LAFCO

Remaining (Round V) MSR Report (adopted August 14, 2017)

Local Agency Formation Commissions · plumas-msr-2017-plumas-2017-msr-final · Msr · 2017-01-01

Read the report at Local Agency Formation Commissions ↗

P LU M A S C O U N T Y S P E C I A L D I S T R I C T S V O LU M E 5 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 August 14,, 2017 Prepared for the Plumas Local Agency Formation Commission by Policy Consulting Associates, LLC. and John Benoit PLUMAS LAFCO PLUMAS COUNTY DISTRICTS VOLUME 5 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW TA B L E O F C O N T E N T S ACRONYMS .................................................................................................................................................................4 PREFACE ......................................................................................................................................................................6 CONTEXT .................................................................................................................................................................6 CREDITS ...................................................................................................................................................................6 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................7 SERVICE PROVIDERS ...................................................................................................................................................7 CEMETERY DISTRICTS ................................................................................................................................................7 INACTIVE DISTRICTS .................................................................................................................................................10 CAPITAL PLANNING ..................................................................................................................................................10 SPECIAL DISTRICT ACCOUNTABILITY AND TRANSPARENCY ....................................................................................11 2. LAFCO AND MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEWS ....................................................................................12 LAFCO OVERVIEW ...................................................................................................................................................12 MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW ORIGINS ...................................................................................................................13 MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW LEGISLATION ...........................................................................................................15 MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW PROCESS ..................................................................................................................16 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE UPDATES .............................................................................................................................17 3. MSR AREA ........................................................................................................................................................19 GROWTH & POPULATION PROJECTIONS ....................................................................................................................19 4. CROMBERG CEMETERY DISTRICT ........................................................................................................22 AGENCY OVERVIEW .................................................................................................................................................22 CEMETERY SERVICES ................................................................................................................................................28 CROMBERG CEMETERY DISTRICT DETERMINATIONS ...............................................................................................30 5. DIXIE VALLEY COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT ...........................................................................32 AGENCY OVERVIEW .................................................................................................................................................32 DIXIE VALLEY COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT DETERMINATIONS .......................................................................36 6. FEATHER RIVER CANYON COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT ....................................................38 AGENCY OVERVIEW .................................................................................................................................................38 WATER SERVICES .....................................................................................................................................................44 FEATHER RIVER CANYON COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT DETERMINATIONS ......................................................49 7. FEATHER RIVER RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT ..............................................................51 AGENCY OVERVIEW .................................................................................................................................................51 RESOURCE CONSERVATION SERVICES ......................................................................................................................56 FEATHER RIVER RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT DETERMINATIONS ..............................................................58 8. GRAEAGLE COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT .................................................................................60 AGENCY OVERVIEW .................................................................................................................................................60 SERVICES ..................................................................................................................................................................67 GOVERNANCE ALTERNATIVES ..................................................................................................................................68 GRAEAGLE COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT DETERMINATIONS .............................................................................70 9. JOHNSVILLE PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT .............................................................................................72 AGENCY OVERVIEW .................................................................................................................................................72 WATER SERVICES .....................................................................................................................................................80 JOHNSVILLE PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT DETERMINATIONS ......................................................................................82 10. MEADOW VALLEY CEMETERY DISTRICT .......................................................................................84 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 PLUMAS LAFCO PLUMAS COUNTY DISTRICTS VOLUME 5 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW AGENCY OVERVIEW .................................................................................................................................................84 CEMETERY SERVICES ................................................................................................................................................91 MEADOW VALLEY CEMETERY DISTRICT DETERMINATIONS ....................................................................................93 11. MOHAWK VALLEY CEMETERY DISTRICT ......................................................................................95 AGENCY OVERVIEW .................................................................................................................................................95 CEMETERY SERVICES ..............................................................................................................................................102 MOHAWK VALLEY CEMETERY DISTRICT DETERMINATIONS ..................................................................................104 12. COUNTY SERVICE AREA 7 (WARNER VALLEY) ...........................................................................106 AGENCY OVERVIEW ...............................................................................................................................................106 WARNER VALLEY COUNTY SERVICE AREA 7 DETERMINATIONS ...........................................................................110 13. COUNTY SERVICE AREA 10 (BIG MEADOWS) ...............................................................................112 AGENCY OVERVIEW ...............................................................................................................................................112 BIG MEADOWS COUNTY SERVICE AREA 10 DETERMINATIONS ..............................................................................116 14. COUNTY SERVICE AREA 12 .................................................................................................................118 AGENCY OVERVIEW ...............................................................................................................................................118 TRANSIT SERVICES .................................................................................................................................................124 COUNTY SERVICE AREA 12 DETERMINATIONS .......................................................................................................126 TABLE OF CONTENTS 2 PLUMAS LAFCO PLUMAS COUNTY DISTRICTS VOLUME 5 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW L I S T O F F I G U R E S FIGURE 1-1: MSR SPECIAL DISTRICTS ............................................................................................................................7 FIGURE 1-2: PLUMAS COUNTY CEMETERY DISTRICTS ....................................................................................................9 FIGURE 2-1: COMMISSION MEMBERS, 2017 ...................................................................................................................13 FIGURE 3-1: NEW RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PERMITS, 2000-2016 .................................................................................20 FIGURE 3-2: COUNTYWIDE DOF POPULATION PROJECTIONS .......................................................................................20 FIGURE 3-3: ANNUALIZED GROWTH PROJECTIONS BY METHOD ..................................................................................21 FIGURE 3-4: TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX REVENUE, FYS 02-15 ...............................................................................21 FIGURE 4-1: CROMBERG CEMETERY DISTRICT BOUNDARIES AND SOI .........................................................................24 FIGURE 4-2: CROMBERG CEMETERY DISTRICT GOVERNING BODY ...............................................................................25 FIGURE 5-1: DIXIE VALLEY COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT BOUNDARIES AND SOI .................................................33 FIGURE 5-2: DIXIE VALLEY CSD GOVERNING BODY ....................................................................................................34 FIGURE 6-1: FEATHER RIVER CANYON COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT BOUNDARIES ..............................................39 FIGURE 6-2: FEATHER RIVER CANYON CSD GOVERNING BODY ..................................................................................40 FIGURE 6-3: FRCCSD VIOLATIONS ..............................................................................................................................48 FIGURE 7-1: FEATHER RIVER RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT BOUNDARIES AND SOI ........................................52 FIGURE 7-2: FEATHER RIVER RCD GOVERNING BODY .................................................................................................53 FIGURE 8-1: GCSD LIST OF LAFCO-APPROVED BOUNDARY CHANGES .......................................................................61 FIGURE 8-2: GRAEAGLE COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT BOUNDARIES AND SOI ......................................................62 FIGURE 8-3: GRAEAGLE CSD GOVERNING BODY .........................................................................................................63 FIGURE 9-1: JOHNSVILLE PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT BOUNDARIES AND SOI ................................................................74 FIGURE 9-2: PLUMAS EUREKA STATE PARK ..................................................................................................................75 FIGURE 9-3: JOHNSVILLE PUD GOVERNING BODY .......................................................................................................76 FIGURE 9-4: JOHNSVILLE PUD ANNUAL SUPPLY (2012 – 2015) ...................................................................................78 FIGURE 10-1: MEADOW VALLEY CEMETERY DISTRICT BOUNDARIES AND SOI ............................................................86 FIGURE 10-2: MEADOW VALLEY CEMETERY DISTRICT GOVERNING BODY ..................................................................87 FIGURE 11-1: MOHAWK VALLEY CEMETERY DISTRICT BOUNDARIES AND SOI ...........................................................97 FIGURE 11-2: MOHAWK VALLEY CEMETERY DISTRICT GOVERNING BODY .................................................................98 FIGURE 12-1: COUNTY SERVICE AREA 7 (WARNER VALLEY) BOUNDARIES AND SOI ................................................107 FIGURE 12-2: CSA 7 GOVERNING BODY .....................................................................................................................108 FIGURE 13-1: COUNTY SERVICE AREA 10 (BIG MEADOWS) BOUNDARIES AND SOI ...................................................113 FIGURE 13-2: CSA 10 GOVERNING BODY ...................................................................................................................114 FIGURE 14-1: COUNTY SERVICE AREA 12 BOUNDARIES .............................................................................................119 FIGURE 14-2: CSA 12 GOVERNING BODY ...................................................................................................................120 LIST OF FIGURES 3 PLUMAS LAFCO PLUMAS COUNTY DISTRICTS VOLUME 5 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW ACRO NYM S ADWF: Average dry weather flow af: Acre-feet afa: Acre-feet per annum BLS: Basic Life Support BOD: Biological oxygen demands BOE California Board of Equalization ccf: Hundreds of cubic feet CC&R: Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions CCD: Cromberg Cemetery District 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 CSA: County Service Area CSD: Community Services District CSDA: California Special District Association CY: Calendar year DFG: California Department of Fish and Game DOF: California Department of Finance DVCSD: Dixie Valley Community Services District DWR: California Department of Water Resources EMS: Emergency Medical Services EMT: Emergency Medical Technician EPA: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ERAF: Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund 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 FRCCSD: Feather River Canyon Community Services District FRRCD: Feather River Resource Conservation District FTE: Full-Time Equivalent FY: Fiscal year GCSD: Graeagle Community Services District GIS: Geographic Information Systems GM: General Manger gpd: Gallons per day gpm: Gallons per minute GP: General Plan I/I: Infiltration and inflow ACRONYMS 4 PLUMAS LAFCO PLUMAS COUNTY DISTRICTS VOLUME 5 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW ISO: Insurance Services Organization IRWMP: Integrated Regional Water Management Plan JHA: Jurisdiction having authority JPA: Joint Powers Authority JPUD: Johnsville Public Utility District LAFCo: Local Agency Formation Commission MCL: Maximum Contaminant Level mg: Millions of gallons mgd: Millions of gallons per day MSR: Municipal services review MS4: Municipal separate storm sewer systems MVCD: Meadow Valley Cemetery District MoVCD: Mohawk Valley Cemetery District 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 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 SWP: State Water Project 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 WWTP Wastewater treatment plant WTP: Water treatment plant ACRONYMS 5 PLUMAS LAFCO PLUMAS COUNTY DISTRICTS VOLUME 5 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW P R EFAC E This report is a municipal service review (MSR)—a state-required comprehensive study of services—prepared for the Plumas Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo). This MSR is the final of five volumes of reviews of all of Plumas County’s special districts and city. The report covers special districts that provide a wide variety of services around the County, including water, parks and recreation, cemetery, transit, and resource conservation services. CONTEXT 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. CREDITS 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 Wolfson. Jennifer Stephenson served as project manager. Oxana Wolfson provided research analysis. The local agencies 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 6 PLUMAS LAFCO PLUMAS COUNTY DISTRICTS VOLUME 5 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW 1. EXECUTI V E S UM M A RY This report is a Municipal Service Review (MSR) report on various municipal services 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, 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. SERVICE PROVIDERS This report focuses on the remaining service providers in Plumas County that have not yet been reviewed. As shown in Figure 1-1, 11 special districts were reviewed as part of this Municipal Service Review. All of the agencies reviewed here provide a single service. Figure 1-1: MSR Special Districts Agency EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 7 retaW tisnarT yretemeC ecruoseR noitavresnoC noitaerceR skraP evitcanI Cromberg Cemetery District ü Dixie Valley Community Services District ü Feather River Canyon Community Services District ü Feather River Resource Conservation District ü Graeagle Community Services District ü ü Johnsville Public Utility District ü Meadow Valley Cemetery District ü Mohawk Valley Cemetery District ü County Service Area 7 (Warner Valley) ü County Service Area 10 (Big Meadows) ü County Service Area 12 ü CEMETERY DISTRICTS There are nine cemetery districts in Plumas County, of which three are under review in this report—Cromberg Cemetery District, Meadow Valley Cemetery District, and Mohawk Valley Cemetery District. Also reviewed in previous MSRs were Crescent Mills CD, Greenville CD, Quincy-La Porte CD, Taylorsville CD, Portola CD and Chester CD. All districts in the County are shown in Figure 1-2 on the following page. Each of the districts reviewed here, as well as in previous reports, has faced similar struggles in providing transparent, adequate services within legal requirements while simultaneously challenged by limited public interest and insufficient financing. Specifically, PLUMAS LAFCO PLUMAS COUNTY DISTRICTS VOLUME 5 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW all of the districts have suffered from hard to fill vacancies on the governing bodies. There is often a high turnover rate of the board members, and vacancies remain unfilled for long periods of time. The districts operate on minimal budgets and many reported that revenues were insufficient to provide an adequate level of services. As a result of these skeletal budgets, the districts often rely almost entirely on volunteer efforts on the part of the board members and other volunteer/community service programs for administration and maintenance. Due to the informal and small nature of these districts, there is a general lack of understanding of the legal requirements regarding a public agency and more specifically the detailed requirements of cemetery districts. In this review, Meadow Valley Cemetery District and Mohawk Valley Cemetery District are the exception, in that the two districts have been able to maintain an adequate level of services and build a healthy reserve within a constrained budget; however these are the exceptions to the generally struggling cemetery districts. Given the constraints shared by all of the cemetery districts, reorganization of some form may be beneficial to the agencies in improving efficiency and thereby addressing many of the common challenges faced by these agencies. Reorganization of the districts could occur at a countywide or regional level depending on the interest of the districts. A countywide district would eliminate eight governing bodies and administrative structures, enabling the single cemetery district to draw from the population countywide to fill the board seats. Additionally, the District would be able to best leverage the available resources for the benefit of the various cemeteries and capitalize on personnel and equipment sharing to the greatest extent practicable. Finally, as a larger more visible agency, a countywide district would be more likely to be placed under public scrutiny to ensure operations are appropriate for a public agency. Regional consolidation would offer smaller more short-term steps that may garner greater support from the public due to the sense that the local community is retaining control. Within this report, the opportunity for Mohawk Valley Cemetery District to annex the Cromberg Cemetery District was identified as a regional option for consolidation that would result in improved accountability for constituents in the area. While many of the cemetery districts have expressed interest in consolidation to some degree, there are also concerns of loss of local control and representation. Discussions among the Indian Valley cemetery districts were met with mixed responses. In order for consolidation to be welcomed by the public, it is essential that the local districts identify the benefits that consolidation could offer locally and at the same time recognize the assistance that consolidation will bring to neighboring districts that are struggling to continue operations and maintain historical landmarks. Consolidation of neighboring districts at first, may provide a template for others in moving forward with similar reorganizations. In order to initiate such a consolidation, it would require a resolution from either the Board of Supervisors or the boards of the affected districts. The cost of consolidation would likely be minimal if shared among multiple districts. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 8 Plumas County Cemetery Districts Plumas County UVLOIS Location Map (Not to Scale) Chester Warner Valley Rd ^`Chester UV 36 Lake Almanor ^` ^` UV 36 Peninsula^` Hamilton Branch ^` Lake Almanor West ^` ^` UV 147 Almanor UV Prattville 89 ^` UV 89 Canyon Dam ^` Greenville ^` Caribo^`u Crescent Mills ^`Taylorsville ^` Paxton^` Indian Falls ·|þ} ^` ^` ^` 70 Keddie Twain Belden ^` Meadow Valley^` ^` ^` ^` Tobin Quincy East Quincy ^` Storrie ^` Greenhorn ^` Spring Garden Lake Davis^` ^` Bucks Lake Cromberg Delleker^` ^` Portola ^`Beckwourth ·|þ} 70 Vin ^`ton ^` Plumas E ^` ureka ^` ^` ^`Blair ^` s ^` den C-Road ^` Iron Horse Chilcoot ^` Johnsville G W ra h e i a te g h le awk R ^` an C^` ch lio ^` Va UV 8 l 9 ley Ranch Beckwo C u a rt l h pine Rd Little Grass Valley ^` La Porte Plumas County Cemetery Districts Quincy LaPorte Cemetery District Crescent Mills Cemetery District Greenville Cemetery District ² Chester Cemetery District Legend Cromberg Cemetery District Highways Parcels Meadow Valley Cemetery District Major Roads Plumas County Sectional Grid Stream / River ^` Mohawk Cemetery District Communities Waterbodies 0 3 6 12Miles Portola Cemetery District Taylorsville Cemetery District Source: Plumas LAFCo Map Created 6/10/2014 PLUMAS LAFCO PLUMAS COUNTY DISTRICTS VOLUME 5 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW INACTIVE DISTRICTS There are several inactive districts within Plumas County, meaning no services are provided, no revenues or expenditures are made, and the districts have no assets or debts. Inactive districts in Plumas County covered in the five MSRs include the following: v County Service Area 3 (Hamilton Branch) v County Service Area 6 (Genesee Valley) v County Service Area 7 (Warner Valley) v County Service Area 10 (Big Meadows) v Dixie Valley Community Services District Often these districts were formed in anticipation of a new development that never came to fruition and then the services were never initiated, which is the case of the three inactive districts covered in this report—Dixie Valley Community Services District, County Service Area 7, and County Service Area 10. All of these districts were formed over 40 years ago, and it is not anticipated that there will be a need for the agencies with no impending growth or development in any of the boundary areas. It is recommended that LAFCo adopt zero spheres of influence for each of these districts and summarily dissolve them to reduce the burden on LAFCo to conduct costly and time consuming reviews periodically as required by law. Because all of the inactive agencies listed above are dependent special districts of the County, the Plumas County Board of Supervisors can initiate the dissolution process by adopting a resolution. CAPITAL PLANNING Similar to other small rural special districts, the districts reviewed here, with the exception of County Service Area 12, lacked capital planning documents to plan for future capital needs. Formal capital planning is likely less necessary for the less capital intensive services, such as cemetery services; however, capital planning for those services with significant costly infrastructure and that affect public health, such as domestic water services, should appropriately plan for long-term needs. Pre-planning for future capital improvement needs is considered a best management practice, which is recommended for all public agencies regardless of size. Capital improvement plans (CIP) can be tailored to the needs of the agency, but should include a list of anticipated replacement and improvement needs with an anticipated timeline for completion and a financial plan for achieving those goals. It is recommended that a CIP have a planning horizon of at least five years and be updated annually to reflect current conditions. An adequate CIP can minimize deferred maintenance, ensure that rates are set to cover anticipated costs, and curtail the need for indebtedness. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 10 PLUMAS LAFCO PLUMAS COUNTY DISTRICTS VOLUME 5 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW SPECIAL DISTRICT ACCOUNTABILITY AND TRANSPARENCY There appears to be a general lack of understanding among the districts reviewed about many of the legal requirements of special districts and their governing bodies. Because many of the districts serve very limited populations, with an often tight knit community feel, the atmosphere of district operations and governance is laid back and informal, which does not adhere to or promote a general understanding of the basic laws governing special districts. It is apparent that the districts would greatly benefit from training in various areas to ensure that they are operating within legal confines. Topics where the districts appeared to lack knowledge and which are most critical to ensuring transparency and accountability include the following: v Brown Act requirements; v Financial reporting requirements for State Controller’s Office, audits, budgets, and Fair Political Practices Commission; v Importance of long-term capital planning; v The requirement of ethics training for board members, v The bylaws, policies, and procedures that are required by law; v Requirements for addressing public requests for information; v Appropriate level of financial reserves; and v Best management practices on internal fiscal controls. The Plumas County Special Districts Association has made efforts to provide education on these subjects. Unfortunately, those agencies that would benefit most from these sessions are usually not in attendance. It is recommended that all districts make efforts to attend all available educational sessions in the County. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 11 PLUMAS LAFCO PLUMAS COUNTY DISTRICTS VOLUME 5 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW 2. L A FCO A ND M UNI CI PA L SERVICES REVIEWS 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. LAFCO OVERVIEW 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 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 LAFCO & MSRS 12 PLUMAS LAFCO PLUMAS COUNTY DISTRICTS VOLUME 5 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW 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, 2017 Appointing Agency Members Alternate Members Two members from the Kevin Goss Michael Sanchez Board of Supervisors Sherrie Thrall appointed by the Board of Supervisors. Two member representing John Larrieu Pat Morton the cities in the County. Bill Powers Must be city officer and appointed by the City Selection Committee. One member from the Jeffrey Greening Vacant general public appointed by the other four commissioners. MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW ORIGINS 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 LAFCO & MSRS 13 PLUMAS LAFCO PLUMAS COUNTY DISTRICTS VOLUME 5 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW 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 services provided by districts, or to make comparisons with neighboring districts or services provided through a city or county.”1 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 2000.2 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 1 Little Hoover Commission, 2000, page 24. 