. Property owners have to leave a 444 Interview with Ivan Randal, Board of Directors chairperson. WHRCSD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 396 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY security deposit of $250 for small and medium events. Property owners who wish to have events with more than 49 guests are charged $750 with a $200 custodial fee and $500 security deposit. Whitehawk Ranch commercial entities who invite less than 50 guests have to pay $200 with $150 custodial fee and $200 security deposit. The Community Center and Gazebo are only available to WHR property owners, WHR commercial entities or other CSD or HOA authorized events. The District’s expenditures in FY 09-10 were $98,418. The District’s primary expenditures consist of administrative management (13 percent), facilities management (39 percent), and utilities and telephone (15 percent). Other expenses are detailed in the table below. Figure 20-3: WHRCSD Revenues and Expenses Income/Expenses FY 09-10 Budgeted FY 09-10 Actual FY 10-11 Budgeted Income Parcel Taxes $132,780 96% $134,282 98% $132,780 95% Interest $600 1% $555 1% $400 1% Exercise Facility $5,000 3% $0 0% $5,000 3% Other Income $0 0% $1,605 1% $1,400 1% Total Income $138,380 100% $136,442 100% $139,580 100% Expenses Administrative Mangement $12,600 11% $12,600 13% $12,600 11% Capital Items $1,250 1% $3,823 4% $4,000 4% Exercise Facility $5,000 4% $0 0% $5,000 4% Facilities Management $38,670 33% $38,670 39% $39,830 36% Insurance $7,500 6% $5,602 6% $6,400 6% Legal & Audit $12,500 11% $6,500 7% $1,000 1% Maintenance Supplies $2,100 2% $2,207 2% $2,400 2% Office Expenses $4,128 4% $852 1% $2,400 2% Pool Supplies & Chemicals $2,250 2% $2,845 3% $2,250 2% Pool Utilities $6,750 6% $6,596 7% $6,750 6% Property Taxes $700 1% $693 1% $725 1% Repairs & Maintenance $1,750 2% $1,271 1% $4,000 4% Utilities & Telephone $13,200 11% $15,468 15% $15,840 14% Other Expenses $3,600 3% $1,290 1% $3,000 3% Contingencies $3,000 2% $0 0% $4,000 4% Election of Directors $1,500 1% $0 0% $0 0% Total Expenses $116,498 100% $98,418 100% $110,195 100% Net Income $21,882 $38,023 $29,385 Note: The District allocates the portion of the net income into the reserve fund based on the budged amounts discussed below. The District is not required to have a financial reserve, but has a practice of doing so. Use of the reserve is restricted to the capital improvement of the tennis courts, gazebo, WHRCSD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 397 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY community center, fire house, pool and spa, open space, RV storage, and landscape and other maintenance equipment. The expense amounts for these capital improvement projects are allocated through 2041, and are revised annually or sometimes more often. As of the end of FY 09-10, the financial reserve was $70,989. In FY 09-10, WHRCSD transferred $2,972, and in FY 10-11, planned to transfer $28,060 into the reserve account. There is also an emergency fund in the budget for unexpected expenses, which in FY 10-11, was budgeted to be $4,000 or four percent of all budgeted expenses. The District does not participate in any joint power authorities (JPAs) or joint financing mechanisms. WHRCSD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 398 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY PPAARRKK AANNDD RREECCRREEAATTIIOONN SSEERRVVIICCEESS Service Overview Whitehawk Ranch CSD owns and operates a number of recreational facilities. The facilities may be used by the community residents and their guests and consist of:  Community Center with free Wi-Fi  Gazebo  Tennis courts  Swimming pool  Bocci ball court  Exercise facility  Hiking trails  RV parking area  Burn pile  Equestrian center Staffing The District has no staff. The Board of Directors is responsible for the administration of the CSD. Separate committees oversee the use of each facility. The Whitehawk Ranch Mutual Water Company provides facility maintenance services to the District through contract. Facilities and Capacity All of the District’s facilities, listed in the Service Overview section, are reported to be in good condition. They are open from dawn dill dusk. Once the new identity key locks are installed, some of the facilities (i.e. community center) will be open 24 hours a day. The tennis courts and swimming pool are seasonal; they operate from Memorial Day till Labor Day. The District currently has the capacity to provide park and