2 The Commission on Local Governance for the 21st Century ceased to exist on July 1, 2000, pursuant to a statutory sunset provision. LAFCO & MSRS 14 PLUMAS LAFCO PLUMAS COUNTY DISTRICTS VOLUME 5 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW will lead to longer commutes, increased pollution and more stressful lives. Growth Within Bounds acknowledges that local governments face unprecedented challenges in 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,”3 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. MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW LEGISLATION The Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 requires LAFCo review and update SOIs not less than every five years and to review municipal services before updating SOIs. 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 service conditions comprehensively and to evaluate organizational options for accommodating growth, preventing urban sprawl, and ensuring that critical services are provided efficiently. 3 Commission on Local Governance for the 21st Century, 2000, page 70. LAFCO & MSRS 15 PLUMAS LAFCO PLUMAS COUNTY DISTRICTS VOLUME 5 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW 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: v Growth and population projections for the affected area; v The location and characteristics of any disadvantaged unincorporated communities within or contiguous to the SOI (effective July 1, 2012); v Present and planned capacity of public facilities and adequacy of public services, including infrastructure needs or deficiencies (including needs or deficiencies related to sewers, municipal and industrial water, and structural fire protection in any disadvantaged, unincorporated communities within or contiguous to the sphere of influence); v Financial ability of agencies to provide services; v Status of, and opportunities for shared facilities; v Accountability for community service needs, including governmental structure and operational efficiencies; and v Any other matter related to effective or efficient service delivery, as required by commission policy. MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW PROCESS For local agencies, the MSR process involves the following steps: v Outreach: LAFCo outreach and explanation of the project v Data Discovery: provide documents and respond to LAFCo questions v Map Review: review and comment on LAFCo draft map of the agency’s boundary and sphere of influence v Public Review Draft MSR: review and comment on LAFCo draft MSR v 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 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 LAFCO & MSRS 16 PLUMAS LAFCO PLUMAS COUNTY DISTRICTS VOLUME 5 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW 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. SPHERE OF INFLUENCE UPDATES The Commission is charged with developing and updating the Sphere of Influence (SOI) for each city and special district within the county.4 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. 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. 4 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 17 PLUMAS LAFCO PLUMAS COUNTY DISTRICTS VOLUME 5 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW In addition, in adopting or amending an SOI, LAFCo must make the following determinations: v Present and planned land uses in the area, including agricultural and open-space lands; v Present and probable need for public facilities and services in the area; v Present capacity of public facilities and adequacy of public service that the agency provides or is authorized to provide; v 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 18 PLUMAS LAFCO PLUMAS COUNTY DISTRICTS VOLUME 5 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW 3. M S R A REA This chapter provides an overview of Plumas County growth and development. For a detailed description of each local agency, please refer to the agency-specific chapters of this report. This review covers service providers found in multiple areas of Plumas County and is not geographically specific. The agencies reviewed here extend from the Graeagle and Johnsville area in the south to the Feather River Canyon area and Warner Valley in the northwestern portion of Plumas County. The MSR area includes the communities of Cromberg, Meadow Valley, Bucks Lake, Mohawk Valley, Warner Valley, Big Meadows, Graeagle, and Johnsville. The MSR area also encompasses a large portion of the Plumas National Forest. Plumas County is located near the northeast corner of California, where the Sierra and the Cascade mountains meet. 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. GROWTH & POPULATION PROJECTIONS This section reviews population and economic growth, the job-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 2000, the 2010 Census showed that 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. Annually, the entire County averaged 0.2 percent negative population growth. Based on annual population estimates released by the California Department of Finance (DOF), the population growth rate in unincorporated Plumas County has been below the statewide growth rate for the last 13 years. More recently, the County has experienced an annual decline in population; between 2016 and 2017, the County declined by 0.1 percent. By comparison, the statewide population grew by 0.9 percent. MSR AREA 19 PLUMAS LAFCO PLUMAS COUNTY DISTRICTS VOLUME 5 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW Development Residential Development Figure 3-1: New Residential Building Permits, 2000-2016 The number of new 400 residential permits issued in 350 unincorporated Plumas 300 County peaked in 2005 at 337 and has since declined, 250 reaching a low of 13 in 2013 200 and rebounding to 47 in 2016, 150 as shown in Figure 3-1. 100 All permits, except for 50 one, in the County in the last 0 15 years were issued for single-family buildings. One permit, issued in the City of Portola in 2002 was for a two-unit building. 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. Figure 3-2: Countywide DOF Population Projections In 2016, the California 25,000 Department of Finance (DOF) released updated population projections for 20,000 the State and each county. The DOF projections for 15,000 Plumas County appear to more conservatively 10,000 project negative growth in the County over the next 5,000 45 years, averaging negative 0.26 percent decline annually. The 0 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060 population is anticipated to hover around 18,000 residents over the next 4.5 decades. The DOF projections through 2060 are shown in Figure 3-2. MSR AREA 20 PLUMAS LAFCO PLUMAS COUNTY DISTRICTS VOLUME 5 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW The County recently updated its General Plan. As part of the Housing Element that was updated in 2010, 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 2010 Regional Transportation Plan makes population projections based on projections previously developed by the Department of Finance. These projections conservatively anticipate 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 3-3. Figure 3-3: Annualized Growth Projections by Method Method 2010-2020 2020-2030 DOF Projections -0.33% -0.16% County Projections 0.9% No Projections Plumas County Transportation Commission 0.06% 0.06% Tourism Figure 3-4: Transient Occupancy Tax Revenue, FYs 02-15 Plumas County has become $1,400,000 a tourist destination for outdoor activities, sports and $1,200,000 recreation. The peak tourist $1,000,000 season is during summer when $800,000 part-time residents and short- term tourists can more than $600,000 triple the population of the $400,000 area. Tourism throughout Plumas County has steadily $200,000 increased over the last decade $0 as indicated by the transient occupancy tax (TOT) revenue reported by the County. In FY 09-10, there was a slight dip in TOT revenue, indicating a small decline in tourism. However, in FY 14-15, it appears that tourism has exceeded rates experienced before the recession. MSR AREA 21 PLUMAS LAFCO PLUMAS COUNTY DISTRICTS VOLUME 5 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW 4. CRO M BERG CEM ETERY DI STRI CT Cromberg Cemetery District (CCD) did not respond over the course of this review, so it is unclear what specific services related to its cemetery are provided. An MSR has never been performed for CCD. AGENCY OVERVIEW Background CCD was formed on December 11, 19225 to maintain and operate the Cromberg Cemetery. The principal act that governs the District is the Public Cemetery District Law.6 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.7 The law allows the district to inter non-residents under certain circumstances.8 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 2000.9 Boundaries The District is located between the communities of Greenhorn and Plumas Eureka, along the SR 70. It is to the northeast of Mohawk Valley Cemetery District, and there is no cemetery district located immediately to the west and north of the District. Cromberg Cemetery District’s boundaries encompass 36.3 square miles. There have been no recorded changes to the District’s boundaries since formation. Sphere of Influence The District’s SOI was last updated in 1976.10 The sphere extends outside the District’s boundaries to the northwest to include the area up to the Quincy LaPorte Cemetery District’s boundaries. The District’s boundaries and sphere of influence are shown in Figure 4-1. 5 Board of Equalization Special District Index. 6 California Health and Safety Code §9000-9093. 7 California Health and Safety Code §9040. 8 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. 9 Government Code §56824.10. 10 LAFCo Resolution No. 76-57. CCD 22 PLUMAS LAFCO PLUMAS COUNTY DISTRICTS VOLUME 5 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW Extra-territorial Services It is assumed that the District does not provided cemetery type services at cemeteries outside of its bounds. It is unknown what the District’s burial policies are for non-residents. Areas of Interest The District did not identify any areas of interest. CCD 23 Cromberg Cemetery District Range 12 East 11 12 18 17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 14 13 Quincy Cemetery District 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 23 24 30 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 26 25 ·|}þ 70 ^` 35 36 31 ^` Greenhorn 3 R 2 anch Rd 33 Greenhorn 34 35 36 31 32 33 Spring Garden 2 1 6 5 4 3 H arrison R d 2 G ill R 1 6 5 4 an ch R d 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 Sloat Rd Bixler Rd 14 13 18 17 16 Popular Valley Rd 15 14 Sloat Rd 13 mberg ^` Rd Cromber 1 g 8 17 16 23 24 19 20 21 22 Sloat McRae Rd 23 Old Cro 24 Cub Valley Rd 19 20 21 30 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 26 25 Two Rivers Rd 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 35 36 ·|}þ 70 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 2 23N43Y 1 Mohawk Cemetery District ^` 11 Location1 2Map (Not to Sca7le) 8 9 10 11 12 7 Plumas Eure 8 ka 9 Cromberg Cemetery District Sphere of Influence Resolution: 76-57 0 0.5 1 2Miles Adopted: November 10, 1976 Source: Plumas LAFCo Map Created 11/18/2016 htroN 22 pihsnwoT Range 10 East Range 11 East Cromberg Cemetery District Plumas County 4 Legend Cromberg Cemetery District Resolution: Highways Parcels Cromberg Cemetery District Adopted: Major Roads Sectional Grid Cromberg Cemetery District Stream / River (MDB&M) Sphere of Influence Boundary ^` Waterbodies Communities htroN 42 pihsnwoT htroN 32 pihsnwoT PLUMAS LAFCO PLUMAS COUNTY DISTRICTS VOLUME 5 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW Accountability and Governance CCD’s governing body is composed of three board members who are appointed by the County Board of Supervisors to four-year terms. There is presently one vacancy on the Board. Current board member names, positions, and term expiration dates are shown in Figure 4-2. The District did not provide specific details about board meetings including when, where and how often they are held. It is unknown whether the District meets Brown Act requirements by posting meeting agendas, or if the District maintains minutes. Figure 4-2: Cromberg Cemetery District Governing Body Cromberg Cemetery District Governing Body Name Position Term Ends Barbara Gage Director 2018 Members Carolyn Hinton Director 2018 Vacant Director Manner of Selection Appointed Length of Term 4 years Meetings N/A N/A Agenda Distribution N/A Minutes Distribution N/A Contact Contact Unknown Mailing Address P.O. Box 30206, Cromberg, CA 96103 Phone Unknown Fax Unknown Email/Website NONE Based on internet research on the District, it appears that there is no web presence for CCD. It is unknown if the District posts anything locally or at the cemetery itself. It is unknown how complaints are dealt with. The District was not responsive during the LAFCo process. Attempts to contact the District were made via mail, email, and phone calls, but there were no responses to LAFCo’s communications. The District did not demonstrate accountability nor transparency during this process. Planning and Management Practices Little is known about the District’s planning or management practices given the lack of responsiveness on the part of CCD. It is unknown if the District maintains staff of any kind. CCD 25 PLUMAS LAFCO PLUMAS COUNTY DISTRICTS VOLUME 5 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW The District’s finances, including its endowment care fund, are managed and tracked through the County. The County was able to provide up-to-date financial transaction reports for the District. Government Code §53901 states that within 60 days after the beginning of the fiscal year each local agency must submit its budget to the county auditor. These budgets are to be filed and made available on request by the public at the county auditor’s office. The District does not submit its budget as required to the County. All special districts are required to submit annual audits to the County within 12 months of the completion of the fiscal year, unless the Board of Supervisors has approved a biennial or five-year schedule.11 CCD is required to conduct audits every five years. The District should ensure it is meeting the adopted audit requirements as determined by the Board of Supervisors and submitting budgets annually to the County as legally required. Special districts must submit a report to the State Controller of all financial transactions of the district during the preceding fiscal year within 90 days after the close of each fiscal year, in the form required by the State Controller, pursuant to Government Code §53891. If filed in electronic format, the report must be submitted within 110 days after the end of the fiscal year. CCD has complied with this requirement as recently as 2015. Existing Demand and Growth Projections The territory within CCD has a wide variety of zoning designations, including suburban residential, secondary suburban, 10-acre rural residential, 20-acre rural residential, light and heavy industrial, recreation, recreation commercial, convenience commercial, general agriculture, mining, general forest, and timberland production. Population There were approximately 261 residents within the Cromberg Census Designated Place as of 2010. It is assumed, based on growth trends within Plumas County, that the population of the area has remained the same or slightly declined since that time. Existing Demand Based on a survey of burials that was conducted in 2004, the cemetery seems to average about two burials per year.12 It is likely that as the population of the area ages that demand for burials will increase. Projected Growth and Development The State Department of Finance (DOF) projects that the population of Plumas County will decrease by four percent in the next 10 years. Thus, the average annual population growth in the County is anticipated to be approximately negative 0.4 percent. Based on these projections, the District’s population would decrease to approximately 260 in 2020. It is anticipated that demand for service within the District will remain relatively constant based on the DOF population growth projections through 2020. 11 Government Code §26909. 12 http://www.cagenweb.com/plumas/CromCem.htm CCD 26 PLUMAS LAFCO PLUMAS COUNTY DISTRICTS VOLUME 5 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW 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 CCD did not report whether it considers its current revenue level adequate to provide services. The District, similar to other cemetery districts, operates within a minimal budget. The District has been able to accumulate reserves sufficient for contingency purposes and necessary capital improvements. The District also has accumulated an endowment care fund as required by law with a balance of interest income that can be used for cemetery care. Revenues appear to be appropriate to the services offered by and demand for services from the District. CCD had a total of $2,378 in revenue in FY 15-16. Revenue sources consisted of property taxes (66 percent), sale of burial lots (31 percent), and interest income (three percent). The District’s fee schedule was not provided and the fees charged are unknown. It appears that each plot prices may range from $250 to $500 based on sale of lot revenue posted in FY 15-16. The District must meet the legally required minimum endowment fee of $4.50 per plot square foot for all plot types.13 Additionally, the principal act requires the District to charge non-resident fees that are at least 15 percent higher than fees charged to residents and property owners.14 Without the District’s fee schedule it cannot be determined if the District is meeting these requirements. In FY 15-16, CCD paid a total of $941 for professional services and taxes. It is unclear what the professional services were. The District did not have long-term debt at the end of FY 15-16. At the end of FY 15-16, CCD had a cash balance of $19,678, of which $18,222 was restricted for a specified use. The District has an endowment care fund and provides endowment care to its cemetery, as required by law. 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.15 In FY 15-16, the District’s endowment care fund had a balance of $7,848, of which $2,912 was from interest revenue (over the lifetime of the fund) that could be used in the maintenance of the cemetery. Based on the District’s expenditures, it does not appear that CCD is a member to any joint financing agreements or joint powers agreements. 13 Health and Safety Code §8738. 14 Health and Safety Code §9068. 15 Health and Safety Code §9065. CCD 27 PLUMAS LAFCO PLUMAS COUNTY DISTRICTS VOLUME 5 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW CEMETERY SERVICES Service Overview As previously mentioned, CCD did not respond to requests for information during the course of this review, so it is unclear what specific services related to its cemetery are provided. Pictures of the cemetery show that it is not grassed and therefore does not require regular landscaping work. Given the minimal amount paid toward professional services during the course of the year, it is assumed that any maintenance is minimal or that the District relies almost entirely on volunteers for maintenance of the grounds. Staffing The District does not employ any staff. Facilities and Capacity It is assumed that the District owns and maintains the Cromberg Cemetery, which is located 16 miles east of Quincy, off SR 70, on Old Cromberg Road. The earliest recorded burial in Cromberg Cemetery dates to 1886. Based on a survey of burials that was conducted in 2004, the cemetery seems to average about two burials per year.16 As of 2004, records show that there was a total of 185 plots in use. It could not be determined how much space was still available within the cemetery at present. Infrastructure Needs The extent of any infrastructure needs related to Cromberg Cemetery is unknown. Challenges CCD faces a particular challenge filling board positions. As of the drafting of this report, the District had a vacant position on the Board that had been vacant for a couple of years. Given the smaller size of the population within the District, the pool of possible board members is limited. This lack of interest in the operations of the District by the public has also resulted in a lack of accountability and transparency on the part of the District. The District does not have a web presence, and as such, available information on the District’s operations is limited. Additionally, the District’s only available contact information is a mailing address. The District did not respond to several attempts at contact via mail, email, and phone calls. Service Adequacy The following are indicators of service adequacy for cemetery districts, as defined by law or best practices. In some areas Cromberg Cemetery District meets or exceeds service 16 http://www.cagenweb.com/plumas/CromCem.htm CCD 28 PLUMAS LAFCO PLUMAS COUNTY DISTRICTS VOLUME 5 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW standards for adequate services, while other aspects could be improved upon as shown below. v 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. It is unknown in what manner and how often the District maintains the cemetery. v Health and Safety Code §9068 requires cemetery districts to have non-resident fees. It is unknown if the District charges non-resident fees. v Health and Safety Code §9065 requires cemetery districts to have an endowment fee. Crombeerg Cemetery District maintains an endowment fund and charges an endowment fee as required. v According to Health and Safety Code §8738, a minimum endowment care fee must be $4.50 per plot square foot. Cromberg Cemetery District appears to charge the minimum required fee. v 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 non-residents, and the family members of any of the above. CCD’s burial practices of non-residents is unknown. v In order to adequately plan for existing and future demand and capacity needs, cemeteries track the number of interments annually. It is unknown if CCD maintains records of its interments. CCD 29 PLUMAS LAFCO PLUMAS COUNTY DISTRICTS VOLUME 5 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW CROMBERG CEMETERY DISTRICT DETERMINATIONS Growth and Population Projections v There were approximately 261 residents within Cromberg Cemetery District (CCD) as of 2010. It is assumed, based on growth trends within Plumas County, that the population of the area has remained the same or slightly declined since that time. v Based on the Department of Finance (DOF) projections, the District’s population will decrease to approximately 260 in 2020. It is anticipated that demand for service within the District will remain relatively constant based on the DOF population growth projections through 2020. Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities and Adequacy of Public Services, Including Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies v Due to the District’s lack of response, little is known about the CCD’s operations, infrastructure needs, and available capacity. v Cromberg Cemetery seems to average about two burials per year. It is likely that as the population of the area ages that demand for burials will increase. v As of 2004, records show that there was a total of 185 plots in use; however, it could not be determined how much space was still available within the cemetery at present. v As the District did not respond, it is unclear if the District is meeting all legal requirements. At the very least, it is apparent that the District is making annual reports to the State Controller’s Office and maintains an endowment care fund as required. Financial Ability of Agencies to Provide Services v CCD did not report whether it considers its current revenue level adequate to provide services. The District, similar to other cemetery districts, operates within a minimal budget. The District has been able to accumulate reserves sufficient for contingency purposes and necessary capital improvements. The District also has accumulated an endowment care fund. Revenues appear to be appropriate to the services offered by and demand for services from the District. v The District has a healthy restricted reserve that could finance over 20 years of services. Status of, and Opportunities for, Shared Facilities v CCD does not appear to practice facility sharing with other agencies. v Sharing resources with other cemetery districts may provide an opportunity for improved efficiency and decreased costs. CCD 30 PLUMAS LAFCO PLUMAS COUNTY DISTRICTS VOLUME 5 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW Accountability for Community Service Needs, Including Governmental Structure and Operational Efficiencies v The District was not responsive during the LAFCo process. Attempts to contact the District were made via mail, email, and phone calls, but there were no responses to LAFCo’s communications. The District did not demonstrate accountability nor transparency during this process. v CCD faces a particular challenge filling board positions. As of the drafting of this report, the District had a vacant position on the Board that had been vacant for a couple of years. Given the smaller size of the population within the District, the pool of possible board members is limited. v The District is in need of a general avenue for public communication. The District does not have a web presence, and as such, available information on the District’s operations is limited. Additionally, the District’s only available contact information is a mailing address. The District did not respond to several attempts at contact via mail, email, and phone calls. v Given the challenges faced by the District in maintaining a full governing body and operating in a transparent manner, dissolution of CCD and annexation of the area by a neighboring cemetery district, such as Mohawk Valley Cemetery District or Quincy LaPorte Cemetery District, is an option. Should LAFCo desire to indicate the eventual dissolution of CCD, then a zero SOI would be appropriate. CCD 31 PLUMAS LAFCO PLUMAS COUNTY DISTRICTS VOLUME 5 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW 5. DI XI E VA L L EY CO M M U N I TY SERV ICES DI STRI CT Dixie Valley Community Services District (DVCSD) is inactive and provides no services. AGENCY OVERVIEW Background DVCSD was formed May 25, 1972.17 It was formed to provide domestic water, wastewater, solid waste, fire protection, street lighting, and street maintenance services in in the community of Dixie Valley.18 At present, the District does not provide any of these services. Records show that these services were never initiated. The principal act that governs the District is the State of California Community Services District Law.19 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).20 Boundaries The District’s boundaries encompass 1.63 square miles and extend along Dixie Valley Road, including residential lots on either side of the road around Aspen Court and Sweet Grass Lane. There have been no changes to the District’s boundaries since formation. Sphere of Influence The Dixie Valley CSD SOI was last revised in 1982.21 At present, the SOI is coterminous with the District’s boundaries. The District’s boundaries and SOI are shown in Figure 5-1. 17 BOE Index of Special Districts. 18 Board of Supervisors Resolution No. 2317. 19 Government Code §61000-61226.5. 20 Government Code §61106. 21 LAFCO Resolution No. 82-07.09 DVCSD 32 Dixie Valley Comunity Services District Range 15 East D ixie V 3 alley R d 1 6 5 4 24N 08Y 8 9 12 7 Aspen Ct 17 16 13 18 Dixie Valley Rd 24 Sweet Grass Ln N 0 8 24 19 20 Y 21 Location Map (Not to Scale) Dixie Valley Community Services District Sphere of Influence Boundary Resolution: 82-07.09 0 0.25 0.5 1Miles Adopted: July 12, 1982 Source: Plumas LAFCo Map Created 11/15/2016 htroN 42 pihsnwoT Range 15 East Dixie Valley CSD Plumas County Legend 4 Dixie Valley Community Services District Resolution: Highways Parcels Dixie Valley Community Services District Adopted: Major Roads Sectional Grid Dixie Valley Community Services District Stream / River (MDB&M) Coterminous Sphere of Influence Boundary ^` Waterbodies Communities PLUMAS LAFCO PLUMAS COUNTY DISTRICTS VOLUME 5 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW Population and Land Use The District consists of 146 lots within the community of Dixie Valley, which are largely undeveloped. There are approximately 16 residences within the CSD. All of the lots are zoned as 20-acre rural residential and the General Plan land use designation is limited access rural residential. The CSA is estimated to have a population of 37 based on the average household size in Plumas County of 2.29 individuals and the number of residences within the CSA. Given the land use designation and number of vacant properties within the CSA, there is the potential for growth in the District. There are no specific plans for development at this time. Accountability and Governance As a dependent special district of the County, Dixie Valley CSD is governed by the five Supervisors of the Plumas County Board of Supervisors. Board members are elected by supervisorial districts and serve staggered four-year terms. The Governing Board meets on the first three Tuesday mornings of every month in the Courthouse Board of Supervisors’ Chambers. The Governing Board meeting agendas are a part of the Board of Supervisors’ agendas and are posted on the Plumas County website. Governing Board meeting minutes are also available on the Plumas County website. Figure 5-2: Dixie Valley CSD Governing Body Dixie Valley CSD Governing Body Name Position Term Ends Michael Sanchez District 1 2020 Members Kevin Goss District 2 2020 Sherrie Thrall District 3 2018 Lori Simpson District 4 2020 Jeff Engel District 5 2018 Manner of Selection Election Length of Term 4 years First three Tuesdays of every Supervisors Board Room, Meetings month at 10 am County Court House Agenda Distribution Posted on County’s website Minutes Distribution Posted on County’s website Contact Plumas County Department of Contact Public Works Mailing Address 1834 E Main St, Quincy, CA 95971 Phone (530)283-6268 Email/Website http://www.countyofplumas.com/index.aspx?NID=76 DVCSD 34 PLUMAS LAFCO PLUMAS COUNTY DISTRICTS VOLUME 5 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW Plumas County makes available its budget, general plan, emergency operations plan and other documents on its website. No information about Dixie Valley CSD is available on the County website. Government Code §87203 requires persons who hold office to disclose their investments, interests in real property and incomes by filing appropriate forms each year. Unlike other counties in the State, the Plumas County Clerk-Recorder does not act as the filing officer for the independent special districts. Each district holds responsibility for collecting the Form 700s and maintaining copies in their records. However, because the District’s governing body consists of the Board of Supervisors, the County Clerk of the Board acts as the filing officer and maintains copies of each Supervisor’s Form 700 submittals. Each of the board members has filed the required Form 700s for 2016. Dixie Valley CSD (via County staff) demonstrated accountability and transparency in its disclosure of information and cooperation with Plumas LAFCo. County Department of Public Works staff were cooperative in providing all requested information. Financing Based on correspondence from Plumas County staff, the District has no active accounts or fund balances, and no outstanding debts or nonmonetary assets.22 22 Correspondence with Rob Thorman, Engineering Technician II, November 29, 2016. DVCSD 35 PLUMAS LAFCO PLUMAS COUNTY DISTRICTS VOLUME 5 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW DIXIE VALLEY COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT DETERMINATIONS Growth and Population Projections v Dixie Valley Community Services District (CSD) is estimated to have a population of 37 as of 2017. v The District consists of 146 lots within the community of Dixie Valley, which are largely undeveloped. There are approximately 16 residences within the CSD. All of the lots are zoned as 20-acre rural residential and the General Plan land use designation is limited access rural residential. v Given the land use designation and number of vacant properties within the CSA, there is the potential for growth in the District. There are no specific plans for development at this time. Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities and Adequacy of Public Services, Including Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies v Dixie Valley CSD was formed to provide domestic water, wastewater, solid waste, fire protection, street lighting, and street maintenance services; however, none of these services was ever initiated. v Dixie Valley CSD is inactive and does not own or operate any facilities or infrastructure. Financial Ability of Agencies to Provide Services v Because the CSD is inactive, there are no revenues or expenditures associated with its activities. v As of 2017, the CSD has no active accounts or fund balances, and no outstanding debts or nonmonetary assets. Status of, and Opportunities for, Shared Facilities v The CSD is governed and managed by the County, and in essence, practices resource sharing by making use of County personnel for administration. Accountability for Community Service Needs, Including Governmental Structure and Operational Efficiencies v Dixie Valley CSD demonstrated accountability in its disclosure of information and cooperation with Plumas LAFCo. The District responded to the questionnaires and cooperated with the document requests. DVCSD 36 PLUMAS LAFCO PLUMAS COUNTY DISTRICTS VOLUME 5 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW v Given that the CSD has remained inactive for the last 45 years and there are no future plans for development of the area, it is recommended that LAFCo adopt a zero SOI and summarily dissolve Dixie Valley CSD. DVCSD 37 PLUMAS LAFCO PLUMAS COUNTY DISTRICTS VOLUME 5 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW 6. F EATH ER R I V ER C A NYO N CO M M U N I TY S ERV I C ES DI STRI CT Feather River Canyon Community Services District (FRCCSD) provides domestic water services to small communities along SR 70 and the North Fork of the Feather River. This is the first MSR for the District. AGENCY OVERVIEW Background FRCCSD was formed on April 8, 1983,23 as an independent special district to provide domestic water services. The principal act that governs the District is the State of California Community Services District Law.24 CSDs may potentially provide a wide range 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, graffiti abatement, flood protection, weed abatement, and hydroelectric power, among various other services. Districts 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) .25 FRCCSD is located in western Plumas County and encompasses the communities of Grey’s Flat, Maple Leaf/Little Indian Creek, Old Mill Ranch, Paxton, Tobin, and Twain. The District does not neighbor any other water purveyors. Boundaries The FRCCSD boundary is entirely within Plumas County. The present boundaries include eight non-contiguous areas along SR 70 that encompass 0.44 square miles. Since its formation, the District has undergone one annexation occurring in 1986. The annexation added the Oak Mill Ranch area to the District. The District’s boundaries are shown in Figure 6-1. Sphere of Influence There is no known sphere of influence (SOI) for FRCCSD. Extra-territorial Services FRCCSD is serving five connections, which are outside of the District’s LAFCo-approved boundaries. These connections should be included in the District’s SOI once updated to indicate LAFCo’s anticipation that these connections will be annexed. 23 LAFCO Resolution 82-08. 24 Government Code §61000-61226.5. 25 Government Code §61106. FRCCSD 38 Feather River Canyon Community Services District Range 9 East 30 29 28 27 26 25 0 30 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26 0 31 32 33 34 35 36 0 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 0 0 4 ^` 6 5 4 7 3 2 1 0 0 0 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 7 5 8 Seneca R oad 4 1 3 0 1 2 1 1 1 2 6 7 Long 8 V 5 alle G y r R e oa e d nvi 9 lle 1 3 0 1 2 1 7 8 9 10 11 12 9 0 8 9 10 11 12 18 17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14 18 17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14 13 Ro R u e n s d e r V v a o l i l r ey 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 27 30 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26 30 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 Caribou 26 25 ^` 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 ^` 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 Ind 5 ian Falls 4 3 2 1 7 6 5 8 4 9 1 3 0 1 2 1 1 1 2 6 7 8C 5 ari bo u R d 4 9 1 3 0 1 2 1 1 1 2 Rush C 1 7 r 8 eek Rd 1 8 7 1 9 6 1 1 0 5 1 1 1 4 1 1 2 3 1 7 8 Pa 1 8 x 7 ^` ton 9 1 UV 8 6 9 1 1 0 5 1 1 4 1 1 1 2 3 18 17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14 13 ^` Keddie 19 20 21 22 Twain 23 24 19 20 21 ^` 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 ^` 19 20 21 22 23 24 Belden 30 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 ·|}þ 26 25 ·|}þ26 70 30 29 28 27 70 25 30 29 28 27 26 25 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 6 5 4 3 2 1 Snake Lake R 6 d 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 Bucks Lake Rd 1 7 8 1 8 7 1 0 6 ^` 9 Tobin 1 1 0 5 1 1 4 1 1 1 2 3 18 17 16 B u cks L ake R 15 14 13 1 1 8 9 1 2 7 0 1 2 6 1 1 2 5 2 ^`1 2 M 4 3 eadow 1 2 3 4 Valley 1 1 8 9 1 2 7 0 1 2 6 1 22 Q 15 uincy ^` 1 2 4 3 2 1 4 3 19 20 21 22 d 23 24 0 20 ^` 21 22 23 24 25 30 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26 30 2 0 9 Stor 28 rie 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25 31 32 33g Creek R d 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 Bi 33 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 34 35 0 36 0 Bucks Lake 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 ^` 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 7 8 9 10 11 12 Bucks Lake Rd 8 9 10 11 12 7 18 17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14 18 17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14 13 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 Location Map (Not to Scale) 30 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26 30 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25 Feather River Canyon CSD Sphere of Influence Resolution: 0 1 2 4Miles Adopted: Source: Plumas LAFCo Map Created 12/3/2016 htroN 32 pihsnwoT Range 6 East Range 7 East Feather River Canyon CSD Plumas County 4 Legend Feather River Canyon CSD Resolution: 3-F-83, 82-08 Adopted: October 29, 1982 htroN 62 pihsnwoT htroN 42 pihsnwoT Range 8 East htroN 52 pihsnwoT 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 ^` 9 8 9 10 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 ^` 9 Paxton 19 17 16 0 ^` Tobin 15 24 Belde ^` n 17 17 16 16 15 Tw 1 a 5 in 14 14 13 13 18 ·|}þ 70 18 17 Pa 1 x 7 ton16 16 ^` Twain 20 21 2 ^` 2 23 24 19 20 21 20 21 22 25 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 Details (Not to Scale) ^` Communities Parcels Feather River Canyon CSD Highways Stream / River Sectional Grid (MDB&M) Major Roads Waterbodies PLUMAS LAFCO PLUMAS COUNTY DISTRICTS VOLUME 5 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW Accountability and Governance FRCCSD is governed by a five-member Board of Directors who are elected at-large to staggered four-year terms. Current board member names, positions, and term dates are shown in Figure 6-2. The Board meets on the second Tuesday of the month at 4 pm at the Twain Store Park. Board meeting agendas are posted on the community notice boards at the Twain Store in Twain, CA and at Old Mill Ranch. Minutes are available upon request and through an email list. Figure 6-2: Feather River Canyon CSD Governing Body Feather River Canyon Community Services District Governing Body and Board Meetings Manner of Selection Elected at large Length of Term Four years Meetings On the second Tuesday of the month at 4 pm at the Twain Store Park Agendas are posted on the community notice boards at the Twain Store in Agenda Distribution Twain, CA and at Old Mill Ranch. Minutes Distribution Minutes are available upon request and through an email list. Board of Directors Board Member Position Term Expiration Jeffery Wilson Chair 12/1/19 John Toboni Director 12/1/19 Rockel Ericksen Director 12/1/19 Jerry Sanchez Vice Chair 12/6/17 Kathleen Daniels Director 12/6/17 Contact Contact Jeffery Tobini, Director Mailing Address P.O. Box 141 Twain, CA 95984 Email/Website tobinriverotter@aol.com The District’s Board members are not compensated, but they are entitled to be reimbursed for their expenses. Government Code §53235 requires that if a district provides compensation or reimbursement of expenses to its board members, the board members must receive two hours of training in ethics at least once every two years and the district must establish a written policy on reimbursements. It was reported that the District’s Board members have not received ethics training, and the District has not established a written policy on Board member expense reimbursement. It is recommended that the District either preclude its board members from receiving reimbursements or conduct ethics training as required. In addition to the required agendas and minutes, the District sends out letters to residents to keep them informed about projects and issues. The District also sends out the FRCCSD 40 PLUMAS LAFCO PLUMAS COUNTY DISTRICTS VOLUME 5 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW annually required Consumer Confidence Reports for each system. The District does not maintain a website where information can be made readily available to the public. Water Code §64453 requires that each water supplier maintain records on all water quality and system outage complaints, both verbal and written, received and corrective action taken. These records are to be retained for five years. FRCCSD maintains records of all complaints, including date, time, location, nature of the complaint, and what was done to resolve the complaint. There were no complaints received by the District regarding water quality in 2016. Government Code §87203 requires persons who hold office to disclose their investments, interests in real property and incomes by filing appropriate forms each year. Unlike other counties in the State, the Plumas County Clerk-Recorder does not act as the filing officer for the special districts. Each district holds responsibility for collecting the Form 700s and maintaining copies in their records. All the District’s Board members filed Form 700 for 2016. FRCCSD demonstrated accountability 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 employs one part-time administrative secretary and a distribution operator. In addition, the FRCCSD is a member of Plumas Community Connections which is a Time Bank through Plumas Rural Services. Members exchange services with each other and earn time. One hour of service earns one time credit—all services are equal. When a member requests a service, they receive a list of members who are available. The member providing the service earns and the member receiving the service pays in time credits. FRCCSD has made use of Community Connections to get people from the community to help on various aspects of the District’s administration. The administrative secretary and distribution operator report to the Board of Directors that is also responsible for employee evaluations. Although no formal evaluations are performed, continued employment is considered a sign of satisfactory work performance. Employee work load is tracked through reports at monthly board meetings. Similarly, the District does not perform any formal evaluations of its own performance, but its systems are regularly evaluated by the County Environmental Health Agency. In its regular system inspections, the County assesses the safety of the water system and identifies any necessary system improvements. The District’s financial planning efforts include annually adopted budgets and financial statements audited every five years. The District’s most recent audit was through FY 15-16. FRCCSD does not adopt a formal Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). Government Code §53901 states that within 60 days after the beginning of the fiscal year each local agency must submit its budget to the county auditor. These budgets are to be filed and made available on request by the public at the county auditor’s office. All special districts are required to submit annual audits to the County within 12 months of the completion of FRCCSD 41 PLUMAS LAFCO PLUMAS COUNTY DISTRICTS VOLUME 5 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW the fiscal year, unless the Board of Supervisors has approved a biennial or five-year schedule.26 FRCCSD is on a five-year audit schedule and is up-to-date on its audit schedule. Special districts must submit a report to the State Controller of all financial transactions of the district during the preceding fiscal year within 90 days after the close of each fiscal year, in the form required by the State Controller, pursuant to Government Code §53891. If filed in electronic format, the report must be submitted within 110 days after the end of the fiscal year. The District has complied with this requirement. Existing Demand and Growth Projections Land uses within the District are recreational commercial, mining, secondary suburban, recreation open space, 20-acre rural residential, and heavy industrial. The District’s bounds encompass 0.44 square miles. Population There are 49 paying parcels within the District, upon which there are 53 residences. Many of the residences are seasonally occupied. If half of the residences are occupied full time, then the District has an estimated population of 60 based on the average household size in Plumas County of 2.29 individuals. Existing Demand The connections are not metered, so the level of demand in the District’s various systems is unknown. It is assumed that typical of other providers in the State, water consumption has been on the decline due to conservation efforts. Projected Growth and Development The District does not make any formal or informal population projections. The District does not anticipate any growth in the near term attributable to new development. The State Department of Finance (DOF) projects that the population of Plumas County will decrease by four percent in the next 10 years. Thus, the average annual population growth in the County is anticipated to be approximately negative 0.33 percent. Based on these projections, the District’s population would remain 60 residents through 2020. The lack of change in population is not anticipated to greatly impact demand for 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. 26 Government Code §26909. FRCCSD 42 PLUMAS LAFCO PLUMAS COUNTY DISTRICTS VOLUME 5 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW Financing The District updated its water rates in 2016 to ensure sufficient revenue. Additionally, the District has been reducing expenditures and maintaining a reserve for contingency purposes. The District’s financing level appears to be adequate to meet the needs of the community. However, FRCCSD is in need of funds for capital projects that exceed the savings of the District. Similar to other small water systems, the District will have to rely on grant funds (likely from the State) to finance significant infrastructure needs. District revenues have been erratic in recent years due to influxes of grant funds in certain years. In FY 10-11, the District had total revenues of $43,730, in FY 13-14 district revenues reached a low of $37,227. Most recently, in FY 14-15, revenues increased to $83,657. A breakdown of the District’s revenue sources was not available from the State Controller’s transaction report. The District’s primary revenue source is charges for services. Each connection is rated for the number and type of connection on the lot. The connection is given a point for each commercial, residential, vacation, hose, and RV use up to four points. Each point is assessed $559 annually. The District’s rates were most recently updated in 2016. The District’s expenditures have declined over the last five years. In FY 10-11, expenses totaled $43,730, and in FY 14-15 expenses had declined to $30,878. At the end of FY 15-16, the District did not have any long-term debt according the State Controller’s Office report. The District has a policy of maintaining at least $15,000 in its reserve fund. At the end of FY 15-16, FRCCSD had a balance of $60,582—$15,000 for reserve and $45,592 for the working budget. The District also had $55,103 in a separate account for special projects. FRCCSD does not adopt a formal CIP; all projects are planned for at the District’s Board meetings. The District uses a combination of savings and grant funds to finance capital projects. The District is a member of California Rural Water Association as a means to get lower legal counsel fees, discounts for lab testing, and cheaper insurance. FRCCSD 43 PLUMAS LAFCO PLUMAS COUNTY DISTRICTS VOLUME 5 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW WATER SERVICES Service Overview FRCCSD operates and maintains nine small water systems in eight non-contiguous areas—Paxton, Hot Springs, Gray’s Flat, Twain, Old Mill Ranch, Jack’s Place, Belden, Little Indian Creek, and Tobin. All of the systems are small with under 35 connections. Two of the systems are not active as all connections are in standby—Gray’s Flat and Jack’s Place. The District’s water systems consist of the following nine distinct and separate systems: v Paxton – The system has two connections, one of which is in standby. There is a former lodge that is now used as a residence and cabins. The water distribution system is supplied by an untreated surface water impoundment supplied by a spring. This water source is not considered potable and as such the water system is under a continuous Boil Water Order. The District is looking into chlorination or UV treatment. The water quantity appears adequate as there have been no known water shortages. There have been no known flow tests performed to determine maximum capacity. There is one 15,000-gallon bolted steel storage tank. v Hot Springs – The system services nine connections, one of which is in standby. Water is provided through a single well drilled in 1985 with a capacity of eight gallons per minute (gpm). The well water is not continuously treated, but there is a chlorine injection port when treatment is necessary. The well has undergone maintenance to improve the pump flow and a source totalizing meter has been installed. Little is known about the type and location of the piping and delivery pressures throughout the water system. The system includes two storage tanks totaling 15,000 gallons. The County inspection notes that overall the water system appears to be in reasonably good condition. v Gray's Flat – The system serves one connection which is not active. The system is inactive at present. v Twain - The system serves four connections, two of which are in standby. Little is known about this system as it has not been inspected by the County Environmental Health Agency. v Old Mill Ranch – The system serves 35 connections, six of which are in standby. The water system is supplied by a single groundwater well that was installed in 2008 with a capacity of 39 gpm. Precautionary chlorination for control of iron bacteria, taste and odors is provided downstream of the well and prior to distribution. Surface water is used only for emergency fire water. As part of the system, the District also has a 60,000-gallon bolted steel storage tank. The 2013 water production was approximately 3.9 million gallons with July 2013 the maximum month at 516,000 gallons produced. The well produces water that exceeds the maximum contaminant level (MCLs) for both iron and manganese and appears to have a considerable iron bacteria contamination. The distribution system is also aging and has a severe iron bacteria contamination issue. Despite aggressive mechanical and chemical cleaning of the well and chemical cleaning of FRCCSD 44 PLUMAS LAFCO PLUMAS COUNTY DISTRICTS VOLUME 5 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW the distribution system, the presence of the iron bacteria persists. The District is in the process of addressing these issues through a significant capital project. v Jack's Place – The system serves two connections both of which are in standby. The system is inactive. v Belden –The system serves three connections, two of which are in standby. Little is known about this system as it has not been inspected by the County Environmental Health Agency. v Little Indian Creek – This system serves two connections. Little is known about this system as it has not been inspected by the County Environmental Health Agency. v Tobin – The system serves six connections, including a resort lodge and a post office. The system is served by a single well that was drilled in 2009 with a capacity of 30 gpm. The District abandoned the surface water system at that time as the pipeline from the surface water was destroyed in fires in 2008. The District is in the midst of aiding in the rebuilding the pipeline to reinstitute surface water for fire fighting purposes. The system has one 10,000 gallon welded steel tank. Staffing FRCCSD’s systems require an operator with at least a T1 certification, while the distribution system requires at least a D1 certification. FRCCSD appears to exceed these requirements. Facilities and Capacity All of the connections are unmetered, and as such there is no information regarding level of demand within each of the systems. In addition, it appears that only two of the systems have a well meter to measure source output. As such, it is challenging to determine the portion of each system’s capacity that is in use at present. It is unknown if the systems meet Waterworks Standards as the make up of the distribution systems are largely unknown. It is apparent that as the District makes improvements to the various systems the composition and location of the improvements as well as existing infrastructure need to be documented. In its most recent inspection report, the County Environmental Health Agency noted that the Hot Springs water system does not appear to be constructed to meet peak water demands. Infrastructure Needs Consistent across all the systems within the District is a need for a back up water source should a source fail or require lengthy outages. The District hopes to address this need in the near future, and plans to address it as time and funds become available. While all of the systems have capital needs to some degree, FRCCSD noted significant infrastructure needs in two of its systems—Old Mill Ranch and Paxton —that it is working to address. FRCCSD 45 PLUMAS LAFCO PLUMAS COUNTY DISTRICTS VOLUME 5 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW In the Old Mill Ranch system the CSD struggles with the lack of resources to address the iron and manganese issues; repair or replace the aged distribution system piping that may be harboring iron bacteria; and add a second well to provide a back-up water source should Well #1 fail or require emergency maintenance. There is a need for an entirely new well system in Old Mill Ranch to resolve taste, odor, and color problems resulting from water that exceeds maximum contaminant levels for both iron and manganese. FRCCSD has been successful in receiving $500,000 from Proposition 1 grant funds to drill test wells and perform water quality/quantity tests. An analysis of all feasible alternatives will be completed. The planning project includes the following tasks: Drill test wells, collect and analyze water samples, and perform pumping tests to locate groundwater source(s) which can provide the community with sufficient potable water; an evaluation of local springs and creeks to determine the availability of surface water as a source of supply; and the feasibility of consolidation with nearby water systems. Engineering and environmental work associated with the selected construction project will also be completed. This project is a three-year project that is anticipated to be completed in 2019. In the Paxton water system, FRCCSD continues in the search to find a new source of water or to install multi-barrier water filtration and disinfection. At present the water is considered non-potable, as tests continue to test positive for coliform, and the community is under a continuous boil water order. The District has considered chlorination or UV treatment. As of the drafting of this report, the District had not yet made a decision regarding a solution. Challenges Due to the small size of the community, the District has a challenge financing any significant infrastructure improvements, which would have to be financed amongst the few connections. Instead the District has in the past relied on grant funding to implement necessary capital improvements. Additionally, while the District enjoys active public participation and interest in the District activities, there is a lack of interest in serving on the Board of Directors. The District has been in search of replacement Directors for the last two years. Service Adequacy This section reviews indicators of service adequacy, including the County Environmental Health Agency system evaluation, drinking water quality, and distribution system integrity. The County Environmental 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 Environmental Health Agency. The County has inspected four of the District’s seven operating systems—two in 2014 and two in 2010. The Agency identified necessary improvements to infrastructure and practices for each of the systems. Common amongst all of the systems was the need to create and maintain an operations plan for the chlorination of the water system. FRCCSD 46 PLUMAS LAFCO PLUMAS COUNTY DISTRICTS VOLUME 5 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW v Hot Springs – The last inspection was in 2014. An amendment is required to replace the letter permit and to incorporate the groundwater well as the only water source. Certain nitrate and nitrite tests were due. v Old Mill Ranch – The last inspection was in 2014. The report noted that the CSD had not adequately addressed the iron and manganese contamination issue, and within 90 days, was required to 1) complete and submit to Environmental Health a Technical, Managerial, and Financial (TMF) statement with a five-year proposed operating budget; 2) apply for an operating permit amendment to incorporate the new well source, the abandonment of the surface water source, and the addition of precautionary chlorination, and 3) using the services of a qualified engineer, outline a proposed plan to eliminate the iron and manganese MCL exceedances. Within 30 days after the issuance of the report, the CSD was required to repair or replace the fine mesh metal screen at the storage tank roof apex vent to effectively exclude animals and insects. Tests for nitrates, gross alpha, and radium 228 were due. The District was required to create and submit a Disinfectant Byproducts Compliance Monitoring Plan within the next 30 days. And, finally, the District was required to resolve the iron and manganese exceedances pursuant to CA Code of Regulations beginning with Section 64449 “Secondary Maximum Contaminant Levels and Compliance.” The District continues to address this item. v Tobin – The last inspection of this system was conducted in 2010. The abandoned surface water treatment filter, associated piping, and disinfection equipment remains in place and is not properly disconnected from the potable water system. In order to address this and other concerns the County outlined the following requirements. 