recreation services to its existing service area. However, growth in service demand may require future expansion of existing facilities—specifically, more parking will be needed to accommodate growth. WHRCSD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 399 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY Infrastructure Needs The District identified a need to develop some open space land that it owns for community use. The improvements are not planned to take place in the near future, but some of the possible enhancements include a picnic area, picnic benches and a ball park. Challenges Because of the recession, the District had to slow down and put on hold some planned expansions and improvements. The needed improvements to the existing facilities through 2041 are described in the District’s Projected Reserve Study and are reviewed annually or more often. The District believes that an increase to the special property tax at some point in the next three to five years will provide for funding of existing service for the following 10 to 20 years. Service Adequacy Based on the information about facilities offered, management practices and accountability discussed in the previous sections, WHRCSD’s level of service appears to be adequate. WHRCSD offers a broad range of recreational facilities for the property owners and has further plans to continue developing the open space to provide more recreational opportunities. The facilities provided are appropriate to the needs of the property owners. The District is well managed by the Board of Directors that keeps the affairs of the CSD organized, regularly evaluates the bookkeeping and maintenance contractors, prepares a budget before the beginning of the fiscal year, conducts periodic financial audits, maintains current financial records, and plans sufficiently for capital needs and growth. To help track facility usage and apply the results to improve services and expand facility hours, WHRCSD is in the process of installing new identity key locks. One area of management that the District can improve upon is hiring or designating a general manager as required by the Community Services District law. WHRCSD is currently in the process of addressing this issue; the general manager scheduled to be designated or hired by the end of summer of 2011. The District demonstrates accountability and transparency to its customers by having no vacancies on the Board of Directors, making its documents available to the public, inviting input regarding services offered through participation in regular board meetings, making efforts to engage and educate constituents through outreach activities beyond the required activities, and cooperating with the MSR process and information disclosure. WHRCSD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 400 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY Figure 20-4: Whitehawk Ranch Community Services District Park and Recreation Profile Park and Recreational Services Facility Owner Condition Maintenance Community Center WHRCSD Good Mutual Water Company Gazebo WHRCSD Good Mutual Water Company Tennis Courts WHRCSD Good Mutual Water Company Swimming Pool WHRCSD Good Mutual Water Company Bocci WHRCSD Good Mutual Water Company Exercise facility WHRCSD Good Mutual Water Company Hiking trails WHRCSD Good Mutual Water Company RV Parking area WHRCSD Good Mutual Water Company Burn piles WHRCSD Good Mutual Water Company Equestrian center WHRCSD Good Mutual Water Company Service Challenges Because of the recession, the District had to postpone some of the planned expansions and improvements. Facility Needs/Deficiencies There is a need to further develop open space land within the District to offer more recreational facilities in the future. Facility Sharing Current Practices: The District shares its facilities with the lodge, golf course, mutual water company and charitable organizations. Future Opportunities: Entities, such as schools and home owners associations contacted the District about using its facilities for meetings and events. WHRCSD sees opportunities to share certain facilities with them in the future. Recreation Cost per Resident $289 Residents per Facility 34 WHRCSD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 401 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY WWHHIITTEEHHAAWWKK CCSSDD DDEETTEERRMMIINNAATTIIOONNSS Growth and Population Projections  The estimated population served by WHRCSD is about 340 residents. A majority of the residents of Whitehawk Ranch are part time residents.  