1) Install a “double-block-and-bleed” valve assembly that drains to daylight; or disconnect the surface water system from the potable water system by removing a section of pipe and capping off each water line. 2) Install a downward opening well source sampling tap that is isolated from the distribution system with a check valve inside the treatment building. 3) Submit an updated Emergency Notification Plan (ENP) to reflect changes in the managing board and operator staff. 4) Submit a Biological Sampling Site Plan (BSSP) with a detailed site map. 5) If not already completed, sample the well water for: Barium, Perchlorate, Nitrate (due annually), Nitrite and Nitrate+Nitrite (Both due every three years). 6) The water system tested over the MCL for Iron and Aluminum. The water system should re sample the well to determine if these results accurately reflect the quality of the source water. v Paxton – The last inspection took place in 2010. This system’s water source is not considered potable and as such the water system is under a continuous Boil Water Order. The County required the following at that time: 1) Maintain the Boil Water Order (BWO) in plain view by all water users until released by Plumas County Environmental Health. FRCCSD 47 PLUMAS LAFCO PLUMAS COUNTY DISTRICTS VOLUME 5 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW 2) Apply to Plumas County Environmental Health for a water system operating permit based upon the water source, anticipated population, number of days of operation, and number water service connections. 3) Complete and submit an Emergency Notification Plan (ENP) to Environmental Health. 4) Complete and submit a Biological Sampling Site Plan (BSSP) with a detailed site map that shows the spring, spring water line, storage tank, and water distribution system to Environmental Health. Drinking water quality is determined by a combination of historical violations reported by the EPA and the percent of time that the District was in compliance with Primary Drinking Water Regulations in 2016. FRCCSD has struggled with health and monitoring violations in recent years. The EPA only has records of two of the District’s water systems—Hot Springs and Old Mill Ranch. Violations for 2007 through 2017 are shown in Figure 6-3. Positive coliform tests have resulted in non-compliance with drinking water regulations in 2016 in a few of the District’s systems, including Hot Springs, Little Indian Creek, Paxton, and Old Mill Ranch. Figure 6-3: FRCCSD Violations System Health Violations Monitoring Violations Hot Springs 10 Coliform Violations (8/09, 2 Coliform Monitoring (10/10, 8/13, 6/15, 7/15, 8/15, 9/15, 11/10) 11/15, 5/16, 6/16, 8/16) Old Mill Ranch None 1 Coliform Monitoring (11/10) Indicators of distribution system integrity are the number of breaks and leaks in 2016 and the rate of unaccounted for distribution loss. The District had two known leaks in the Hot Springs system in 2016. Because all of the connections are unmetered, it is unknown what percentage is lost between the supply and the connections served. FRCCSD 48 PLUMAS LAFCO PLUMAS COUNTY DISTRICTS VOLUME 5 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FEATHER RIVER CANYON COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT DETERMINATIONS Growth and Population Projections v Feather River Canyon Community Services District (FRCCSD) has an estimated population of 60 based on the average household size in Plumas County of 2.29 individuals. v No population growth is anticipated within the District in the near term. Other factors affect the District’s demand for water services, including water conservation efforts due the drought and the influx of seasonal tourists. Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities and Adequacy of Public Services, Including Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies v FRCCSD connections are not metered, so the level of demand in the District’s various systems is unknown. It is assumed that typical of other providers in the State, water consumption has been on the decline due to conservation efforts. v Only two of the systems have a well meter to measure source output. As such, it is challenging to determine the portion of each system’s capacity that is in use at present. v It is unknown if the systems meet Waterworks Standards as the make up of the distribution systems are largely unknown. It is apparent that as the District makes improvements to the various systems the composition and location of the improvements as well as existing infrastructure need to be documented. v Based on the County’s inspection reports, there are certain improvements that could be made to the District’s services. FRCCSD struggles with meeting water quality requirements at its Old Mill Ranch, Hot Springs, and Paxton water systems. While the District has addressed many of the County’s concerns, it continues to work to make repairs and improvements to bring these systems into compliance. Financing to fund the necessary improvements is the primary constraint. v Consistent across all the systems within the District is a need for a back up water source should a source fail or require lengthy outages. The District hopes to address this need in the near future, and plans to address it as time and funds become available. v In the Old Mill Ranch system the CSD struggles with the lack of resources to address the iron and manganese issues; repair or replace the aged distribution system piping that may be harboring iron bacteria; and add a second well to provide a back-up water source. FRCCSD has been successful in receiving $500,000 from Proposition 1 grant funds to drill test wells and perform water quality/quantity tests to conduct an analysis of all feasible alternatives. FRCCSD 49 PLUMAS LAFCO PLUMAS COUNTY DISTRICTS VOLUME 5 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW v In the Paxton water system, FRCCSD continues in the search to find a new source of water or to install multi-barrier water filtration and disinfection. The District has considered chlorination or UV treatment. As of the drafting of this report, the District had not yet made a decision regarding a solution. Financial Ability of Agencies to Provide Services v The District’s financing level appears to be adequate to meet the needs of the community. v FRCCSD recently adjusted rates to ensure sufficient funding. However, the District does not have a formal capital improvement plan that outlines future capital needs, so it is unclear if the rate increase will be sufficient to cover any future large scale capital needs. It is recommended that the District create a capital improvement plan and then assess the rates to ensure that they are adequate. v The District will require grant funding to address its infrastructure needs, which is common among small water systems such as FRCCSD’s. v The District has a sufficiently healthy reserve that is equivalent to 3.75 years of district expenditures. Status of, and Opportunities for, Shared Facilities v FRCCSD is a member of Plumas Community Connections which is a Time Bank through Plumas Rural Services. Members exchange services with each other and earn time. v It is recommended that FRCCSD work with other small water systems in Plumas County to capitalize on shared resources and bulk purchasing for chemicals such as chlorine. Accountability for Community Service Needs, Including Governmental Structure and Operational Efficiencies v FRCCSD demonstrated accountability in its disclosure of information and cooperation with Plumas LAFCo. The District responded to the questionnaires and cooperated with the document and interview requests. v FRCCSD is a well-managed district that meets Brown Act, FPPC and other regulatory requirements, overcoming the challenges posed by a small rural district with constrained resources. The District makes extensive efforts to keep the public informed. A website would expand even further upon those efforts. v Extra-territorial connections that FRCCSD is serving outside its bounds should be annexed. FRCCSD 50 PLUMAS LAFCO PLUMAS COUNTY DISTRICTS VOLUME 5 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW 8. G R A EAG L E CO M M U NI TY SERV ICES DI STRI CT Graeagle Community Services District (GCSD) provides funding for community projects and street lighting in the Graeagle area. An abbreviated Municipal Service Review (MSR) for the District was last conducted in 2003. AGENCY OVERVIEW Background GCSD was formed on November 12, 197428 in response to the Subdivision Map Act requirement that any new development must be accompanied by an entity capable of providing wastewater collection and treatment. GCSD is legally authorized to provide a wide array of municipal 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, graffiti abatement, flood protection, weed abatement, and hydroelectric power, among various other services. The District, however, was not operational until 1998. Currently, GCSD delivers park and recreation services by providing financing for some community projects in the area and also provides funding for street lighting. The principal act that governs the District is the State of California Community Services District Law.29 CSDs may potentially provide a wide range of services listed above, but 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) .30 GCSD is located in southern Plumas County and encompasses the community of Graeagle. The Graeagle Land and Water Company (GLW) provides water and street lighting to the community. Graeagle Fire Protection District provides fire suppression services, while the County maintains roads. Eastern Plumas Recreation and Park District provides parks and recreation services. Boundaries The GCSD boundary is entirely within Plumas County. The present boundaries encompass approximately 5.27 square miles. Since its formation, the District has undergone four annexations, with the most recent annexation occurring in 2003. For a complete list of the District’s boundary reorganizations refer to Figure 8-1. 28 LAFCO Resolution 74-09. 29 Government Code §61000-61226.5. 30 Government Code §61106. GCSD 60 PLUMAS LAFCO PLUMAS COUNTY DISTRICTS VOLUME 5 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW Figure 8-1: GCSD List of LAFCo-approved Boundary Changes Project Name Type of Action Year Annexation No. 3 (Graeagle Annexation 1980 Land & Water Co.) Annexation No. 4 (Dawson Annexation 1980 Subdivision Area) Mohawk Annexation Annexation 1983 Graeagle Central Annexation Annexation 2003 Sphere of Influence The sphere of influence (SOI) for the District was first adopted in 1978 and last updated in 2003, when the SOI was expanded. Currently, the District’s SOI is larger than its boundary area and contains 7.58 square miles. The 2003 Abbreviated MSR for GCSD explains that the SOI changes were implemented to “include sufficient territory to bring the bulk of the current Graeagle community into the jurisdiction and include contiguous territory available for development that will need wastewater sewer treatment plant services.” The District, however, never started providing sewer services. The District’s boundaries and sphere of influence are shown in Figure 8-2. Extra-territorial Services No extra-territorial services are provided by the District. GCSD only finances projects within its boundaries. Areas of Interest No areas of interest have been identified for GCSD. GCSD 61 Graeagle Comunity Services District Range 12 East 5 4 3 2 1 Poplar Valley R d^` Little B ear R d ·|}þ 70 8 Plumas Eureka 9 way Rd UV 89 10 11 12 wk High Bonta St^` Moha Blairsden S mith Lake Rd Graeagle Johnsville Rd Mohawk Vista Dr Blairsden Graeagle Rd 17 16 Smith Creek Rd Graeagle ^` 15 14 ·|}þ 70 13 ^` Iroquois Trl Trl C Rd Yonkalla 20 21 22 23 24 UV 89 Gold Lake Rd REST O 29 D L A KE F 28 27 26 25 OL G Location Map (Not to Scale) 32 33 34 35 36 Graeagle Community Services District Sphere of Influence (5 Year Horizon) Resolution: 2003-008 0 0.2 0.4 0.8Miles Adopted: February 24, 2003 Source: Plumas LAFCo Map Created 12/3/2016 htroN 22 pihsnwoT Graeagle CSD Plumas County 4 Legend Graeagle Community Services District Resolution: Highways Parcels Graeagle Community Services District Adopted: Major Roads Sectional Grid Graeagle Community Services District Stream / River (MDB&M) Five Year Sphere Horizon Boundary ^` Waterbodies Communities PLUMAS LAFCO PLUMAS COUNTY DISTRICTS VOLUME 5 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW Accountability and Governance GCSD is governed by a five-member Board of Directors who are elected at-large to staggered four-year terms. There is currently one vacancy on the Board. Current board member names, positions, and term expiration dates are shown in Figure 8-3. Prior to 1998 the District was non-operational, with multiple Board vacancies and no regular meetings. Currently, the Board meets on the fourth Thursday of every month at the Mohawk Resource Center. Meeting times vary from month to month. Board meeting agendas are posted at the U.S. Post Office. Minutes are available upon request and emailed to interested parties. Figure 8-3: Graeagle CSD Governing Body Graeagle Community Services District Governing Body and Board Meetings Manner of Selection Elected at large Length of Term Four years On the fourth Thursday of every month at the Mohawk Resource Center. Meetings Meeting time varies from month to month. Agenda Distribution Agendas are posted at the post office. Minutes Distribution Minutes are available upon request and by email to interested parties. Board of Directors Board Member Position Term Thomas Balestri President 12/6/13 - 12/1/17 Candy Caskie Director 12/4/15 – 12/6/19 Annie Fischer Director 12/4/15 – 12/6/19 William J. Keese Director 12/4/15 – 12/1/17 Cheryl Brennan Director 8/24/16 – 12/1/17 Contact Contact Tom Balestri, Director Mailing Address P.O. Box 1484, Graeagle, CA 96103 Phone 530-836-4040 Email/Website balestrite@sbcglobal.net The District’s Board members are not compensated. They are entitled to be reimbursed for their expenses, but generally do not file for reimbursements. Government Code §53235 requires that if a district provides compensation or reimbursement of expenses to its board members, the board members must receive two hours of training in ethics at least once every two years and the district must establish a written policy on reimbursements. It was reported that the District’s Board members last received ethics training in 2016. The District has not established a written policy on Board member expense reimbursement. GCSD 63 PLUMAS LAFCO PLUMAS COUNTY DISTRICTS VOLUME 5 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW In addition to the required agendas and minutes, the District performs other outreach activities. Certain announcements are published in the newspaper. Additionally, the residential development homeowner’s association (HOA) sends regular newsletters to residents that contain information on CSD projects. Signs on CSD-financed projects contain information regarding the District’s involvement in these projects. If a customer is dissatisfied with the District’s services, complaints may be submitted at regular Board meetings. The President of the Board is generally responsible for tracking complaints to resolution. There is no formal policy regarding the complaint process. GCSD reported that it had never received any complaints, but regularly receives requests for project sponsorship. Government Code §87203 requires persons who hold office to disclose their investments, interests in real property and incomes by filing appropriate forms each year. Unlike other counties in the State, the Plumas County Clerk-Recorder does not act as the filing officer for the special districts. Each district holds responsibility for collecting the Form 700s and maintaining copies in their records. All the District’s Board members filed Forms 700 for 2016. GCSD demonstrated accountability 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 employs one part-time administrative secretary who works about 10 to 12 hours a month and submits regular time sheets to track the workload. GCSD’s audits are performed through the County-hired vendor. The District is currently looking for an accountant that would perform audits for multiple districts at a discounted bulk rate. Project work financed by the District, for example, tennis court resurfacing, environmental assessments, and bridge construction, is contracted out through a bidding process. The administrative secretary reports to the Board of Directors that is also responsible for employee evaluations. Although no formal evaluations are performed, wage increases are considered to be an indicator of at least satisfactory performance. Similarly, the District does not perform any formal evaluations of its own performance, but is aware of its projects’ success among the public. GCSD reported that it frequently receives supportive and appreciative letters. The District’s financial planning efforts include annually adopted budgets and financial statements audited every five years. The last audit was for the FYs 03-04 through 08-09. As of the drafting of this report, the District has not yet performed an audit for FYs 09-10 through 14-15. GCSD does not adopt a formal Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). At the start of this review the District was solely focused on the construction of a pedestrian bridge; all of the goals and objectives for the project have been developed during Board meetings. Government Code §53901 states that within 60 days after the beginning of the fiscal year each local agency must submit its budget to the county auditor. These budgets are to be filed and made available on request by the public at the county auditor’s office. All special districts are required to submit annual audits to the County within 12 months of the completion of GCSD 64 PLUMAS LAFCO PLUMAS COUNTY DISTRICTS VOLUME 5 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW the fiscal year, unless the Board of Supervisors has approved a biennial or five-year schedule.31 GCSD is on a five-year audit schedule. The District should ensure that it is meeting the adopted audit requirements as determined by the Board of Supervisors. Special districts must submit a report to the State Controller of all financial transactions of the district during the preceding fiscal year within 90 days after the close of each fiscal year, in the form required by the State Controller, pursuant to Government Code §53891. If filed in electronic format, the report must be submitted within 110 days after the end of the fiscal year. The District has complied with this requirement. Existing Demand and Growth Projections Land uses within the District are primarily residential, suburban, commercial, and recreational. The District’s bounds encompass nearly 5.27 square miles. Population According to the District’s estimates, the population within GCSD is approximately 737 residents. During the summer months, the number goes up to over 7,500 people, including guests at the camp grounds and Gold Lake. The District’s population consists primarily of part-time residents. Existing Demand GCSD reports that about 50 percent of the District’s residents make use of the CSD’s projects. There has been little growth due to a weak economy since the most recent economic recession; only a few homes have been built in the last five years. There are many lots that are still available for sale. However, demand for District’s projects is influenced by the increase in tourism that has occurred over the last two years. Projected Growth and Development The District does not make any formal or informal population projections. Only minimal population growth is expected in the next 10 years since there have been no interested developers. The District does not anticipate any significant change in service demand unless there is a future change in the types of services provided. The State Department of Finance (DOF) projects that the population of Plumas County will decrease by four percent in the next 10 years. Thus, the average annual population growth in the County is anticipated to be approximately negative 0.4 percent. Based on these projections, the District’s population would decrease from 737 in 2010 to approximately 708 in 2020. It is anticipated that demand for service within the District will stay the same or minimally decrease based on the DOF population growth projections through 2020. 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. 31 Government Code §26909. GCSD 65 PLUMAS LAFCO PLUMAS COUNTY DISTRICTS VOLUME 5 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW Financing Although the District reported that its financing was inadequate because the pedestrian bridge that has been in the planning stages for five years, could potentially deplete GCSD’s resources and restrict its ability to finance other future projects, GCSD has accumulated a considerable financial reserve. The District is encouraged to adopt a plan for services to allocate the funds to specific projects or services to be offered for the benefit of resident taxpayers. At the end of FY 15-16, GCSD had about $823,906 in accumulated funds. The District reported that due to the most recent economic recession it had experienced a decline in revenues of about 25 percent. The situation, however, has been gradually improving. The District’s annual revenues amount to approximately $30,000 to $40,000. The sources include property taxes and investment earnings. There is a use fee for the tennis courts but the revenue goes to Graeagle Land and Water Company for the maintenance of the courts. The District does not collect any benefit assessment or special tax income. As was already mentioned the District’s last financial audit occurred in FY 08-09 for the previous five fiscal years. In FY 08-09, GCSD collected $57,322 in revenues, including 65 percent from property taxes and 35 percent from interest income. According to the FY 15- 16 budget, in FY 14-15 the District’s actual revenues were $29,334 that included 93 percent from property taxes and seven percent from interest income. Expenses in FY 08-09 amounted to $19,497 and consisted mainly of capital improvements (57 percent), contract services (17 percent), and insurance (five percent). The rest of the funds were spent on payroll taxes, clerical wages, membership dues, office expenses, rents and leases, county tax administration charges, utilities, and miscellaneous expenses. In FY 14-15, expenses were $10,342 and consisted of 21 percent for salaries and benefits and 79 percent for services and supplies (48 percent for contractors, 16 percent for insurance; and the rest was spent on memberships, office expenses, tax admin fee, travel, utilities, and miscellaneous expenses). GCSD does not have any long-term debt. The District does not have a policy regarding maintaining a minimum financial reserve, but portions of GCSD’s cash balance are designated as an unassigned reserve and emergency reserve. At the end of FY 14-15 the unassigned reserve was $299,464, the emergency reserve was $75,000, while $450,000 was committed to the construction of the pedestrian bridge. GCSD does not adopt a formal CIP; all projects are planned for at the District’s Board meetings and financed by the District’s regular revenues. The District does not participate in any joint power authorities (JPAs). GCSD 66 PLUMAS LAFCO PLUMAS COUNTY DISTRICTS VOLUME 5 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW SERVICES Service Overview The District was originally organized with the vision of eventually taking over sewer services in the Graeagle area. As was previously mentioned, until 1998 GCSD was not operational, while wastewater services were and still are provided by individual septic tanks. Graeagle Land and Water Company has been operating two sewage systems serving community businesses, each feeding the leachfield system. The systems were built with limited capacity and now the District’s growth is constrained until the sewer system is expanded. According to the 2003 Abbreviated MSR, the District had the intention of developing a wastewater treatment feasibility study and examining the possibility of constructing and operating a wastewater treatment plan, but has not made any steps in this direction to date other than paying a $23,498 share for an aerial survey jointly done with Graeagle Land & Water preparatory to planning projects such as wastewater treatment. Most recently, Graeagle Land & Water has obtained State approval for a waste treatment facility and is starting construction this summer. Consequently, GCSD will not be initiating wastewater services, but will retain funds to assist the public in connecting with the system. GCSD started functioning in 1998 and assumed the role of sponsor of community (predominantly capital) projects. The District receives and reviews sponsorship requests, plans projects, finances them, and hires contractors to perform the work. The District put in park benches, resurfaced tennis courts owned and maintained by the Graeagle Land and Water Company, paid for defibrillators for Graeagle Fire Protection District, installed street signs, and organizes fireworks during holidays. GCSD is currently working towards building a pedestrian bridge east of SR 89 along Graeagle Creek brought about by safety concerns for pedestrians using the current narrow bridge that allows for truck traffic. The project was originally expected to be completed by the summer of 2018 and total approximately $450,000 financed by the District’s fund balance. However, the District went out for bids at the end of 2016 and all bids were over the estimated budget. The District is applying to the State of California for a matching grant to construct the Bridge. The plan after construction is that the Graeagle Land and Water Company will be in charge of the bridge maintenance. The District has a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the Graeagle Land and Water Company according to which GCSD makes improvements to certain capital assets that belong to the Company, while GLW provides further maintenance. GCSD additionally collaborates with Plumas County Special District Association, California Special District Association, and the Chamber of Commerce. Staffing The District employs one administrative secretary who works 10 to 12 hours a month performing basic clerical services. GCSD 67 PLUMAS LAFCO PLUMAS COUNTY DISTRICTS VOLUME 5 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW Facilities and Capacity The District does not own any facilities. GCSD’s capacity to provide services is defined by its funding capabilities. Given the District’s sizeable reserve balance, it is apparent that GCSD has the capacity to deliver more extensive services than are already being provided. Infrastructure Needs As GCSD does not own any facilities, there are no related infrastructure needs. However, the District is looking into possible future projects, and noted the possibility of helping to establish a robust sewer system for the community and extending paths out from the planned pedestrian bridge. Challenges Challenges identified by the District include lower financing levels due to the most recent economic recession, and inadequate funding to cover all of the projects for which GCSD receives sponsorship requests. The statement of inadequate funding could not be confirmed. Service Adequacy It is difficult to assess adequacy of services provided by GCSD since existing services are hard to define and categorize. The District’s current services have never been clearly defined by nor approved by LAFCo. Several of the projects funded by the District may be categorized as parks and recreation. Should the District choose to provide services outside of parks and recreation, then it will have to seek LAFCo approval to add a new service. The District provides desired services to the community by sponsoring multiple projects for the benefit of the public and its residents. However, there is a need for a long-term plan for services to identify a strategy for sustainable and necessary services to the public. The District’s primary funding source is property taxes, and these funds are paid by the public with the assurance that the money is being used to pay for public services rendered, not retained for a long period of time with no defined purpose. Additionally, the District needs a service plan to thoroughly define what services are to be provided, given that the intent for which the District was formed was never realized. A long-term strategy to make use of the District’s fund balance would ensure transparency and accountability of public money utilization and aid GCSD in identifying necessary funding levels for future services, projects, and plans. The District is advised to come to LAFCo for authorization of current and future services. GOVERNANCE ALTERNATIVES As mentioned, EPPRD overlaps with the District. Given that both agencies provide services in the category of parks and recreation, they should coordinate to ensure there is no duplication services and discuss the possibility of ways in which the two agencies could partner up to more efficiently use public funds. With regard to possible governance alternatives, there is an option for dissolution of the District. At present the GCSD to a degree offers the same category of services to the area as GCSD 68 PLUMAS LAFCO PLUMAS COUNTY DISTRICTS VOLUME 5 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW EPRPD, which creates the potential for a duplication of services. Without the a long-term plan for services and a plan to make use of the overly abundant reserve fund, LAFCo may wish to consider dissolution of GCSD. GCSD 69 PLUMAS LAFCO PLUMAS COUNTY DISTRICTS VOLUME 5 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW GRAEAGLE COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT DETERMINATIONS Growth and Population Projections v The population within Graeagle Community Services District (GCSD) is approximately 737 residents, according to district estimates. During the summer months, the number goes up to over 7,500 people, including guests at the camp grounds and Gold Lake. v Based on State Department of Finance (DOF) countywide projections, the District’s population is estimated to decline to 708 in 2020. v Only minimal population growth is expected in the next 10 years since there have been no interested developers. The District does not anticipate any significant change in service demand unless there is a future change in the types of services provided. Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities and Adequacy of Public Services, Including Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies v The District does not own any facilities. GCSD’s capacity to provide services is defined by its funding capabilities. Given the District’s sizeable reserve balance, it is apparent that GCSD has the capacity to deliver more extensive services than are already being provided. v It is difficult to assess adequacy of services provided by GCSD since existing services are hard to define and categorize. The District’s current services have never been clearly defined by nor approved by LAFCo. v There is a need for a long-term plan for services to identify a strategy for sustainable and necessary services to the public. The long-term plan for services should include a strategy to make use of the District’s significant fund balance to ensure transparency and accountability of public money utilization and aid GCSD in identifying necessary funding levels for future services, projects, and plans. v As GCSD does not own any facilities, there are no related infrastructure needs. However, the District is looking into possible future projects, and noted the possibility of helping to establish a robust sewer system for the community and extending paths out from the planned pedestrian bridge. Financial Ability of Agencies to Provide Services v Although the District considers its financing to be inadequate because the pedestrian bridge is anticipated to deplete its reserves and restrict its ability to finance other future projects, GCSD has accumulated a considerable financial reserve. v GCSD’s revenues are entirely comprised of property taxes and interest revenue on the accumulated reserves. Due to the most recent economic recession, the District had GCSD 70 PLUMAS LAFCO PLUMAS COUNTY DISTRICTS VOLUME 5 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW experienced a decline in revenues of about 25 percent. The situation, however, has been gradually improving. v GCSD does not adopt a formal CIP; all projects are planned for at the District’s Board meetings and financed by the District’s regular revenues. The District is encouraged to adopt a plan for services to allocate the funds to specific projects or services to be offered for the benefit of resident taxpayers. v At the end of FY 14-15 the unassigned reserve was $299,464, the emergency reserve was $75,000, while $450,000 was committed to the construction of the pedestrian bridge. At the end of FY 14-15, GCSD had about $823,906 in accumulated funds. Status of, and Opportunities for, Shared Facilities v The District practices resource sharing by making use of the Mohawk Resource Center for its meetings and by partnering with Graeagle Land and Water to ensure continued maintenance of certain projects. v Given the overlap of GCSD with Eastern Plumas Recreation and Park District, it is recommended that the two agencies collaborate on projects and ensure that there is no duplication of services being offered. Accountability for Community Service Needs, Including Governmental Structure and Operational Efficiencies v GCSD demonstrated accountability in its disclosure of information and cooperation with Plumas LAFCo. The District responded to the questionnaires and cooperated with the document and interview requests. v GCSD practices extensive outreach efforts which enhance transparency, including newspaper announcements, outreach to the local HOA, and informational signs on completed projects. A district website would further enhance transparency and accountability. v Several of the projects funded by the District may be categorized as parks and recreation. The District also funds street lighting within its boundaries. Should the District choose to provide services outside of parks and recreation or street lighting, then it will have to seek LAFCo approval to add a new service. GCSD 71 PLUMAS LAFCO PLUMAS COUNTY DISTRICTS VOLUME 5 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW 9. JO HNSVILLE P UBLIC UT I L I TY DI STRI CT Johnsville Public Utility District (JPUD) provides domestic water services to the community of Johnsville. LAFCo adopted a resolution in 2008 initiating the MSR and SOI update process for JPUD;32 however, it was never completed. This is the first MSR for the District. AGENCY OVERVIEW Background JPUD was formed November 15, 1947 to provide water treatment and distribution for the community. The principal act that governs the District is the Public Utility District Act.33 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.34 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.35 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 2000.36 Specific to JPUD, within the Public Utility District Act is an exception to the requirement that only those that reside within the District are eligible to sit on the Board of Directors. Because of the small full-time resident population, the Act also allows for land owners to sit on the Board of Directors only in the case of JPUD.37 JPUD is located in south central Plumas County and encompasses the community of Johnsville, which is in the heart of the Plumas National Forest and surrounded by the Plumas Eureka State Park. The nearest public purveyor of drinking water is Plumas Eureka Community Services District (PECSD) to the northeast, but the two agencies are not adjacent to one another. While not within PECSD’s boundaries, the Johnsville community is within PECSD’s fire service area. 32 LAFCo Resolution 2008-007. 33 Public Utilities Code §15501-17501. 34 Public Utilities Code §16461. 35 Public Utilities Code §16463. 36 Government Code §56824.10. 37 Public Utilities Code §15974. JPUD 72 PLUMAS LAFCO PLUMAS COUNTY DISTRICTS VOLUME 5 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW Boundaries The JPUD boundary is entirely within Plumas County. The present boundaries encompass approximately 0.85 square miles. Since its formation, the District has never undergone a boundary change. The District overlaps and is surrounded by Plumas Eureka State Park as shown in Figure 9-2. Sphere of Influence The sphere of influence (SOI) for the District was first adopted in 1976.38 The SOI was adopted to include portions of the Plumas Eureka State Park where water service and structural fire protection service is needed (the headquarters area and campground) and the areas to the north of the District, which were being developed at the time. It should be noted that there is State park property between Johnsville and the developed community along Red Dirt Road that is within the District’s SOI. JPUD reported that it may be cost prohibitive to extend its water system all the way to the development, making it unlikely that this area would ever be served by JPUD. As the resolution adopting the SOI in 1976 lacked a map, a map of the SOI was developed based on the description in the SOI justification. The SOI will need to be updated to reflect current conditions following adoption of this MSR. The District’s boundaries and sphere of influence are shown in Figure 9-1. Extra-territorial Services The District provides services to connections within Plumas Eureka State Park; however, these connections are within JPUD’s boundaries and it does not provide services outside of its bounds. Areas of Interest No areas of interest have been identified for JPUD. 38 LAFCo Resolution 76-26. JPUD 73 Johnsville Public Utility District Range 11 East 3 2 1 6 5 Sloat M cC rae R d Johnsville Rd 8 12 7 10 Sloat McCrae Rd 11 Madora Lake Johnsville R 15 14 13 d 18 Graeagle Johnsville Rd 17 Johnsville Eureka Lake Rd ^` Eureka Lake Johnsville 20 22 23 24 19 Johnsville Rd Crae Mc Sloat 27 26 25 30 29 Location Map (Not to Scale) Johnsville Public Utility District Sphere of Influence Resolution: 76-226 0 0.25 0.5 1Miles Adopted: May 21, 1976 Source: Plumas LAFCo Map Created 11/20/2016 htroN 22 pihsnwoT Range 12 East Johnsville PUD Plumas County 4 Legend Johnsville Public Utility District Resolution: Highways Parcels Johnsville Public Utility District Adopted: November 3, 1947 Major Roads Sectional Grid Johnsville Public Utility District Stream / River (MDB&M) Sphere of Influence Boundary ^` Waterbodies Communities PLUMAS LAFCO PLUMAS COUNTY DISTRICTS VOLUME 5 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW Figure 9-2: Plumas Eureka State Park Accountability and Governance JPUD is governed by a three-member Board of Directors who are elected at-large to staggered four-year terms. As previously mentioned, Directors are not required to reside within the District, but instead can be landowners within the District. Current board member names, positions, and term dates are shown in Figure 9-3. The Board meets three times a year, generally during the summer months when the non- resident Directors can be present. Meeting dates vary from month to month, but are generally held on Saturdays at 8 am at St. John’s Church. The community is reportedly very engaged in JPUD’s activities, which results in a very high turnout for meetings. Board meeting agendas are posted at the local firehouse, the museum, and the church. Minutes are available upon request. The District’s Board members are not compensated. Government Code §53235 requires that if a district provides compensation or reimbursement of expenses to its board members, the board members must receive two hours of training in ethics at least once every two years and the district must establish a written policy on reimbursements. It was reported that the District’s Board members are likely not up-to-date on ethics training; however, if the board members do not receive reimbursements, then the training is not required. The District has not established an explicit written policy on Board member expense reimbursement. JPUD 75 PLUMAS LAFCO PLUMAS COUNTY DISTRICTS VOLUME 5 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW Figure 9-3: Johnsville PUD Governing Body Johnsville Public Utility District Governing Body and Board Meetings Manner of Selection Elected at large Length of Term Four years Meetings are held at St. John’s Church. Meeting time and dates vary from Meetings month to month but are generally held on Saturdays in summer months. Agenda Distribution Agendas are posted at the local firehouse, the museum, and the church. Minutes Distribution Minutes are available upon request. Board of Directors Board Member Position Joined Board Norman Hattich Director 2010 David Piepho Director 2015 John La Tourrette Director 2010 Contact Contact David Piepho, Director Mailing Address P.O. Box 294 Blairsden, CA 96103 Phone 530-836-2701 Email/Website bcs@psln.com The District has not yet formally compiled bylaws or policies and procedures to guide its efforts and activities. It is recommended that the District consider adopting a formal set of policies to provide a framework for operations and governance of the District. The District does not maintain a website where information is made available to the public. Water Code §64453 requires that each water supplier maintain records on all water quality and system outage complaints, both verbal and written, received and corrective action taken. These records are to be retained for five years. JPUD maintains records of all complaints, including date, time, location, nature of the complaint, and what was done to resolve the complaint. There were no complaints received by the District regarding water quality in 2013, 2014, and 2015. Government Code §87203 requires persons who hold office to disclose their investments, interests in real property and incomes by filing appropriate forms each year. Unlike other counties in the State, the Plumas County Clerk-Recorder does not act as the filing officer for the special districts. Each district holds responsibility for collecting the Form 700s and maintaining copies in their records. The Board is aware of the filing requirement, and has filed the annual Form 700s in a timely fashion. JPUD demonstrated accountability in its disclosure of information and cooperation with Plumas LAFCo. The District responded to the questionnaires and cooperated with interview and document requests. JPUD 76 PLUMAS LAFCO PLUMAS COUNTY DISTRICTS VOLUME 5 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW Planning and Management Practices The District employs one part-time clerk and general manager. The water system is maintained through an informal agreement with Graeagle Land and Water Company (GLWC) for all treatment plant operations. While the contractor is not responsible for maintenance of other portions of the water system, GLWC has done some work on other parts of the system as supplemental contract work. The general manager reports directly to the Board. The independent contractor (Dan West) at GLWC, who runs the water treatment system, reports to the general manager. The District does not perform employee evaluations of the clerk/general manager nor the maintenance contractor. The workload of staff and the contractor is not tracked in a formal manner (i.e., time sheets) as they are paid flat amounts. Similarly, the District does not perform any formal evaluations of its own performance, but its system is regularly evaluated by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). In its regular system inspections, SWRCB assesses the safety of the water system and identifies any necessary system improvements. The District’s financial planning efforts include annually adopted budgets. While the District is required to audit its financials every five years, it is presently behind schedule in conducting its most recent audit. The last audit was through 08-09. As of the drafting of this report, the District has not yet performed an audit for FYs 09-10 through 14-15. JPUD does not adopt a formal Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). The District is basing its capital needs on the SWRCB inspection report. Government Code §53901 states that within 60 days after the beginning of the fiscal year each local agency must submit its budget to the county auditor. The District adopts a budget each year. These budgets are to be filed and made available on request by the public at the county auditor’s office. Additionally, all special districts are required to submit annual audits to the County within 12 months of the completion of the fiscal year, unless the Board of Supervisors has approved a biennial or five-year schedule.39 JPUD is on a five-year audit schedule and was last audited thru 08-09. The District is overdue for its next five-year audit. The District should ensure that it is meeting the adopted audit requirements as determined by the Board of Supervisors. Special districts must submit a report to the State Controller of all financial transactions of the district during the preceding fiscal year within 90 days after the close of each fiscal year, in the form required by the State Controller, pursuant to Government Code §53891. If filed in electronic format, the report must be submitted within 110 days after the end of the fiscal year. The District has complied with this requirement. Existing Demand and Growth Projections The area within the District is zoned for multiple uses, including 0.5-acre single family residential, general forest, and recreational open space. 39 Government Code §26909. JPUD 77 PLUMAS LAFCO PLUMAS COUNTY DISTRICTS VOLUME 5 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW Population The community is seasonal/recreational, with minimal occupation during the winter. According to the District, there are only four residences that are habited full time by residents. The other 42 homes are seasonally occupied. The full-time population of the District is estimated to be nine based on the average household size in Plumas County of 2.29 individuals and the number of full-time residences within the PUD. Existing Demand At present the District serves a total of 48 active connections (46 residential, one commercial, and the Plumas Eureka State Park with a visitor center, office, and 67 campsites) and 12 standby lots. Due to the significant drought, demand for water has declined in recent years, across the State and within the District. The District’s annual water usage was cut in half between 2012 and 2015. Figure 9-3 shows the amount of water supplied annually in millions of gallons (mg). Due to the drought and resulting conservation efforts, demand in California has moved independently of population growth. Demand for water services within JPUD is also affected by the influx of seasonal tourists and second home owners during the warmer months. Figure 9-4: Johnsville PUD Annual Supply (2012 – 2015) 25 20 15 10 5 0 2012 2013 2014 2015 Projected Growth and Development The District does not make any formal or informal population projections. The District does not anticipate any growth in the near term attributable to new development. The State Department of Finance (DOF) projects that the population of Plumas County will decrease by four percent in the next 10 years. Thus, the average annual population growth in the County is anticipated to be approximately negative 0.33 percent. Based on these projections, the District’s population would remain at approximately nine residents through 2020. It is anticipated that demand for service within the District will not be impacted by the projected unchanged full-time population. JPUD 78 )GM( snollaG fo noilliM PLUMAS LAFCO PLUMAS COUNTY DISTRICTS VOLUME 5 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW 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’s financing level appears to be adequate to meet the needs of the community. The Board has been able to adjust rates to meet operational and capital needs of the water system. Additionally, the District has been able to accumulate a healthy financial reserve that can cover contingencies. However, JPUD is in need of a sizeable amount of funds to replace its redwood water storage tanks, and the District’s reserves are anticipated to only partially cover the amount needed. Similar to other small water systems, the District will have to rely on grant funds (likely from the State) to fully finance the new storage tanks. The District would benefit from a capital improvement plan to aid in assessing long-term capital needs and the financing that will be required to meet those needs. In FY 15-16, the District’s revenues totaled $50,602, which consisted of property taxes (18 percent), service charges (81 percent), and interest income (one percent). The District charges each connection for the water service received. Residential lots are charged $278 twice a year, commercial lots are charged $556 twice a year, and standby lots are charged $92 twice a year. The State park is charged for water services based on a separately negotiated rate. The District is in the process of getting the service charges placed on the property tax bill administered by the County. Additionally, the District recently passed a resolution allowing the Board to preemptively raise rates for the next fiscal year based on the adopted budget, within the confines of Proposition 218 requirements. Expenses in FY 15-16 totaled $52,122. Expenses were predominantly (89 percent) attributed to services and supplies, of which a large portion ($34,226) was for contract labor for maintenance of the water system. Salaries and benefits and fixed asset expenditures made up the remaining costs. JPUD did not have any long-term debt at the end of FY 15-16. The District does not have a policy regarding maintaining a minimum financial reserve. At the end of FY 15-16, the District had a cash balance of $155,775, which is equivalent to about three years of district expenditures. The fund balance is not earmarked for a particular purpose or project. JPUD does not adopt a formal CIP; all projects are planned for at the District’s Board meetings. The District is basing its infrastructure needs on the most recent SWRCB inspection report, which outlines a need to replace the redwood water storage tanks. The District is searching for a financing source to complete this project through the State Water Resources Control Board's Division of Financial Assistance. The District does not participate in any joint power authorities (JPAs) or other joint financing mechanisms. JPUD 79 PLUMAS LAFCO PLUMAS COUNTY DISTRICTS VOLUME 5 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW WATER SERVICES Service Overview The District has pre-1914 water rights to spring water from an unnamed spring in the Johnsville area. The raw water supply consists of springs, known as Upper Springs and Bennett Springs. The springs are approximately three miles southwest of the Johnsville Water Treatment Plant and approximately 500 to 600 feet higher in elevation. Upper Springs has two collection boxes, one at each of two different locations; each box has approximately 500-gallons of capacity. The remaining source, Bennett Springs, has a small reservoir. There is also a collection gallery at Bennett Springs that discharges to the reservoir. From the springs, the water is transported to the water treatment plant. The water treatment process consists of coagulant addition, a dual media clarifier, three filters (anthracite and graded sand) and a chlorination system. After filtration, water is chlorinated and discharged to one of two 88,000-gallon redwood clear wells with overflows. From the clear well, the water is distributed to the users. During the winter, the plant is operated on a continuous basis at a low flow to prevent freezing of the system piping, with a consequent continuous overflow of finished water to the clear wells. Water is delivered to each of the 48 unmetered active connections through an unknown length of water mains and pipes. The six-inch transmission pipes are composed of ductile iron, while the transmission mains are composed of PVC. The mains and pipes are considered to be in generally good condition based on SWRCB’s most recent inspection. The District’s permit was issued in 1995 and the system was rated as a transient non- community water system. According to SWRCB, the permit is out of date as it does not account for new tanks, treatment equipment and expansion of the water system. JPUD is currently under review for its status as a transient system. Reclassification may be considered by SWRCB, which could mean additional testing requirements. Staffing JPUD’s treatment plant requires an operator with at least a T2 certification, while the distribution system requires at least a D1 certification. JPUD appears to be in compliance with these requirements. Facilities and Capacity JPUD’s raw water yield is estimated at 160 gallons per minute (gpm); however the source capacity is limited to the pipe capacity, which is estimated at approximately 80 gpm. Based on SWRCB’s most recent inspection, the District’s source capacity is approximately 150 percent the estimated supply capacity (amount the District is able to deliver through the water system). Consequently, JPUD’s source capacity is in compliance with Waterworks Standards. The maximum day demand has been decreasing over the past five years. In 2015, JPUD provided 11.551 mg of water to its customers, which is equivalent to 22 gpm. The maximum JPUD 80 PLUMAS LAFCO PLUMAS COUNTY DISTRICTS VOLUME 5 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW day supply in 2015 was 54 gpm. It is apparent that the District operates well within its source and supply capacity. Infrastructure Needs At present, the most significant infrastructure need related to the District’s water system is the deteriorating water storage tanks. The District owns and maintains two redwood storage tanks, each with approximately 88,000 gallons of storage capacity. During SWRCB’s most recent inspection, the tanks were identified as having reach the end of their life, as they are showing signs of leakage at the base and bird pecking holes are evident. The District is working with the State to find funding to replace the two tanks. The District has not yet determined how much replacement of the tanks will cost. Challenges Due to the small size of the community, the District has a challenge financing any significant infrastructure improvements, the cost of which would have to be shared amongst the few connections. Instead the District has in the past relied on grant funding to implement necessary capital improvements. Service Adequacy This section reviews indicators of service adequacy, including the SWRCB system evaluation, drinking water quality, and distribution system integrity. The Division of Drinking Water Programs of SWRCB 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. SWRCB took over evaluations of the JPUD water system from Plumas County. The most recent evaluation took place in 2015. The annual inspection report stated that the system “is operated in a conscientious and professional manner.” The report also identified deficiencies that were in need of correction—updating of the Emergency Notification Plan, Bacteriological Sampling Site Plan, an Operations Plan. Also, the inspection report noted that the redwood storage tanks have reached the end of their service life, and recommended that JPUD pursue funding to replace the tanks. The District reported that it had completed the three required plan updates and was working with the State to find funding for the tank replacement. Drinking water quality is determined by a combination of historical violations reported by the EPA and the percent of time that the District was in compliance with Primary Drinking Water Regulations in 2016. JPUD has had no health based nor monitoring violations in the last 10 years, 2006 to 2016. The District was in compliance with drinking water regulations 100 percent of the time in 2016. Indicators of distribution system integrity are the number of breaks and leaks in 2015 and the rate of unaccounted for distribution loss. The District reported no breaks and leaks in 2015. Because all of the connections are unmetered, it is unknown what percentage is lost between the water source and the connections served. JPUD 81 PLUMAS LAFCO PLUMAS COUNTY DISTRICTS VOLUME 5 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW JOHNSVILLE PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT DETERMINATIONS Growth and Population Projections v The community within Johnsville Public Utility District (JPUD) is seasonal/recreational, with minimal occupation during the winter. The full-time population of the District is estimated to be nine based on the average household size in Plumas County of 2.29 individuals and the four full-time habited residences within the PUD. v No population growth is anticipated within the District in the near term. Other factors affect the District’s demand for water services, including water conservation efforts due the drought and the influx of seasonal tourists and second home owners. Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities and Adequacy of Public Services, Including Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies v JPUD’s raw water yield is estimated at 160 gallons per minute (gpm); however the source capacity is limited to the pipe capacity, which is estimated at approximately 80 gpm. JPUD’s source capacity is in compliance with Waterworks Standards. v The maximum day demand has been decreasing over the past five years. It is apparent that the District operates well within its source and supply capacity, and has sufficient capacity to address demand well into the future, if customers continue conservations efforts. v Based on the SWRCB system evaluation, drinking water quality, and distribution system integrity, JPUD provides adequate water services. v There is a need for formalized contracts, plans, and policies, including a capital improvement plan, formal contract with the operator, bylaws, and policies and procedures. It is recommended that the JPUD begin formalizing these documents to guide district efforts. v At present, the most significant infrastructure need related to JPUD’s water system is the deteriorating water storage tanks. The District needs to get a cost estimate for tank replacement in order to move forward, then the District can continue working with the State to find funding to replace the two tanks. Financial Ability of Agencies to Provide Services v The District’s financing level appears to be adequate to meet the needs of the community. v JPUD recently adjusted rates to ensure sufficient funding. However, the District does not have a formal capital improvement plan that outlines future capital needs, so it is unclear if the rate increase will be sufficient to cover any future large scale capital needs. It is recommended that the District create a capital improvement plan and then assess the rates to ensure that they are adequate. JPUD 82 PLUMAS LAFCO PLUMAS COUNTY DISTRICTS VOLUME 5 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW v The District will require grant funding to address its infrastructure needs, which is common among small water systems such as JPUD’s. v The District has a sufficiently healthy reserve that is equivalent to about three years of district expenditures. v JPUD should be aware that it is legally required to conduct an audit every five years and ensure that it meets its legal obligations. Status of, and Opportunities for, Shared Facilities v The District does not share facilities or resources with other agencies. v It is recommended that JPUD work with other special districts in the area in negotiating for audit services at a reduced cost. Accountability for Community Service Needs, Including Governmental Structure and Operational Efficiencies v JPUD demonstrated accountability in its disclosure of information and cooperation with Plumas LAFCo. The District responded to the questionnaires and cooperated with the document and interview requests. v JPUD’s SOI needs to be updated to align with the District’s existing service area and feasible future service area. JPUD 83 PLUMAS LAFCO PLUMAS COUNTY DISTRICTS VOLUME 5 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW 10. M EA DOW VA L L EY CEM ETE RY DI STRI CT Meadow Valley Cemetery District (MVCD) provides operations and maintenance of Meadow Valley Cemetery. An MSR has never been performed for MVCD. AGENCY OVERVIEW Background MVCD was formed on June 20, 1924 to maintain and operate the Meadow Valley Cemetery. The principal act that governs the District is the Public Cemetery District Law.40 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.41 The law allows the district to inter non-residents under certain circumstances.42 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 2000.43 Boundaries The District is located in the southwest portion of Plumas County and encompasses the communities of Meadow Valley and Bucks Lake. The District’s boundaries extend from the county line in the west to just west of Quincy in the east, and from just north of the community of Cascade in the south to just south of SR 70 in the north. MVCD is abutted by Quincy LaPorte Cemetery District to the east and south. There is not a cemetery provider to the north of MVCD. MVCD’s boundaries encompass 218 square miles. There have been no recorded changes to the District’s boundaries since formation. 40 California Health and Safety Code §9000-9093. 41 California Health and Safety Code §9040. 42 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. 43 Government Code §56824.10. MVCD 84 PLUMAS LAFCO PLUMAS COUNTY DISTRICTS VOLUME 5 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW Sphere of Influence The District’s SOI was last updated in 1976.44 The sphere is coterminous with the District’s boundaries. The District’s boundaries and sphere of influence are shown in Figure 10-1. Extra-territorial Services MVCD does not provide services at cemeteries outside of its boundaries. The District will bury any non-resident of the District for a higher fee. Areas of Interest The District did not identify any areas of interest. 44 LAFCo Resolution No. 76-59. MVCD 85 Meadow Valley Cemetery District Range 9 East 0 0 0 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 6 31 5 32 4 33 3 34 2 35 1 36 6 31 I 5 ndia 3 n 2 Falls 3 4 3 ^` 3 34 2 35 1 0 0 0 1 1 2 7 6 5 8 4 9 1 3 0 1 2 1 1 1 2 6 7 8 5 Caribou Rd 4 9 1 3 0 1 2 1 1 1 2 Rush 1 7 C 8 reek 1 R 7 d 8 1 9 6 1 1 0 5 1 1 1 4 1 1 2 3 1 7 8 17P 8 ^` axto 9 n 1 UV 8 6 9 1 1 0 5 1 1 4 1 1 1 2 3 0 13 18 17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14 13 19 20 21 22 ^` Twain 23 24 19 20 Ke 21 ddie ^` 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 ^` 19 20 21 22 23 24 0 ·|}þ26 Belden 30 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 ·|}þ 70 26 25 30 29 28 27 70 25 30 29 28 27 26 25 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 6 5 4 3 2 1 Snake Lake R 6 d 5 4 3 2 21 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 7 8 9 10 11 12 Bucks Lake Rd 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 B 15 18 17 16 15 ^`14 13 18 17 16 15 ^` 14 1 2 3 4 19 18 0 1 2 7 0 ^` 1 0 ^` 6 21 Tobin 1 2 5 2 1 2 4 3 1 2 3 4 1 1 8 9 1 2 7 0 1 2 6 1 uck 2 s L 2 ake R d 1 2 4 3 2 1 4 3 1 3 9 0 2 2 0 9 2 2 8 1 2 2 2 7 M 2 2 3 6 eadow 2 2 4 5 Valley 1 3 9 0 2 2 0 9 2 2 1 8 22 Q 27 uincy 2 2 3 6 2 3 5 6 3 3 0 1 2 0 3 9 2 Sto 33 r 28 rie 2 3 7 4 3 2 5 6 0 2 3 5 6 3 3 0 1 3 2 2 9 2 3 8 3 2 3 7 4 2 3 6 5 2 3 5 6 31 32 33 Big Creek Rd 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 0 Bucks Lake 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 ^` 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 Bucks Lake Rd 8 9 10 11 12 7 18 17 16 15 14 13 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 20 21 22 23 24 30 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26 30 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 14 13 18 17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14 13 18 22 N27 22 N61 17 16 15 14 19 20 21 22 23 24 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 75N 22 29 28 27 26 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 A13 32 33 34 35 31 32 33 34 35 36 ^` 5 4 3 2 1 0 6 5 4 3 L 2 ocatio 1 n Map 6 (Not to 5 Scale 4 ) 3 2 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 Meadow Valley Cemetery District Sphere of Influence Resolution: 76-59 0 1 2 4Miles Adopted: November 10, 1976 Source: Plumas LAFCo Map Created 12/3/2016 htroN 22 pihsnwoT Range 6 East Range 7 East Meadow Valley Cemetery District Plumas County 4 Legend Meadow Valley Cemetery District Resolution: Highways Parcels Meadow Valley Cemetery District Formation: June 20, 1924 Major Roads Sectional Grid Meadow Valley Cemetery District Stream / River (MDB&M) Proposed Sphere of Influence Boundary ^` Waterbodies Communities htroN 52 pihsnwoT htroN 32 pihsnwoT Range 8 East htroN 42 pihsnwoT PLUMAS LAFCO PLUMAS COUNTY DISTRICTS VOLUME 5 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW Accountability and Governance MVCD’s governing body is composed of five board members who are appointed by the County Board of Supervisors to four-year terms. There is presently one vacancy on the Board. Current board member names and positions are shown in Figure 10-2. District meetings are held approximately four times a year or as needed at the Meadow Valley Fire Station. Meetings are not held at a specific time, but are instead are based on availability of the board members. Agendas are posted at the fire station. Minutes are available upon request. Figure 10-2: Meadow Valley Cemetery District Governing Body Meadow Valley Cemetery District Governing Body and Board Meetings Manner of Selection Appointed by Board of Supervisors Length of Term Four years Held approximately four times a year or as needed at Meadow Valley Fire Meetings station. Meetings are scheduled based on availability of board members. Agenda Distribution Posted at the fire station Minutes are read at the following meeting. Digital and hard copies are Minutes Distribution available upon request. Board of Directors Board Member Position Thelma Olson President John Schmidt Secretary Vicki Sutton Director Gerry Filippi Director Vacancy Director Contact Contact Thelma Olson Mailing Address P.O. Box 208, Meadow Valley, CA 95956 Phone 530-283-2615 Email/Website Flyingt@psln.com Due to the smaller size of the community, residents generally know who sits on the Board of the District and how to contact them. The District does not conduct outreach beyond posting of the agenda at present; however, the District has plans to erect a kiosk at the cemetery to make a location to post board contact info and any other announcements. Should a member of the public wish to submit a complaint to the District, they may comment during the comment period at any of the District’s meetings or submit a complaint in person to any member of the Board. A board member would then be assigned to address the complaint and handle it to completion. The District reported that it rarely receives complaints, but any complaints are generally related to a concern at the cemetery. The District reported that it received no complaints in 2015. MVCD 87 PLUMAS LAFCO PLUMAS COUNTY DISTRICTS VOLUME 5 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW Government Code §87203 requires persons who hold office to disclose their investments, interests in real property and incomes by filing appropriate forms each year. Unlike other counties in the State, the Plumas County Clerk-Recorder does not act as the filing officer for the special districts. Each district holds responsibility for collecting the Form 700s and maintaining copies in their records. All the District’s Board members filed Forms 700 for 2016. MVCD demonstrated accountability and transparency during the LAFCo MSR process. The District responded to requests for information and documents and took part in an interview. Planning and Management Practices MVCD employs one part time seasonal maintenance person to handle most maintenance around the cemetery. The employee provides services May thru October and averages about 20 hours of work per week during that time, with more time dedicated during the spring months. The District occasionally hires private companies to do specialized services, such as tree trimming or plumbing. The District does not make use of volunteers for maintenance purposes. An accounting firm is hired for financial management and auditing. The maintenance employee is overseen by the Board. While no formal evaluations are conducted of the employee, the Board has chosen to rehire the same person each year indicating acceptable performance in the view of the Board. Additionally, a board member does a weekly inspection of the cemetery to identify any necessary work to be done. The work load of the maintenance employee is not tracked through a time sheet or other log, as he is paid a flat monthly wage. Similarly, the District does not perform any formal evaluations of its own performance, but, by conducting the weekly cemetery assessments, tries to ensure that the cemetery looks well maintained, which is the primary roll of the District. The District’s financial planning efforts include annually adopted budgets and financial statements audited every five years. The last audit was for the FYs 09-10 through 13-14. MVCD does not adopt a formal Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). Given the small size of the Cemetery, there are not many projects for which planning is necessary. The most recent large size project was installation of new sprinklers. Planning for future projects is conducted at the board meetings as needed. Government Code §53901 states that within 60 days after the beginning of the fiscal year each local agency must submit its budget to the county auditor. These budgets are to be filed and made available on request by the public at the county auditor’s office. All special districts are required to submit annual audits to the County within 12 months of the completion of the fiscal year, unless the Board of Supervisors has approved a biennial or five-year schedule.45 MVCD is on a five-year audit schedule. The District complies with these requirements. Special districts must submit a report to the State Controller of all financial transactions of the district during the preceding fiscal year within 90 days after the close of each fiscal 45 Government Code §26909. MVCD 88 PLUMAS LAFCO PLUMAS COUNTY DISTRICTS VOLUME 5 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW year, in the form required by the State Controller, pursuant to Government Code §53891. If filed in electronic format, the report must be submitted within 110 days after the end of the fiscal year. The District has complied with this requirement. Existing Demand and Growth Projections The territory within MVCD has a wide variety of zoning designations, including suburban residential, secondary suburban, 10-acre rural residential, 20-acre rural residential, convenience commercial, recreation, agricultural preserve, general forest, and timberland production. Population There were approximately 464 residents within the Meadow Valley and Bucks Lake Census Designated Places as of 2010. It is assumed, based on growth trends within Plumas County, that the population of the area has remained the same or slightly declined since that time. Existing Demand The District averages about five to six burials per year. The District reported that there has been no change in the population served in recent years; however, there has been a general transition from full-body burials to burial of cremated remains, due to economic pressures for a cheaper burial option. Additionally, aging of the population has led to greater demand for burials. Projected Growth and Development Given historical trends of little to no growth within the District, MVCD expects continued slow growth in the area. The State Department of Finance (DOF) projects that the population of Plumas County will decrease by four percent in the next 10 years. Thus, the average annual population growth in the County is anticipated to be approximately negative 0.4 percent. Based on these projections, the District’s population would decline to approximately 463 in 2020. It is anticipated that demand for services within the District will remain relatively constant based on the DOF population growth projections through 2020. 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 MVCD reported that it considers its existing income level to be sufficient to provide services. The District’s primary revenue sources are property taxes, and burial and endowment fees. The District reported that there was not a substantial impact from the recession and with no major upcoming projects, revenues have continued to cover annual expenditures. MVCD 89 PLUMAS LAFCO PLUMAS COUNTY DISTRICTS VOLUME 5 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW The District has recently raised fees, and makes efforts to keep expenditures to a minimum by water at non-peak hours to lower water bill, installing a more water efficient sprinkler system, and relying on board member volunteered time without reimbursement. Revenues appear to be appropriate to the services offered by and demand for services from the District. The District is not considering any additional revenue sources. MVCD had a total of $13,677 in revenue in FY 15-16. Revenue sources consisted of property taxes (59 percent), sale of burial lots (31 percent), a transfer from the endowment fund (seven percent), a reimbursement (two percent), and interest income (less than one percent). The District has a detailed list of fees for the lots, endowment care, vaults, administration, service set up, and cremation opening and closing. The cost for a full burial site alone is $700 for those inside the District and $1,200 for those outside of the District. A full-sized lot can be purchased with space for six urns with cremated remains, or cremation sites are available that can fit up to four urns for $500 district residents and $700 for non-district residents. The District must meet the legally required minimum endowment fee of $4.50 per plot square foot for all plot types.46 Additionally, the principal act requires the District to charge non-resident fees that are at least 15 percent higher than fees charged to residents and property owners.47 MVCD is meeting these fee requirements. In FY 15-16, MVCD’s expenditures totaled $10,511, comprised of salaries and benefits (60 percent), services and supplies (38 percent), and fixed assets in the form of new crypts (one percent). The District did not have long-term debt at the end of FY 15-16. The District does not have policy regarding a certain level of reserves to be maintained. Any remaining balance at the end of the year is rolled over in the cash fund. At the end of FY 15-16, MVCD had a cash balance of $21,292, which is equivalent of just under two years of expenditures for the District. The balance has not been earmarked for a particular purpose. In addition, the District has an endowment care fund and provides endowment care to its cemetery, as required by law. 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.48 In FY 15-16, the District’s endowment care fund had a balance of $28,086. MVCD is a member of Golden State Risk Management Authority for liability and workers compensation insurance. Golden State Risk Management Authority is an insurance pool for public entities in California, and is a joint financing mechanism for MVCD. 46 Health and Safety Code §8738. 47 Health and Safety Code §9068. 48 Health and Safety Code §9065. MVCD 90 PLUMAS LAFCO PLUMAS COUNTY DISTRICTS VOLUME 5 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW CEMETERY SERVICES Service Overview MVCD operates and maintains Meadow Valley Cemetery, including sales of full sized and cremated remain plots, opening and closing of cremated remain plots, and regular maintenance of the property from May to October. The District has an agreement with Quincy LaPorte Cemetery District for the opening and closing of full-sized plots. There are no structures on the cemetery grounds, such as vaults and mausoleums. Facilities and Capacity Meadow Valley Cemetery is approximately 1.5 acres. The District reported that the developed portion of the cemetery is approximately 80 percent full and would likely be full in about five years. However, the undeveloped portion of the cemetery district will be able to handle burials well into the future. The District averages about five to six burials per year. The District reported that it would provide annual burials for the last five years prior to adoption of the MSR by LAFCo. Infrastructure Needs The District reported that at present there are no significant needs at the cemetery. A site visit confirmed that the cemetery is regularly cared for and well maintained. The District would like to add a kiosk at the cemetery for posting of significant information and announcements. Challenges MVCD does not appear to face any particular challenges to providing adequate services. Revenues are appropriate to the services provided, and the District has effective agreements with a maintenance employee and Quincy LaPorte Cemetery District to enhance efficiency. Service Adequacy The following are indicators of service adequacy for cemetery districts, as defined by law or best practices. In some areas Meadow Valley Cemetery District meets or exceeds service standards for adequate services, while other aspects could be improved upon as shown below. v 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. MVCD is able to provide regular maintenance during the period from May to October each year. A site visit confirmed that the cemetery is well maintained. v Health and Safety Code §9068 requires cemetery districts to have non-resident fees. MVCD appropriately charges additional fees for non-residents of the District. MVCD 91 PLUMAS LAFCO PLUMAS COUNTY DISTRICTS VOLUME 5 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW v Health and Safety Code §9065 requires cemetery districts to have an endowment fee. MVCD maintains an endowment fund and charges an endowment fee as required. v According to Health and Safety Code §8738, a minimum endowment care fee must be $4.50 per plot square foot. MVCD charges the minimum required fee. v 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 non-residents, and the family members of any of the above. MVCD reported that it has had the practice of burying any interested party regardless of residency, which is not within the defined limits of the law. It is recommended that MVCD review the law and bring it into practice. v In order to adequately plan for existing and future demand and capacity needs, cemeteries track the number of interments annually. MVCD tracks the number of annual interments, which is considered a best management practice. MVCD 92 PLUMAS LAFCO PLUMAS COUNTY DISTRICTS VOLUME 5 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW MEADOW VALLEY CEMETERY DISTRICT DETERMINATIONS Growth and Population Projections v There were approximately 464 residents within the Meadow Valley and Bucks Lake Census Designated Places as of 2010. It is assumed, based on growth trends within Plumas County, that the population of the area has remained the same or slightly declined since that time. v Based on the Department of Finance (DOF) projections, the District’s population will decrease to approximately 463 in 2020. It is anticipated that demand for service within the District will remain relatively constant based on the DOF population growth projections through 2020. Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities and Adequacy of Public Services, Including Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies v The District reported that the developed portion of the cemetery is approximately 80 percent full and would likely be full in about five years. However, the undeveloped portion of the cemetery district will be able to handle burials well into the future. v MVCD does not appear to face any particular challenges to providing adequate services. Revenues are appropriate to the services provided, and the District has effective agreements to enhance efficiency. MVCD meets all legal requirements of cemetery districts, except for burial limitations prescribed to non-residents of the District. v The District reported that at present there are no significant needs at the cemetery. A site visit confirmed that the cemetery is regularly cared for and well maintained. The District would like to add a kiosk at the cemetery for posting of significant information and announcements. Financial Ability of Agencies to Provide Services v The District has recently raised fees, and makes efforts to keep expenditures to a minimum. Revenues appear to be appropriate to the services offered by and demand for services from the District. v The District’s primary revenue sources are property taxes, and burial and endowment fees. The District reported that there was not a substantial impact from the recession and with no major upcoming projects, revenues have continued to cover annual expenditures. v The District’s fee schedule is adequate as it meets legal requirements and income needs. v At the end of FY 15-16, MVCD had a cash balance of $21,292, which is equivalent of just under two years of expenditures for the District. The balance has not been earmarked for a particular purpose. MVCD 93 PLUMAS LAFCO PLUMAS COUNTY DISTRICTS VOLUME 5 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW v The District maintains an endowment fund as required by law to ensure care for the cemetery in perpetuity. Status of, and Opportunities for, Shared Facilities v MVCD practices resource sharing by making use of Quincy LaPorte Cemetery District for opening and closing of full-body burial sites. MVCD is one of the rare cemetery districts that collaborates with a neighboring cemetery district. v Sharing resources with other cemetery districts may provide an opportunity for improved efficiency and decreased costs. Accountability for Community Service Needs, Including Governmental Structure and Operational Efficiencies v MVCD demonstrated accountability in its disclosure of information and cooperation with Plumas LAFCo. The District responded to the questionnaires and cooperated with the document and interview requests. v MVCD should ensure that it is up-to-date on required ethics training for all board members. v No governance alternatives were identified for MVCD. MVCD 94 PLUMAS LAFCO PLUMAS COUNTY DISTRICTS VOLUME 5 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW 11. M O HAWK VA L L EY C EM ETERY DI STRI CT Mohawk Valley Cemetery District (MoVCD) provides operations and maintenance of Mohawk Valley Cemetery and Johnsville Cemetery. An MSR has never been performed for MoVCD. AGENCY OVERVIEW Background MoVCD was formed on January 1, 1947 to maintain and operate the Mohawk Valley Cemetery and the Johnsville Cemetery. The principal act that governs the District is the Public Cemetery District Law.49 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.50 The law allows the district to inter non-residents under certain circumstances.51 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 2000.52 Boundaries The District is located in the southcentral portion of Plumas County and encompasses the communities of Graeagle, Johnsville, Plumas Eureka, Whitehawk Ranch, Clio, and Blairsden. The District’s boundaries extend from the county line in the south to just southwest of Lake Davis, and from Johnsville McCrea Road in the west to just south of the City of Portola in the east. MoVCD is abutted by Portola Cemetery District to the east, Cromberg Cemetery District to the northwest, and Quincy LaPorte Cemetery District to the west. MoVCD’s boundaries encompass 129 square miles. Since formation, the District’s boundaries have undergone one change. In 1999, the Gold Mountain Reorganization adjusted MoVCD and other agency boundaries in the area. 49 California Health and Safety Code §9000-9093. 50 California Health and Safety Code §9040. 51 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. 52 Government Code §56824.10. MOVCD 95 PLUMAS LAFCO PLUMAS COUNTY DISTRICTS VOLUME 5 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW Sphere of Influence The District’s SOI was last updated in 1976.53 The SOI is coterminous with the District’s boundaries. The District’s boundaries and sphere of influence are shown in Figure 11-1. Extra-territorial Services MoVCD does not provide services at cemeteries outside of its boundaries; however, the District will bury any non-resident of the District for a higher fee. Areas of Interest The District did not identify any areas of interest. 