Over the past few years the District has experienced little or no growth in population.  No or slow growth is expected within the District in the short-term. The three areas that are remaining to be developed within the District do not have potential developers at this time. Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities and Adequacy of Public Services, Including Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies  The District’s current facilities have the capacity to adequately serve existing demand. It is anticipated that facilities will have to be expanded, based on projected future growth in demand.  The District identified a need to develop its open space to provide more recreational facilities for its residents in the future.  Capital improvement projects are identified in the Projected Reserve Expenditures and budgeted for in the District’s reserve fund.  It is recommended that the District hire or appoint a general manager as required by the Community Services District Law. Financial Ability of Agencies to Provide Services  The District reports that current financing levels are adequate to deliver services.  The District wishes to increase funding by increasing property fees by $100 in the next three to five years. Status of, and Opportunities for, Shared Facilities  WHRCSD shares its facilities with the businesses located on the territory of the District. The maintenance contractor also makes use of the facilities. The community center is sometimes used for meetings by charitable organizations. WHRCSD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 402 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY  The District sees other opportunities to share its facilities with other businesses and entities in the neighboring communities. Accountability for Community Service Needs, Including Governmental Structure and Operational Efficiencies  WHRCSD demonstrated accountability and transparency by disclosing financial and service related information in response to LAFCo requests.  The District conducts outreach efforts to inform constituents of ongoing issues through the website, board meetings and HOA newsletter.  No governmental structure options were identified with regard to WHRCSD. WHRCSD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 403 PLUMAS LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR EASTERN PLUMAS COUNTY I N T E R V I E W S Agency Name and Title Plumas County Planning Department Becky Herrin, Senior Planner Plumas County Public Health Agency Rob Robinette, Public Health Agency Plumas County Sherriff Greg Hagwood, Sherriff/Coroner Plumas County Linda Williams, Auditor/Accountant Plumas County Nancy DaForno, Clerk of the Board City of Portola Karen Downs, Planning Director City of Portola Jim Murphy, City Manager City of Portola Mike Achter, Water and Wastewater Operator City of Portola Todd Roberts, Public Works Director Beckwourth CSA Cinda Leonard, Office Manager Beckwourth CSA Mike Kroenke, Engineer Beckwourth CSA Bob Perreault, General Manager Beckwourth FD Greg McCaffrey, RN, Chief Clio PUD Bob Raymond, Board Member Clio PUD Jennifer Lacy, Treasurer Clio PUD Neil Beck, Operator/Board Member C-Road CSD Barbara Cox, Former Director C-Road CSD Ron Heard, Chief C-Road CSD Ed Harrison, Director C-Road CSD Dennis Doyle, President Eastern Plumas Recreation District Mark Smith, Treasurer Eastern Plumas Healthcare District Jeri Nelson, Chief Financial Officer Eastern Plumas Rural FPD Kieth Clark, Former Chief Eastern Plumas Rural FPD Michelle Lotta, Administrative Secretary Gold Mountain CSD Ivan Gossage, General Manager Gold Mountain CSD Jenean Lohn, Office Administrator Graeagle FPD Ed Ward, Chief Grizzly Lake CSD Juli Thompson, General Manager Grizzly Lake CSD Randy Mark, Water and Wastewater Operator Grizzly Ranch CSD Cinda Leonard, Office Manager Grizzly Ranch CSD Mike Kroenke, Engineer Grizzly Ranch CSD Bob Perreault, General Manager Last Chance Creek WD Milton Frei, Board Member Northern California EMS Kara Davis, EMS Systems Director Plumas -Eureka CSD Frank Motzkus, General Manager Plumas-Eureka CSD Gary Catagnetti, Fire Chief Portola Cemetery District Carolyn Johnson, Former Secretary/Treasurer Portola Cemetery District Curtis Marshall, Former Chairman Sierra Valley FPD Russ Dickman, Treasurer Whitehawk Ranch CSD Ivan Randal, Chairman Whitehawk Ranch CSD Dennis Blanc, Director WHRCSD cÉÄ|vç VÉÇáâÄà|Çz TááÉv|tàxá? __V 404