53 LAFCo Resolution No. 76-60. MOVCD 96 Mohawk Valley Cemetery District Range 12 East 19 20 30 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25 ^` 3 6 7 1 Greenhor 3 n 5 8 2 Ranch Rd 3 ^` 3 4 9 Gree 3 n Harriso h n R 3 d 1 o 4 0 rn 11 3 2 G 5 ill Ranch Rd 3 1 1 6 2 7 Bixle 3 6 r 1 Rd 3 8 5 2 3 9 4 3 3 1 3 4 0 3 1 2 5 1 3 1 6 1 2 3 6 7 1 3 5 2 8 3 4 3 9 Lak 3 L e 4 a 1 k 3 D e 0 D a av v is is ^` 35 1 2 1 Beckwourth Taylors 1 ville Rd 3 1 6 2 3 3 0 1 6 2 3 9 2 5 18 17 16 15 Sloat Rd 14 13 ^`Crom 1 b 8 erg 17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 Lake Davis Rd 14 13 7 8 18 17 19 20 21 22 23 24 ·|}þ 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 70 19 20 30 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25 Two Rivers Rd Portola 30 29 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 Delleke 3 r 4 ^` 35 ^` 36 31 32 ·|}þ 6 7 5 8 4 9 1 3 0 1 2 1 1 1 2 Plum 6 7 as Eurek 5 8 a ^` 4 9 10 Bont ^` a S 3 B t lairsd 11 en M 2 ohawk V 1 1 2 is ^` ta 6 7 5 8 4 9 70 Iron Hor 1 3 s 0 ^` e Portola 1 2 M 1 cClears Rd 1 1 2 6 5 3 3 1 1 1 0 9 8 1 3 2 2 7 2 9 0 Johnsville M cC rea R d 1 2 3 6 2 8 3 1 1 2 2 5 3 2 7 4 Joh 1 2 2 n 3 4 3 6 5 s Sloa v t Mc i C l rae l R e d 1 ^` 2 3 4 2 3 5 J 6 ohnsville R G d raeagle 1 Jo 8 hnsville 1 3 3 R 9 0 d 1 32 G 2 o 1 l 9 d 7 L 2 ake 0 Forest S H m wy ith S L m a 3 k 1 i e t 3 6 h R d C G r o S e m 2 l i 2 t d h e Cr e 1 e L 8 k k Rd a R ke d Rd 15^` 2 2 3 2 7 4 Graeagl 1 e 2 2 3 4 UV 3 6 5 89 C-Ro C Rd a ^` ^` d 1 2 2 3 3 4 5 6 Clio 30 ^` 1 1 8 9 3 V 1 P a or l to C l l e l a io M y 2 S c 0 t a C R t l e e a 4 1 a r 0 2 s A 7 3 n 9 R 2 R d d ch 1 2 6 2 3 1 8 3 1 2 2 5 3 2 7 4 1 2 3 2 4 3 5 6 1 2 2 3 3 4 5 6 1 7 1 3 8 9 0 1 2 2 8 7 0 9 Whitehawk Ranch^` 3132 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 5 0 0 11 12 0 7 8 0 13 18 17 0 Location Map (Not to Scale) Mohawk Valley Cemetery District Sphere of Influence Resolution: 76-60 0 0.5 1 2Miles Adopted: November 10, 1976 Source: Plumas LAFCo Map Created 12/3/2016 htroN 12 pihsnwoT Range 11 East Mohawk Valley Cemetery District Plumas County 4 Legend Mohawk Valley Cemetery District Resolution: Highways Parcels Mohawk Valley Cemetery District Formation: January 27, 1947 Major Roads Sectional Grid Mohawk Valley Cemetery District Stream / River (MDB&M) Sphere of Influence Boundary ^` Waterbodies Communities htroN 32 pihsnwoT htroN 22 pihsnwoT Range 12 East PLUMAS LAFCO PLUMAS COUNTY DISTRICTS VOLUME 5 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW Accountability and Governance MoVCD’s governing body is composed of three board members who are appointed by the County Board of Supervisors to four-year terms. Current board member names and positions are shown in Figure 11-2. The District meets quarterly at the Mohawk Community Resource Center in Blairsden. Meetings are scheduled based on availability of board members. Agendas are posted at the Resource Center prior to the meetings. Minutes are maintained by the Chair. Figure 11-2: Mohawk Valley Cemetery District Governing Body Mohawk Valley Cemetery District Governing Body and Board Meetings Manner of Selection Appointed by Board of Supervisors Length of Term Four years Held quarterly at the Mohawk Community Resource Center in Blairsden. Meetings Meetings are scheduled based on availability of board members. Agenda Distribution Posted at Mohawk Community Resource Center Minutes Distribution Minutes are maintained by the President and submitted to County. Board of Directors Board Member Position Term Expiration Andrew Smith Chair 2014 - 2017 Jim Correll Director 2017 Patricia Bridge Director 2016 - 2017 Contact Contact Andrew Smith, Chair Mailing Address P.O. Box 1051, Graeagle, CA 96103 Email/Website MVCDIM2.J@gmail.com Beyond the legally required agendas, MoVCD does not presently conduct extensive outreach to the public. The community is generally aware as to where to find contact information for the District. The previous Board Chair was on the Board for 30 years and worked at a local business where residents knew to come for information on the District’s services. The current Board Chair keeps with this practice by leaving his contact information there. In addition, the District is in the process of developing a website to make more information readily available to the public. Should a member of the public have an issue or concern, they may submit a complaint to the Board Chair via phone or email, or comment during the public comment period at the next meeting of the Board. The Board Chair is generally responsible for handling complaints. The District reported that it had not received any complaints in 2015. The District’s Board members are not compensated. Government Code §53235 requires that if a district provides compensation or reimbursement of expenses to its board members, the board members must receive two hours of training in ethics at least once every two years and the district must establish a written policy on reimbursements. District board members last took part in ethics training in 2016. MOVCD 98 PLUMAS LAFCO PLUMAS COUNTY DISTRICTS VOLUME 5 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW Government Code §87203 requires persons who hold office to disclose their investments, interests in real property and incomes by filing appropriate forms each year. Unlike other counties in the State, the Plumas County Clerk-Recorder does not act as the filing officer for the special districts. Each district holds responsibility for collecting the Form 700s and maintaining copies in their records. All the District’s Board members filed a Form 700 for 2016. MoVCD demonstrated accountability and transparency during the LAFCo MSR process. The District responded to requests for information and documents and took part in an interview. Planning and Management Practices MoVCD employs one person for two separate roles—administration and maintenance. The employee is also the Board Chair. The employee works approximately 20 hours a week combined for both functions. The employee earns a flat rate for each of his roles. The maintenance employee is required to have their own truck for the regular hauling of pine needles, tree limbs, brush, earth, equipment, and other materials. There is no extra pay for costs associated with use of a personal vehicle. Any labor beyond the regular maintenance activities (i.e., burial, maintenance beyond scope of employee) is contracted out. The District does not make use of volunteers, with the exception of the contributed time of the Board Members. The District makes use of Blomberg and Griffin and Associates for its audits. As mentioned, the District’s Board Chair is also an employee of the District providing both maintenance and administrative services, which is allowable under the law. The Conflict of Interest provisions of the Political Reform Act prohibit a public official from participating in a decision that will have a financial effect on his or her financial interests. This prohibition is applied on a decision-by-decision basis. So, it is imperative that the District be diligent in ensuring that the Chair not take part in decisions regarding his employment and pay. The employee is overseen by the Board. While no formal evaluations are conducted of the employee, the Board has chosen to rehire the same person each year indicating acceptable performance in the view of the Board. The work load of the employee is not tracked through a time sheet or other log, as he is paid a flat monthly wage. Similarly, the District does not perform any formal evaluations of its own performance, but, conducts daily cemetery inspections, and relies on public feedback about satisfaction with looks of the cemetery. The District’s financial planning efforts now include annually adopted budgets and financial statements audited every five years, due to the Plumas County Board of Supervisors Resolution 11-7705 making that allowance. The last two-year audit was for the FYs 10 and 11. The District is in the process of working on its audit for FYs 11-12 through 15-16. MoVCD does not adopt a formal Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). Planning for future projects is conducted at the board meetings as needed. Other than informal guidelines developed by the Board as may be found in meeting minutes (and some resolutions regarding budget, conflict of interest, and employment scope), there are no other documents, such as compiled bylaws, policies and procedures, that internally mandate the efforts of the District. The District is considering compiling a list of standard requirements for cemetery items. MOVCD 99 PLUMAS LAFCO PLUMAS COUNTY DISTRICTS VOLUME 5 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW Government Code §53901 states that within 60 days after the beginning of the fiscal year each local agency must submit its budget to the county auditor. These budgets are to be filed and made available on request by the public at the county auditor’s office. All special districts are required to submit annual audits to the County within 12 months of the completion of the fiscal year, unless the Board of Supervisors has approved a biennial or five-year schedule.54 MoVCD is on a five-year audit schedule. The District complies with these requirements. Special districts must submit a report to the State Controller of all financial transactions of the district during the preceding fiscal year within 90 days after the close of each fiscal year, in the form required by the State Controller, pursuant to Government Code §53891. If filed in electronic format, the report must be submitted within 110 days after the end of the fiscal year. The District has complied with this requirement. Existing Demand and Growth Projections The territory within MoVCD has a wide variety of zoning designations, including suburban residential, secondary suburban, 1/7-acre single family residential, 1/3-acre single family residential, 10-acre rural residential, 20-acre rural residential, convenience commercial, recreation, recreation open space, general agriculture, agricultural preserve, general forest, and timberland production. Population There were approximately 1,746 residents within the Johnsville, Plumas Eureka, Graeagle, Blairsden, C Road, Mohawk Vista, Valley Ranch, and Whitehawk Census Designated Places as of 2010. It is assumed, based on growth trends within Plumas County, that the population of the area has remained the same or slightly declined since that time. Existing Demand Demand has reportedly been approximately the same from year to year with no significant changes or fluctuations. The District averages about 13 to 14 burials per year at both of its cemeteries combined. It is anticipated that aging of the population will lead to greater demand for burials. Projected Growth and Development Given historical trends of little to no growth within the District, MoVCD expects continued slow growth in the area. The State Department of Finance (DOF) projects that the population of Plumas County will decrease by four percent in the next 10 years. Thus, the average annual population growth in the County is anticipated to be approximately negative 0.33 percent. Based on these projections, the District’s population would decline to approximately 1,739 in 2020. It is anticipated that demand for services within the District will remain relatively constant based on the DOF population growth projections through 2020. 54 Government Code §26909. MOVCD 100 PLUMAS LAFCO PLUMAS COUNTY DISTRICTS VOLUME 5 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW 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 MoVCD reported that its current financing level appears to be adequate at this time. The District’s primary revenue sources are property taxes, and burial and endowment fees. The District has been able to develop a healthy reserve over the last few years, and fees are sufficient to cover operations and maintenance. The District has made efforts to keep costs low, and compensation for the employee is likely lower than a comparative position. Should the service structure change, then the District would likely require additional funds to maintain the same level of services. Revenues appear to be appropriate to the services offered by and demand for services from the District. The District is not considering any additional revenue sources. MoVCD had a total of $22,929 in revenue in FY 15-16. Revenue sources consisted of property taxes (60 percent) and sale of burial lots (40 percent). The District has a detailed list of fees for the lots by cemetery location for residents and non-residents of the District. The cost for a full burial site alone ranges from $450 to $750 for those inside the District and $900 to $1,500 for those outside of the District. Urn plots range from $225 to $375 for residents and $450 to $750 for non-residents. The District must meet the legally required minimum endowment fee of $4.50 per plot square foot for all plot types.55 Additionally, the principal act requires the District to charge non-resident fees that are at least 15 percent higher than fees charged to residents and property owners.56 It is unclear what MoVCD’s endowment fee is, as it is not itemized on the fee schedule. MoVCD is meeting the fee requirements for non-residents. In FY 15-16, MoVCD’s expenditures totaled $13,891, comprised of salaries and benefits (88 percent), maintenance supplies (four percent), insurance (four percent), office expenses (two percent), and a tax administration fee (three percent). The District did not have long-term debt at the end of FY 15-16. The District has a management practice of maintaining $50,000 in a reserve account for capital needs and maintains a contingency fund for emergency needs. Any remaining balance at the end of the year is rolled over in the cash fund. At the end of FY 15-16, MoVCD had a cash balance of $136,881, which is equivalent to almost 10 years of expenditures for the District. It is unclear from the financial reports what portion of the cash balance is attributed to the endowment fund. 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 55 Health and Safety Code §8738. 56 Health and Safety Code §9068. MOVCD 101 PLUMAS LAFCO PLUMAS COUNTY DISTRICTS VOLUME 5 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW facilities.57 It is recommended that the District maintain a separate defined fund for endowment care fees as required by law. MoVCD is not a member of a joint financing mechanism. CEMETERY SERVICES Service Overview MoVCD operates and maintains Mohawk Valley Cemetery and Johnsville Cemetery, including sales of full-sized and cremated remain plots and regular maintenance of the property eight months of the year. There are no structures on the cemetery grounds, such as vaults and mausoleums. Opening and closing of the burial plots is offered by contractors. The District is a member of the Plumas County Special Districts Association, the California Association of Public Cemeteries, and the Public Cemetery Alliance. MoVCD does not have any equipment to share with other agencies, but is willing to share in the form of knowledge and expertise. The District has been sharing information with Portola Cemetery District. The District reported that it is open to further opportunities to collaborate with other cemetery districts in the area. Facilities and Capacity The District owns and operates two cemeteries. The Mohawk Cemetery is approximately three acres and is broken into two parts (A and B). The three acres of the cemetery is approximately 50 percent filled and is anticipated to last at least for the next 20 years. The District is continually looking for space to expand into neighboring properties. The Johnsville Cemetery is about 2.5 acres. The developed portion of the District is approximately half full, and the undeveloped property is not yet in use. The District estimates that overall, the cemetery space is 35 percent full. Based on existing burial rates, the Johnsville Cemetery is expected to have sufficient capacity for at least 30 years. Infrastructure Needs The District reported that at present there are no significant needs at the cemeteries. There are also no equipment needs. The primary capital need is to ensure sufficient expansion space in the future. MoVCD is looking for neighboring properties for sale that could meet the expansion needs of the cemeteries. Challenges MoVCD does not appear to face any particular challenges to providing adequate services. Revenues are appropriate to the services provided. The District does make a pointed effort to meet all regulations and requirements of a public agency as it finds out about them, which can often be a struggle for smaller districts. MoVCD takes advantage of training sessions offered by the Plumas County Special District’s Association. 57 Health and Safety Code §9065. MOVCD 102 PLUMAS LAFCO PLUMAS COUNTY DISTRICTS VOLUME 5 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW Service Adequacy The following are indicators of service adequacy for cemetery districts, as defined by law or best practices. In some areas Mohawk Valley Cemetery District meets or exceeds service standards for adequate services, while other aspects could be improved upon as shown below. v 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. MoVCD is able to provide regular maintenance during the period when there is no snow. A site visit confirmed that the cemeteries are well maintained. v Health and Safety Code §9068 requires cemetery districts to have non-resident fees. MoVCD appropriately charges additional fees for non-residents of the District. v Health and Safety Code §9065 requires cemetery districts to have an endowment fee. The endowment fees and endowment care fund are not clearly tracked as separate funds. It is recommended that the District clearly note on its fee schedule what the endowment fee is and track it separately in an endowment care fund. v According to Health and Safety Code §8738, a minimum endowment care fee must be $4.50 per plot square foot. It is unknown if MoVCD charges the minimum required fee. The endowment fee should be clearly indicated on the fee schedule. v 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 non-residents, and the family members of any of the above. MoVCD reported that it was unsure of its past practice of burying any interested party regardless of residency, and the District has reportedly resolved anew to review the law and bring it into practice, if there has been any past negligence. v In order to adequately plan for existing and future demand and capacity needs, cemeteries track the number of interments annually. MoVCD tracks the number of annual interments, which is considered a best management practice. MOVCD 103 PLUMAS LAFCO PLUMAS COUNTY DISTRICTS VOLUME 5 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW MOHAWK VALLEY CEMETERY DISTRICT DETERMINATIONS Growth and Population Projections v Mohawk Valley Cemetery District (MoVCD) had approximately 1,746 residents as of the 2010 Census. It is assumed, based on growth trends within Plumas County, that the population of the area has remained the same or slightly declined since that time. v Based on the Department of Finance (DOF) projections, the District’s population will decrease to approximately 1,739 in 2020. It is anticipated that demand for service within the District will remain relatively constant based on the DOF population growth projections through 2020. Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities and Adequacy of Public Services, Including Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies v Demand has reportedly been approximately the same from year to year with no significant changes or fluctuations. The District averages about 13 to 14 burials per year at both of its cemeteries combined. It is anticipated that aging of the population will lead to greater demand for burials. v The District owns and operates two cemeteries. The Mohawk Cemetery is approximately 50 percent full and has about 20 years of remaining space. The Johnsville Cemetery is about 35 percent full and has sufficient capacity for at least 30 years. v MoVCD does not appear to face any particular challenges to providing adequate services. Revenues are appropriate to the services provided. MoVCD meets all legal requirements of cemetery districts, although it is unclear if burial limitations prescribed to non-residents of the District are being met. The District has made a commitment by adopting a resolution to ensure it is in compliance with burial requirements of non-residents. It is recommended that the District clearly note on its fee schedule what the endowment fee is and track it separately in an endowment care fund. v The District does make a pointed effort to meet all regulations and requirements of a public agency as it finds out about them, which can often be a struggle for smaller districts. MoVCD takes advantage of training sessions offered by the Plumas County Special District’s Association. v The District reported that at present there are no significant needs at the cemeteries. There are also no equipment needs. The primary capital need is to ensure sufficient expansion space in the future. Financial Ability of Agencies to Provide Services v MoVCD’s financing level appears to be adequate at this time; however, additional funds would likely be necessary if the operation structure should change. MOVCD 104 PLUMAS LAFCO PLUMAS COUNTY DISTRICTS VOLUME 5 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW v The District update its fees in 2015, and makes efforts to keep expenditures to a minimum. Revenues appear to be appropriate to the services offered by and demand for services from the District. v The District’s fee schedule is adequate as it meets legal requirements and income needs, with the exception that the endowment fee should be clearly defined in the fee structure. v At the end of FY 15-16, MVCD had a cash balance of $136,881, which is equivalent to almost 10 years of expenditures for the District. Of the cash balance, $50,000 was dedicated to reserves. While the remainder of the balance has not been earmarked for a particular project, the District is considering purchasing expansion property, which will require significant funds. v The District maintains an endowment fund as required by law to ensure care for the cemetery in perpetuity. Status of, and Opportunities for, Shared Facilities v MoVCD does not have any equipment to share with other agencies, but is willing to share in the form of knowledge and expertise. The District has been sharing information with Portola Cemetery District. The District reported that it is open to further opportunities to collaborate with other cemetery districts in the area. Accountability for Community Service Needs, Including Governmental Structure and Operational Efficiencies v MoVCD demonstrated accountability in its disclosure of information and cooperation with Plumas LAFCo. The District was highly cooperative with requests for information. v There is a need for a clear distinction between Board Members and the employee to ensure there is no conflict of interest. It is imperative that the District be diligent in ensuring that the Chair does not take part in decisions regarding his employment and pay. v Cromberg Cemetery District demonstrated poor accountability by not responding to repeated attempts at contact. Cromberg Cemetery District is also barely able to maintain an operational governing body. Given proximity, and that MoVCD is well managed and appears to meet legal requirements, there is the potential for MoVCD to annex the Cromberg territory and take over cemetery services in that area. MOVCD 105 PLUMAS LAFCO PLUMAS COUNTY DISTRICTS VOLUME 5 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW 12. CO U N TY S ERV I C E A R EA 7 ( WA RNER VA L L EY) County Service Area 7 (CSA 7), which is located in Warner Valley, is inactive and provides no services. AGENCY OVERVIEW Background CSA 7 was formed on February 19, 1974.58 It was formed to provide sewer, water, extended police protection, structural fire protection, park and recreation, pest control, street lighting, street maintenance, garbage and refuse collection, and storm drainage services. At present, the District does not provide any of these services. Records show that these services were never initiated. The principal act that governs CSA 7 is the County Service Area law.59 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.60 A CSA may only provide those services authorized in its formation resolution unless the Board of Supervisors adopts a resolution authorizing additional services. All 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 2000.61 Boundaries The District’s boundaries encompass 0.02 square miles along Harkness Drive, northwest of Chester near the Lassen and Shasta county lines. There have been no changes to the District’s boundaries since formation. 58 Plumas County Board of Supervisors Resolution No. 74-2547. 59 California Government Code §25210 et seq 60 California Government Code §25213. 61 Government Code §56824.10. CSA 7 106 Plumas County Service Area 7 Warner Valley Range 6 East Juniper Lake 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 30 29 28 27 26 25 C 36 31 32 33 hester W 34 35 36 arner Valley R d 1 Willow Lake 6 5 4 Lois Ln 3 2 1 Domingo Lake Fleischmann Lake 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 C h Cameron Meadows e s te r W a rn e r V a lle y R C hester Ju n ip er Lake R d d 13 18 17 16 Rim Dr Warner 15 14 13 R C im re R e k d D r 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 Plumas County Service Area 7 Sphere of Influence Resolution: 76-23 Adopted: May 21, 1976 0 0.25 0.5 1Miles Source: Plumas LAFCo Map Created 11/25/2016 htroN 92 pihsnwoT Plumas CSA 7 Plumas County Location Map (Not to Scale) 4 Legend Plumas County Service Area 7 Plumas County Service Area 7 Resolution: 74-2547 Highways Parcels (Warner Valley) Adopted: February 19, 1974 Major Roads Sectional Grid Plumas County Service Area 7 Stream / River (MDB&M) (Warner Valley) ^` Sphere of Influence Boundary Waterbodies Communities htroN 92 pihsnwoT PLUMAS LAFCO PLUMAS COUNTY DISTRICTS VOLUME 5 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW Sphere of Influence The CSA 7 SOI was established in 1976.62 The SOI was expanded beyond the District’s boundaries to include developed and rural zoned lands in Warner Valley, extending to Lassen Park, and encompasses 5.24 square miles. The District’s boundaries and SOI are shown in Figure 13-1. Population and Land Use The District consists of 21 lots within the Warner Valley subdivision, of which five have single family residential structures and the other 16 are vacant. All of the lots are zoned as secondary subdivision and the General Plan land use designation is secondary suburban residential. The CSA is estimated to have a population of 11 based on the average household size in Plumas County of 2.29 individuals and the number of residences within the CSA. Given the land use designation and number of vacant properties within the CSA, there is the potential for growth in the District. There are no specific plans for development at this time. Accountability and Governance As a dependent special district of the County, CSA 7 is governed by the five Supervisors of the Plumas County Board of Supervisors. Board members are elected by supervisorial districts and serve staggered four-year terms. The Governing Board meets on the first three Tuesday mornings of every month in the Courthouse Board of Supervisors’ Chambers. The Governing Board meeting agendas are a part of the Board of Supervisors’ agendas and are posted on the Plumas County website. Governing Board meeting minutes are also available on the Plumas County website. Figure 12-2: CSA 7 Governing Body County Service Area 7 Governing Body Name Position Term Ends Michael Sanchez District 1 2020 Members Kevin Goss District 2 2020 Sherrie Thrall District 3 2018 Lori Simpson District 4 2020 Jeff Engel District 5 2018 Manner of Selection Election Length of Term 4 years First three Tuesdays of every Supervisors Board Room, Meetings month at 10 am County Court House Agenda Distribution Posted on County’s website 62 LAFCO Resolution No. 76-23 CSA 7 108 PLUMAS LAFCO PLUMAS COUNTY DISTRICTS VOLUME 5 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW Minutes Distribution Posted on County’s website Contact Plumas County Department of Contact Public Works Mailing Address 1834 E Main St, Quincy, CA 95971 Phone (530)283-6268 Email/Website http://www.countyofplumas.com/index.aspx?NID=76 Plumas County makes available its budget, general plan, emergency operations plan and other documents on its website. No information about CSA 7 is available on the County website. Government Code §87203 requires persons who hold office to disclose their investments, interests in real property and incomes by filing appropriate forms each year. Unlike other counties in the State, the Plumas County Clerk-Recorder does not act as the filing officer for the independent special districts. Each district holds responsibility for collecting the Form 700s and maintaining copies in their records. However, because the District’s governing body consists of the Board of Supervisors, the County Clerk of the Board acts as the filing officer and maintains copies of each Supervisor’s Form 700 submittals. Each of the board members has filed the required Form 700s for 2016. CSA 7 (via County staff) demonstrated accountability and transparency in its disclosure of information and cooperation with Plumas LAFCo. County Department of Public Works staff were cooperative in providing all requested information. Financing Based on correspondence from Plumas County staff, the District has no active accounts or fund balances, and no outstanding debts or nonmonetary assets.63 63 Correspondence with Rob Thorman, Engineering Technician II, November 29, 2016. CSA 7 109 PLUMAS LAFCO PLUMAS COUNTY DISTRICTS VOLUME 5 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW WARNER VALLEY COUNTY SERVICE AREA 7 DETERMINATIONS Growth and Population Projections v County Service Area (CSA) 7 Warner Valley is estimated to have a population of 11 as of 2017. v The District consists of 21 lots within the Warner Valley subdivision, of which five have single family residential structures and the other 16 are vacant. All of the lots are zoned as secondary subdivision and the General Plan land use designation is secondary suburban residential. v Given the land use designation and number of vacant properties within the CSA, there is the potential for growth in the District. There are no specific plans for development at this time. Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities and Adequacy of Public Services, Including Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies v CSA 7 was formed to provide sewer, water, extended police protection, structural fire protection, park and recreation, pest control, street lighting, street maintenance, garbage and refuse collection, and storm drainage services; however, these services were never initiated. v CSA 7 is inactive and does not own or operate any facilities or infrastructure. Financial Ability of Agencies to Provide Services v Because the CSA is inactive, there are no revenues or expenditures associated with its activities. v As of 2017, the CSA has no active accounts or fund balances, and no outstanding debts or nonmonetary assets. Status of, and Opportunities for, Shared Facilities v The CSA is governed and managed by the County, and in essence, practices resource sharing by making use of County personnel for administration. Accountability for Community Service Needs, Including Governmental Structure and Operational Efficiencies v CSA 7 demonstrated accountability in its disclosure of information and cooperation with Plumas LAFCo. The District responded to the questionnaires and cooperated with the document requests. CSA 7 110 PLUMAS LAFCO PLUMAS COUNTY DISTRICTS VOLUME 5 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW v Given that the CSA has remained inactive for the last 40 years and there are no future plans for development of the area, it is recommended that LAFCo adopt a zero SOI and summarily dissolve CSA 7. CSA 7 111 PLUMAS LAFCO PLUMAS COUNTY DISTRICTS VOLUME 5 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW 13. CO U N TY S ERV I C E A R EA 10 ( BI G M EA DOWS) County Service Area 10 (CSA 10) in Big Meadows is inactive and provides no services. AGENCY OVERVIEW Background CSA 10 was formed on November 26, 1974.64 It was formed to provide sewer, water, extended police protection, structural fire protection, park and recreation, pest control, street lighting, street maintenance, garbage and refuse collection, and storm drainage services. At present, the District does not provide any of these services. Records show that these services were never initiated. The principal act that governs CSA 10 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 adopts a resolution authorizing additional services. All 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 2000.67 Boundaries The District’s boundaries encompass 0.06 square miles just to the south of Lake Almanor. The CSA includes the parcels along Big Meadows Lane, North Drive, West Drive, East Drive, and South Drive. There have been no changes to the District’s boundaries since formation. 64 LAFCO Resolution No. 74-08. 65 California Government Code §25210 et seq 66 California Government Code §25213. 67 Government Code §56824.10. CSA 10 112 Plumas County Service Area 10 Big Meadows Range 8 East UV 89 Rd ws Meado Big 17 18 Bg Meadows Ln North Dr Dr rD st ts e a W E 20 19 South Dr 4 Legend Plumas County Service Area 10 Plumas County Service Area 10 Resolution: 74-08 Highways Parcels (Big Meadows) Adopted: August 28, 1974 Major Roads Sectional Grid Plumas County Service Area 10 Plumas County Service Area 10 Stream / River (MDB&M) (Big Meadows) Sphere of Influence ^` Sphere of Influence Boundary Resolution: 76-22 Waterbodies Communities Adopted: May 21, 1976 0 165 330 660Feet Source: Plumas LAFCo Map Created 11/26/2016 htroN 72 pihsnwoT Plumas CSA 10 Plumas County Location Map (Not to Scale) PLUMAS LAFCO PLUMAS COUNTY DISTRICTS VOLUME 5 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW Sphere of Influence The CSA 10 SOI was established in 1976.68 The SOI is coterminous with the District’s boundaries and encompasses 0.06 square miles. The District’s boundaries and SOI are shown in Figure 13-1. Population and Land Use CSA 10 consists of 11 lots within the community of Big Meadows, of which one has a verified single family residence. While five other lots have structures on them, it could not be confirmed that they were residences. At least five of the lots are vacant. All of the lots are zoned as secondary subdivision and the General Plan land use designation is secondary suburban residential. The CSA is estimated to have a population of between two and 14 based on the average household size in Plumas County of 2.29 individuals and the number of residences within the CSA. Given the land use designation and number of vacant properties within the CSA, there is the potential for growth in the District. There are no specific plans for development at this time. Accountability and Governance As a dependent special district of the County, CSA 10 is governed by the five Supervisors of the Plumas County Board of Supervisors. Board members are elected by supervisorial districts and serve staggered four-year terms. The Governing Board meets on the first three Tuesday mornings of every month in the Courthouse Board of Supervisors’ Chambers. The Governing Board meeting agendas are a part of the Board of Supervisors’ agendas and are posted on the Plumas County website. Governing Board meeting minutes are also available on the Plumas County website. Figure 13-2: CSA 10 Governing Body County Service Area 10 Governing Body Name Position Term Ends Michael Sanchez District 1 2020 Members Kevin Goss District 2 2020 Sherrie Thrall District 3 2018 Lori Simpson District 4 2020 Jeff Engel District 5 2018 Manner of Selection Election Length of Term 4 years First three Tuesdays of every Supervisors Board Room, Meetings month at 10 am County Court House 68 LAFCO Resolution No. 76-22 CSA 10 114 PLUMAS LAFCO PLUMAS COUNTY DISTRICTS VOLUME 5 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW Agenda Distribution Posted on County’s website Minutes Distribution Posted on County’s website Contact Plumas County Department of Contact Public Works Mailing Address 1834 E Main St, Quincy, CA 95971 Phone (530)283-6268 Email/Website http://www.countyofplumas.com/index.aspx?NID=76 Plumas County makes available its budget, general plan, emergency operations plan and other documents on its website. No information about CSA 10 is available on the County website. Government Code §87203 requires persons who hold office to disclose their investments, interests in real property and incomes by filing appropriate forms each year. Unlike other counties in the State, the Plumas County Clerk-Recorder does not act as the filing officer for the independent special districts. Each district holds responsibility for collecting the Form 700s and maintaining copies in their records. However, because the District’s governing body consists of the Board of Supervisors, the County Clerk of the Board acts as the filing officer and maintains copies of each Supervisor’s Form 700 submittals. Each of the board members has filed the required Form 700s for 2016. CSA 10 (via County staff) demonstrated accountability and transparency in its disclosure of information and cooperation with Plumas LAFCo. County Department of Public Works staff were cooperative in providing all requested information. Financing Based on correspondence from Plumas County staff, the District has no active accounts or fund balances, and no outstanding debts or nonmonetary assets.69 69 Correspondence with Rob Thorman, Engineering Technician II, November 29, 2016. CSA 10 115 PLUMAS LAFCO PLUMAS COUNTY DISTRICTS VOLUME 5 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW BIG MEADOWS COUNTY SERVICE AREA 10 DETERMINATIONS Growth and Population Projections v County Service Area (CSA) 10 Big Meadows is estimated to have a population of between two and 14 as of 2017. v CSA 10 consists of 11 lots within the community of Big Meadows, of which one has a verified single family residence. At least five of the lots are vacant. All of the lots are zoned as secondary subdivision and the General Plan land use designation is secondary suburban residential. v Given the land use designation and number of vacant properties within the CSA, there is the potential for growth in the District. There are no specific plans for development at this time. Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities and Adequacy of Public Services, Including Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies v CSA 10 was formed to provide sewer, water, extended police protection, structural fire protection, park and recreation, pest control, street lighting, street maintenance, garbage and refuse collection, and storm drainage services; however, these services were never initiated. v CSA 10 is inactive and does not own or operate any facilities or infrastructure. Financial Ability of Agencies to Provide Services v Because the CSA is inactive, there are no revenues or expenditures associated with its activities. v As of 2017, the CSA has no active accounts or fund balances, and no outstanding debts or nonmonetary assets. Status of, and Opportunities for, Shared Facilities v The CSA is governed and managed by the County, and in essence, practices resource sharing by making use of County personnel for administration. Accountability for Community Service Needs, Including Governmental Structure and Operational Efficiencies v CSA 10 demonstrated accountability in its disclosure of information and cooperation with Plumas LAFCo. The District responded to the questionnaires and cooperated with the document requests. CSA 10 116 PLUMAS LAFCO PLUMAS COUNTY DISTRICTS VOLUME 5 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW v Given that the CSA has remained inactive for the last 40 years and there are no future plans for development of the area, it is recommended that LAFCo adopt a zero SOI and summarily dissolve CSA 10. CSA 10 117 PLUMAS LAFCO PLUMAS COUNTY DISTRICTS VOLUME 5 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW 14. CO U N TY S ERV I C E A R EA 12 County Service Area (CSA) 12 acts a pass through for financing for transit services in Plumas County. This is the first Municipal Service Review for the District. AGENCY OVERVIEW Background CSA 12 was formed March 24, 1982 as a dependent special district of the County.70 The District was formed to continue to provide needed Senior Transportation, transportation outside the County for specialized medical treatment, and a framework for expansion of the transportation program should there prove to be an unmet need at a future date. The principal act that governs CSA 12 is the County Service Area law.71 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.72 A CSA may only provide those services authorized in its formation resolution unless the Board of Supervisors adopts a resolution authorizing additional services. All 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 2000.73 Boundaries CSA 12’s boundaries encompass the entirety of the County, including the City of Portola. Since formation, no annexation or reorganizations of the District’s boundaries have occurred. Sphere of Influence A sphere of influence for CSA 12 was never adopted. Figure 14-1 shows the CSA’s boundaries. Extra-territorial Services The CSA funds transit services within Plumas County. The transit system makes connections with other transit systems with routes outside of the County. In addition, the Seniors Transportation, which is partially subsidized by CSA 12, offers a system to take seniors to Reno for shopping and health purposes. On a trial basis, Seniors Transportation is making leftover seats available to the public on the Reno bus. 70 LAFCo Resolution 82-01. 71 California Government Code §25210 et seq 72 California Government Code §25213. 73 Government Code §56824.10. CSA 12 118 Plumas County Service Area 12 R 5 E 232419202122232419202122232419202122232419202122 262530292827262530292827262530292827262530292827 3631323334353631323334353631323334353631323334 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 12 7 8 9 101112 7 8 91011127 8 9101112 7 8 910 1318171615141318171615141318171615141318171615 2419202122232419202122232419202122232419202122 2530292827262530292827262530292827262530292827 3 1 1 6 2 3 6 7 13 5 8 23 4 9 33 1 3 4 0 C 11 he 1 s 2 t 1 e 7 r 6 ^` 3 5 2 8 3 9 4 33 1 3 4 0 3 1 2 5 1 3 1 1 6 2 3 7 6 13 5 8 2UV3 9 3 3 6 3 1 4 0 3 15 12 6 7 5 8 4 91 3 01 2 11 1 27 6 5 8 1318171615141318Lake Almano^`r 17^`16Hamilton Branch 13181716151413181716151413 1 1 3 3 9 8 0 1 2 2 3 1 2 3 2 9 0 2 7 0 2 9 2 3 1 3 2 1 2 2 2 1 2 4 4 9 9 9 3 1 1 3 6 3 1 6 8 8 4 9 8 6 1 3 6 1 1 3 2 2 3 2 1 1 1 1 2 5 1 1 2 1 3 2 1 3 3 3 0 4 2 2 4 7 5 0 5 0 7 3 0 5 7 0 2 5 4 1 1 1 1 2 2 3 2 2 3 1 3 2 1 4 2 2 1 1 2 3 1 2 2 1 2 4 2 3 3 0 3 5 6 S 2 1 1 6 5 5 6 2 0 4 1 6 5 3 5 1 0 4 1 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 1 3 0 1 t 1 1 1 2 1 3 4 o 2 6 6 8 3 1 3 3 1 0 1 1 3 3 1 1 7 3 3 r 6 0 1 7 1 3 6 1 8 6 7 1 0 9 3 L 9 8 3 0 1 6 7 UV 8 9 0 1 r 8 1 9 0 3 0 i a 3 1 2 2 3 1 e 2 3 2 6 8 5 8 1 2 2 k 2 3 2 1 2 2 7 9 0 2 7 3 3 0 5 2 9 8 5 8 8 5 7 9 0 ^` 2 0 7 9 0 1 e 2 2 3 2 2 1 2 3 2 1 2 2 3 6 ^` 1 9 2 4 9 3 3 2 2 2 8 2 2 1 1 6 1 A 3 8 3 6 1 8 3 4 9 4 9 9 0 6 4 1 0 4 3 7 8 8 8 1 1 6 3 3 2 2 l 1 1 3 2 2 1 1 3 2 2 B m 3 1 4 2 3 7 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 0 2 2 3 5 3 4 7 1 2 5 0 4 2 7 3 3 T 3 3 0 7 4 0 2 e 7 2 5 0 2 7 4 4 0 a 2 2 3 1 2 2 1 o 3 2 1 2 1 3 l 2 3 3 2 6 1 2 n 2 2 5 d 1 4 2 3 1 3 1 1 1 2 6 1 3 5 1 6 4 3 2 5 b 2 2 2 1 5 6 3 3 6 1 1 4 3 5 5 1 4 6 o e 1 3 1 2 2 i 2 3 2 1 2 1 2 3 0 n 3 2 1 1 n r 2 2 3 6 2 2 4 1 2 1 1 5 3 2 1 2 1 3 5 6 4 3 1 4 2 5 6 1 1 1 ^` 6 5 2 5 4 4 2 4 3 2 6 5 2 4 0 3 6 1 W 0 UV P 1 3 1 3 3 1 1 3 8 3 B 8 1 3 3 1 1 6 7 1 1 3 9 3 3 1 1 1 9 3 1 r 1 0 3 7 6 7 8 9 0 6 7 6 6 1 e 1 7 9 8 0 1 9 8 8 9 0 0 1 9 a u 8 0 9 1 7 s 3 2 3 2 1 C ^` t 2 3 1 1 2 3 2 2 c 5 1 0 2 3 8 2 1 5 2 8 8 5 2 2 t t 3 0 2 9 5 A 8 7 5 0 2 7 8 7 9 2 9 0 7 k a 0 v 2 9 8 5 7 9 0 2 P 2 3 l 2 3 2 s r 1 i 1 2 3 2 2 3 4 2 1 1 m 4 2 1 9 3 2 8 l 3 9 4 2 e 2 3 9 4 i 8 3 1 4 4 9 6 9 1 6 1 3 1 8 3 8 6 l 9 b 6 8 6 3 1 4 9 1 L 8 3 0 e n 6 2 a 3 2 2 1 3 o 2 1 1 1 3 3 2 1 1 2 2 a 1 3 2 1 1 3 2 1 i 2 3 2 3 3 2 n 2 7 3 0 3 4 ^` 2 5 5 n 1 0 1 3 4 4 7 0 u 5 7 2 0 7 5 5 4 2 0 k L 7 4 2 ^` o 0 5 C 2 · s |}þ 3 2 1 e 1 1 3 1 2 2 ^` 3 1 2 2 2 a 2 2 3 2 1 2 1 M 1 7 1 3 2 r ^` 3 2 2 1 u 2 5 6 1 1 1 4 1 5 o 6 3 5 4 3 3 6 6 0 5 6 1 4 3 4 1 2 k 2 5 6 3 1 4 ^` l e 2 1 1 u 2 1 a 2 1 1 e 2 3 2 3 2 2 1 3 1 2 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 a 1 2 2 C 2 3 3 1 4 1 2 1 4 2 3 5 6 5 n 6 1 4 5 3 6 3 4 6 4 5 3 2 2 3 2 5 4 6 3 d A a 1 1 1 0 1 3 1 1 t 3 1 3 3 1 3 0 3 1 1 3 1 3 6 7 7 o 6 6 1 7 9 3 1 3 1 7 6 n 2 8 r 6 9 0 8 9 l 1 8 7 0 1 9 1 0 9 8 7 6 0 9 1 8 m y 0 9 1 8 w y 2 3 2 1 2 1 2 5 2 2 2 1 3 2 1 5 3 8 1 2 2 2 3 5 2 1 5 5 8 3 2 o 0 2 9 7 8 5 1 0 7 9 9 0 0 7 2 8 C a 0 7 1 2 7 9 0 8 9 L 2 V 0 7 2 9 7 n 6 1 n 2 2 3 2 1 2 2 i 3 2 2 l 4 1 a 2 9 2 1 2 3 2 3 4 1 t 2 2 4 3 9 6 u 8 1 3 4 9 1 6 8 4 1 1 3 8 1 9 6 o D 8 1 t 6 8 3 1 l 3 9 6 8 1 3 l l 6 b UV 1 1 1 2 3 2 r e e 2 1 2 2 3 a 1 ^` ^` 1 3 2 2 1 2 2 1 3 3 3 T 1 1 2 5 2 3 0 3 3 4 7 4 2 1 1 3 2 5 2 7 4 y 0 5 2 m 7 5 2 7 0 4 4 5 0 2 w G 7 4 0 0 7 ^` 5 1 1 3 3 2 2 2 2 3 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 2 3 1 3 2 2 2 1 1 1 a r 2 2 4 3 5 2 5 6 2 1 3 3 6 5 1 4 4 1 4 3 1 3 6 6 5 5 a 1 3 4 4 6 i P 5 1 0 n 1 3 2 1 s 2 1 1 2 3 1 2 2 3 3 1 1 2 1 1 2 2 3 3 2 a 1 1 1 1 2 2 3 1 1 3 6 4 2 1 4 3 3 4 6 2 s 5 5 6 6 2 2 4 3 3 4 5 6 6 5 2 3 4 x 5 6 1 1 1 3 3 1 3 3 1 t 1 3 1 3 3 1 8 1 V 1 3 3 1 3 3 6 1 7 6 3 3 7 1 6 9 8 7 6 7 o 1 0 8 6 7 1 0 9 9 1 8 0 1 9 8 9 1 7 0 8 1 0 8 a 0 1 9 n 1 2 2 3 1 2 2 ^` l 1 3 2 3 2 2 3 1 2 1 2 2 1 3 5 8 2 2 3 l 8 5 8 5 7 9 0 8 5 2 5 7 8 9 0 7 8 2 0 5 2 9 9 2 7 0 e 7 8 0 9 7 2 0 9 2 y 2 1 2 3 ^` 1 2 2 ^` 3 2 2 2 3 1 2 9 1 4 2 1 3 2 3 1 2 9 4 3 2 4 9 9 1 6 4 9 8 3 4 1 9 6 1 8 3 1 8 8 3 6 1 6 1 6 3 8 3 6 1 3 8 4 9 6 ^` ^` 1 1 2 2 3 1 1 3 1 1 2 1 2 3 3 1 2 2 3 1 2 2 3 1 1 1 3 3 2 0 2 5 3 7 2 E 3 4 1 1 3 0 5 4 5 0 2 0 7 4 5 2 2 4 5 7 7 4 3 0 5 0 4 7 2 0 5 a I ^` ^` 1 2 UV 3 1 n 3 K 2 1 1 2 2 2 1 2 1 3 1 2 1 2 2 1 3 2 1 2 s 4 8 2 Q 1 1 6 5 2 4 5 3 1 4 4 6 3 1 4 6 1 5 2 d 3 1 4 5 6 3 e 9 t 1 4 G u 1 2 3 i 1 d 1 3 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 3 2 2 Q 1 1 1 a 2 2 1 3 1 5 6 1 i r 3 2 6 5 3 2 3 4 4 3 ^` 6 5 4 d 2 3 5 4 n n e u 6 2 1 3 i 3 1 3 c 1 1 3 3 3 1 6 e 3 4 1 1 e 8 i 6 6 1 7 7 6 ^` F 7 1 9 0 n 8 8 1 1 0 9 7 0 y 8 9 n 8 C 1 a 3 2 2 c 3 2 3 2 2 v 1 5 2 3 2 1 1 2 3 7 S 1 2 2 0 5 9 5 8 l 8 8 r 5 y 2 9 2 8 0 0 7 l 0 2 9 7 7 9 i 2 7 0 e s p l 1 2 2 3 l 1 2 2 2 3 3 s 1 2 2 2 1 4 2 3 3 e 9 6 r 8 1 1 4 3 9 4 9 4 9 6 4 9 1 8 1 3 3 6 8 i 8 1 6 c 8 3 3 6 n 1 1 2 2 3 e 1 1 2 2 3 1 2 3 3 2 2 2 3 1 1 1 2 3 3 2 g 2 5 0 2 1 3 2 3 1 7 3 4 2 0 ^` 5 n 2 2 0 2 3 4 4 7 7 7 4 0 5 5 7 4 2 7 0 4 2 5 7 2 1 1 t 2 3 2 G 1 1 2 2 1 3 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 4 3 3 5 6 1 2 2 2 1 2 1 M 4 T 3 6 4 5 6 2 5 5 3 6 3 1 1 6 4 3 a 6 5 1 4 3 6 a 1 1 2 2 3 1 1 r 2 2 i 2 3 2 3 2 2 1 3 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 2 3 3 l 4 y 1 5 1 1 d 1 2 6 2 3 2 3 5 4 5 6 4 6 5 4 l 1 2 6 2 3 5 4 3 5 6 2 3 4 l s 6 5 e 6 o 1 3 1 3 1 1 3 3 3 1 1 3 3 1 n 7 3 6 3 7 1 1 1 ^` 7 6 6 1 7 3 3 8 r 0 9 1 1 3 3 1 8 9 0 1 0 8 9 0 1 9 6 0 6 7 1 8 9 8 9 s 0 1 8 9 1 0 6 7 3 2 1 2 2 2 v 1 1 2 3 2 2 2 5 3 5 8 2 1 2 8 8 3 5 1 2 2 9 2 7 0 3 0 9 3 5 8 7 1 i 7 0 5 2 9 8 J 0 9 2 5 9 7 0 8 2 5 7 0 l P 9 2 2 7 l o 1 3 2 2 2 2 1 ^` 1 2 3 2 4 9 2 e 2 9 3 4 l 1 2 G 9 2 1 3 9 3 2 6 3 1 4 1 3 8 8 4 h 9 1 u 6 6 1 3 1 8 9 8 · 3 |}þ 4 6 1 1 6 3 4 3 8 6 3 r 7 n m 3 3 1 2 2 1 2 1 2 2 3 1 1 2 1 2 e 2 3 3 0 1 1 2 1 3 3 3 2 2 1 3 4 1 s 4 0 2 7 5 3 7 3 0 2 2 4 5 0 2 5 7 7 4 5 e 0 2 3 a 5 4 4 7 2 5 0 3 v 4 1 3 3 2 2 2 0 n 1 2 1 s 2 2 1 1 3 1 2 3 2 1 2 1 2 i 3 1 2 2 1 2 2 3 4 1 1 1 5 2 5 6 3 6 1 3 4 3 1 l 6 3 4 1 2 5 3 h 1 5 6 4 2 3 5 4 1 6 3 l 5 1 E 4 1 5 e 1 2 1 3 o 2 2 3 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 3 2 3 2 ^` 1 1 1 2 u 1 3 1 1 2 1 1 3 2 3 4 1 2 6 1 5 5 1 6 ^` 3 4 3 2 2 4 1 1 r 2 3 5 6 4 2 6 5 3 2 4 6 1 2 3 4 2 6 5 r 2 3 n 6 3 5 4 1 1 3 6 e 3 3 3 1 1 3 1 7 3 3 3 1 1 1 7 6 1 3 6 7 0 1 6 3 1 3 7 9 8 3 7 1 1 C 0 0 1 3 9 8 3 0 1 9 6 k 1 1 0 9 8 7 8 9 1 8 0 9 1 0 8 0 6 G 1 8 7 a r 5 1 2 2 3 2 2 3 8 2 2 1 3 1 3 2 2 1 2 2 8 5 o 5 2 3 2 1 8 5 2 8 3 8 1 r 7 9 0 2 0 9 2 0 9 7 1 5 2 7 ^` 2 0 9 7 0 0 9 0 2 9 7 5 8 5 9 8 a 2 m 7 7 V 4 2 3 1 2 2 2 3 2 1 2 3 9 2 1 e 2 2 4 3 1 2 0 9 2 4 4 9 2 3 1 9 3 2 a 1 3 9 6 1 1 8 1 3 8 6 8 b 3 8 4 6 1 8 9 4 3 a 6 1 8 1 3 4 6 3 8 6 3 l 2 e 1 2 2 2 3 1 2 1 g l 2 1 3 2 3 1 1 2 2 3 1 3 1 3 2 2 3 7 ^` e 3 2 1 2 ^` r 3 3 0 7 7 2 4 1 1 5 2 5 2 0 4 7 4 0 3 5 l 2 7 4 0 5 7 2 g 4 3 y 2 3 5 7 e 4 0 5 B 3 2 2 1 2 1 2 3 2 1 5 2 3 1 1 1 2 2 3 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 3 2 1 5 2 R 6 3 4 6 4 3 1 1 3 1 5 1 3 6 5 2 2 2 1 1 4 3 6 l 5 1 4 3 6 5 2 3 4 6 1 a 5 4 1 6 3 a 2 3 2 2 2 1 3 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 3 2 3 2 1 1 1 1 i 2 1 3 ^` 2 1 1 ^` 2 n 4 6 5 2 5 4 3 2 6 2 2 3 2 1 3 4 1 3 2 5 r 6 1 4 6 5 ^` 2 3 4 6 5 3 2 1 4 5 6 4 5 2 s 3 c 1 1 3 3 7 3 6 3 1 1 3 3 6 7 3 1 7 1 6 ^` 3 3 6 h d 1 6 1 8 9 0 1 C 0 1 8 7 9 0 1 7 6 9 1 8 D 7 0 2 1 2 8 3 9 5 8 e L C l 2 7 6 3 9 2 5 1 2 3 0 1 2 2 2 5 3 e i 5 5 2 2 8 8 3 1 1 n 2 ^` a 9 2 o 9 7 0 2 8 7 0 9 2 - 8 3 8 9 0 2 l 7 1 7 2 2 0 3 5 R k 4 9 l 2 5 2 3 6 2 1 8 3 4 1 1 e 3 2 4 3 2 e 4 9 4 2 9 1 2 3 o 1 2 3 1 3 8 6 3 6 1 2 9 9 3 2 8 k 4 W 9 1 1 6 8 3 2 1 2 6 3 1 4 3 a 3 1 D 3 8 3 e 0 7 2 5 1 3 2 1 3 2 4 1 1 2 3 2 d 2 3 3 2 1 3 1 1 1 2 h 3 r 1 2 0 4 5 4 7 ^` a 0 5 2 2 2 4 7 ^` 3 2 7 0 4 0 5 1 5 1 2 2 2 3 4 3 0 i 2 7 2 ^`v 1 4 2 2 t 1 6 3 3 5 1 1 1 2 2 3 2 2 1 e 2 1 3 1 i 2 2 1 3 6 3 4 5 1 1 1 2 4 6 2 3 s 5 2 I 1 3 6 1 1 4 5 2 4 1 2 h 3 3 6 5 2 1 r 1 3 6 2 3 4 1 2 3 2 5 1 6 o 2 1 ^` 2 a 3 3 1 2 3 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 3 5 6 4 2 1 2 4 3 2 1 5 6 6 n w 5 6 3 4 2 1 2 1 4 3 3 3 5 1 2 6 4 5 7 8 9 3 1 3 3 1 0 1 P 1 3 3 7 6 1 1 3 k 6 1 6 H 7 3 3 7 0 9 1 6 1 8 9 0 1 8 9 0 1 o 3 2 2 6 1 3 1 2 2 3 7 5 8 o R 5 8 7 2 2 2 1 3 0 9 2 1 2 2 7 1 r 0 2 5 9 2 2 3 5 8 5 5 8 r 0 0 9 7 2 9 7 t 9 a 7 9 0 2 8 s 2 2 1 3 o 1 2 2 3 4 9 4 n 9 2 2 1 1 2 8 1 2 6 3 3 e 4 1 6 1 2 2 8 3 3 9 l 4 4 4 9 1 8 6 6 1 c a 8 3 6 1 8 3 9 1 1 2 2 3 1 2 1 2 h 3 3 1 3 2 1 1 2 1 0 5 3 2 2 3 7 2 1 4 0 1 2 2 5 7 2 3 4 3 3 0 3 2 5 5 7 0 4 7 2 3 0 5 2 7 4 1 2 1 3 2 1 2 3 4 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 3 ^` 2 1 1 2 1 4 3 5 6 2 1 1 2 4 1 2 3 5 6 2 3 0 2 1 4 3 6 1 5 6 4 3 1 4 6 3 5 1 1 2 2 3 1 1 2 2 3 1 1 1 1 2 1 3 B 1 2 2 2 3 3 4 1 5 6 1 1 2 2 2 3 1 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 5 2 6 3 5 4 6 2 3 4 5 6 e 3 3 1 1 1 1 3 3 7 6 1 3 6 3 7 1 1 c 3 3 0 6 1 9 8 7 9 8 1 3 0 7 6 1 1 3 6 8 0 1 8 9 0 1 k 8 0 9 1 2 2 1 3 1 2 2 3 5 1 8 w 2 8 5 3 1 2 3 2 0 9 7 5 2 8 7 1 0 2 9 2 5 8 2 3 7 5 9 2 7 0 2 9 o 7 9 0 2 1 2 2 3 1 2 2 3 4 9 4 1 3 9 2 1 u 2 2 3 6 8 1 4 3 9 1 4 6 2 1 2 9 8 3 3 4 6 3 8 6 8 1 3 r 6 1 8 3 1 2 2 1 3 1 1 t 2 2 3 1 3 1 3 3 2 1 1 2 2 h 0 3 7 2 3 5 4 1 1 2 0 5 3 2 2 7 3 4 0 3 5 4 7 0 5 7 2 4 5 0 2 7 4 2 1 1 2 3 1 3 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 3 1 2 1 2 1 3 1 2 2 3 4 6 5 1 4 2 2 1 2 5 6 3 3 2 1 6 4 3 5 1 4 3 5 6 4 3 6 5 1 1 2 2 3 1 1 2 2 3 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 3 1 2 2 3 2 3 4 5 1 6 2 2 2 3 1 5 4 3 6 1 2 5 4 3 2 6 3 4 5 6 4 5 6 1 1 3 3 1 1 3 3 7 6 3 3 1 1 6 1 1 7 3 3 8 6 7 9 0 1 1 8 3 7 6 3 9 1 0 0 1 6 9 8 8 9 1 0 9 0 1 1 · 2 | 2 }þ 3 1 2 5 3 2 8 1 2 5 1 8 2 3 2 7 7 0 5 9 8 2 7 5 0 8 2 9 5 7 0 0 7 9 2 0 2 3 2 2 1 3 2 1 4 2 9 2 1 3 2 2 3 1 4 3 8 9 1 6 4 9 3 8 4 6 1 8 6 3 8 1 3 ^` 3 2 1 1 2 2 3 1 1 2 2 3 3 1 3 2 2 V 4 7 3 0 5 7 2 4 3 0 5 2 7 4 5 4 2 7 i 3 1 1 n 2 2 2 3 2 1 1 2 3 2 2 1 2 1 4 2 3 6 6 2 5 3 1 4 t 5 3 6 4 o ^` 1 1 C 2 2 3 1 1 2 2 2 1 2 1 n 3 4 5 6 2 3 4 5 4 3 h 1 1 3 3 1 1 i 7 1 7 6 6 7 8 9 l 0 1 8 9 8 c 3 3 2 3 o 1 5 0 9 2 ot 2223241920212223La Porte212223 262530292827262530292827 363132333435363132 16 5 4 3 2 1 91011 1615 Location Map (Not to Scale) Plumas County Service Area 12 Resolution: 82-01 Adopted: March 24, 1982 Plumas County Service Area 12 Sphere of Influence Boundary Resolution: Adopted: 0 5 10 20Miles Source: Plumas LAFCo Map Created 12/3/2016 N 03 T N 92 T N 82 T N 72 T N 62 T N 52 T N 42 T N 32 T N 22 T N 12 T N 02 T Transportation R 6 E R 7 E R 8 E R 9 E R10 E R11 E R12 E R13 E R14 E R15 E R16 E Plumas County 4 Legend ^` Communities Parcels Plumas County Service Area 12 Highways Stream / River Sectional Grid (MDB&M) Major Roads Waterbodies PLUMAS LAFCO PLUMAS COUNTY DISTRICTS VOLUME 5 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW Accountability and Governance As a dependent special district of the County, CSA 12 is governed by the five Supervisors of the Plumas County Board of Supervisors. Board members are elected by supervisorial districts and serve staggered four-year terms. Current governing board members are shown in Figure 14-2. The Governing Board meets on the first three Tuesday mornings of every month in the Courthouse Board of Supervisors’ Chambers. The Governing Board meeting agendas are a part of the Board of Supervisors’ agendas and are posted on the Plumas County website. Governing Board meeting minutes are also available on the Plumas County website. Figure 14-2: CSA 12 Governing Body County Service Area 12 Governing Body Name Position Term Ends Michael Sanchez District 1 2020 Members Kevin Goss District 2 2020 Sherrie Thrall District 3 2018 Lori Simpson District 4 2020 Jeff Engel District 5 2018 Manner of Selection Election Length of Term 4 years First three Tuesdays of every Supervisors Board Room, Meetings month at 10 am County Court House Agenda Distribution Posted on County’s website Minutes Distribution Posted on County’s website Contact John Mannle, Assistant Director, Contact County Department of Public Works Mailing Address 1834 E Main St, Quincy, CA 95971 Phone (530)283-6268 Email/Website http://www.countyofplumas.com/index.aspx?NID=76 Plumas County makes available its budget, general plan, emergency operations plan and other documents on its website. No information about CSA 12 functions is available on the County website, save for supervisorial meeting records. CSA 12 does not make additional outreach efforts to the public regarding the function of the District; however, Plumas Transit, which is funded by CSA 12, maintains a website where its services are promoted. Complaints can go to the local operator (Plumas Rural Services) or a customer can bring concerns to the Commission. Informal concerns can be directed towards public works. If the Commission determines that a complaint requires a change in operating procedures of the contract, the Commission would make a recommendation to the CSA 12 governing body, and the CSA 12 governing body would take appropriate action. However, the District has never had to take this kind of action as the result of a complaint. Complaints are generally CSA 12 120 PLUMAS LAFCO PLUMAS COUNTY DISTRICTS VOLUME 5 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW handled at the staff level. The primary type of complaint is generally regarding the conduct of a passenger, not regarding of operations of the transit system. Government Code §87203 requires persons who hold office to disclose their investments, interests in real property and incomes by filing appropriate forms each year. Unlike other counties in the State, the Plumas County Clerk-Recorder does not act as the filing officer for the independent special districts. Each district holds responsibility for collecting the Form 700s and maintaining copies in their records. However, because the District’s governing body consists of the Board of Supervisors, the County Clerk of the Board acts as the filing officer and maintains copies of each Supervisor’s Form 700 submittals. Each of the board members has filed the required Form 700s for 2016. CSA 12 demonstrated accountability and transparency in its disclosure of information and cooperation with Plumas LAFCo. Planning and Management Practices County staff run and administer CSA 12 as needed. Typically, CSA 12 is not charged for staff time. The Public Works Department also staffs the Plumas County Transportation Commission (PCTC), which is the funding mechanism of CSA 12. PCTC is the legally required local transportation commission responsible for transportation planning within Plumas County. PCTC consists of three representatives from the Board of Supervisors and three representatives from the City Council. Staff track the amount of time that they work for PCTC and charge the agency appropriately. PCTC has a Professional Services Agreement with the Plumas County Department of Public Works to provide staffing for the Commission. Current staffing consists of: v Interim Executive Director (County of Plumas Director of Public Works) allocates approximately 10 percent of time; v Associate Engineer and Transportation Planner allocates 50 percent of time; v Senior Environmental Planner allocates approximately 45 percent of time; and v Accounting Clerk allocates approximately 40 percent of time. CSA 12 contracts with Plumas Rural Services to provide operation of the transit system (Plumas Transit). Contract solicitation and award procedures were conducted per Federal Transportation Authority (FTA) guidelines with Caltrans Division of Mass Transportation providing oversight and approval of the contract for FTA. Plumas Rural Services maintains fare box revenues and CSA 12 funds the remaining operational needs of the operator with funds from PCTC. County employees track time spent on various tasks, including time dedicated to CSA 12 and PCTC functions. The County conducts annual employee evaluations of its agency staff. Each director is responsible for evaluating their respective subordinates in the agency. The contract provider tracks work demand through quarterly reports that document aggregate ridership, vehicle load factors, cost per service mile, cost per revenue hour, expenses, revenues, farebox revenue ratio, and vehicle condition report. The performance of the contract provider is evaluated on a triennial basis through a performance audit, which CSA 12 121 PLUMAS LAFCO PLUMAS COUNTY DISTRICTS VOLUME 5 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW tracks operating cost per passenger, operating cost per vehicle service hour, passengers per vehicle service hour, passengers per vehicle service mile, vehicle service hours per employee, consideration of the needs and types of passengers, and employment of part-time drivers. The performance is intended to operate as a benchmark for services provided by the contractor, and a basis for future performance evaluation. There are no planning documents specific to CSA 12. However, PCTC adopts planning documents to direct future transit operations in the County, including the Plumas County Short Range Transit Plan and the Mobility Management Plan. PCTC has also drafted a Policy and Procedure Manual; however, the manual has not yet been adopted. Additionally, PCTC staff prepares an annual Overall Work Program (OWP), which serves as the primary internal planning document for PCTC. The OWP reflects the priorities, scope of work, and level of effort desired for regional transportation planning for each fiscal year. The County’s financial planning efforts include an annually adopted budget, within which the CSA is included. The CSA’s financial statements are completed by the County and are not audited individually, but are combined with all other county finances in the County’s annual audit report. No other planning documents are adopted specific to the CSA. Government Code §53901 states that within 60 days after the beginning of the fiscal year each local agency must submit its budget to the County Auditor. These budgets are to be filed and made available on request by the public at the county auditor’s office. Additionally, all special districts are required to submit annual audits to the County within 12 months of the completion of the fiscal year, unless the Board of Supervisors has approved a biennial or five-year schedule.74 Because CSA 12 is included as part of the County’s annual audit process, it is not required to submit a separate audit to the County Auditor. Special districts must submit a report to the State Controller of all financial transactions of the district during the preceding fiscal year within 90 days after the close of each fiscal year, in the form required by the State Controller, pursuant to Government Code §53891. If filed in electronic format, the report must be submitted within 110 days after the end of the fiscal year. There are no records of CSA 12 reporting to the State Controller’s Office in recent years.75 Existing Demand and Growth Projections Designated land uses within the CSA consist primarily of general forest, general agriculture, timberland production, and residential and commercial uses in Portola and the developed community areas, including but not limited to Quincy, Greenville, Taylorsville, Chester, and Graeagle. The total boundary area of CSA 12 is approximately 2,612 square miles. Population There are approximately 19,586 residents within the CSA, based on Department of Finance 2015 estimates. 74 Government Code §26909. 75 State Controller’s Office website. http://sco.ca.gov/mobile/News/NewsDetail.aspx?id=67 CSA 12 122 PLUMAS LAFCO PLUMAS COUNTY DISTRICTS VOLUME 5 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW Projected Growth and Development While no overall population projections have been made for the CSA 12 service area, PCTC makes projections for certain target groups in its Short Range Transit Plan through 2020, including the youth target group, seniors target group, persons with disabilities target group, the low income residents target group, and the zero vehicle households target group. The projected population of the youth target group can be expected to remain low especially during the on-going slow economic recovery. Regardless of economic conditions, the population of those residents over 60 is projected to grow due in large part to the large number of retirement communities located in Plumas County. The persons with disabilities group is anticipated to increase in conjunction with the increase of the senior population. The low-income resident target is not expected to dramatically decrease or increase as the slow economic recovery should result in relatively minor increases in this population demographic. The zero vehicle households group is also closely correlated with the senior population and is expected to increase at the same pace. The State Department of Finance (DOF) projects that the population of Plumas County will decline by four percent in the next 10 years. Thus, the average annual population growth in the County is anticipated to be approximately negative 0.4 percent. Based on these projections, the District’s population would decrease to approximately 19,546 in 2020. It is anticipated that demand for service within the District will increase minimally based on the DOF population growth projections through 2020. Growth Strategies The CSA 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 and for the incorporated territory is the City. Financing The funds that are paid out of CSA 12 are typically for transportation services and acquisitions. Each year the PCTC reviews and approves staff's budget requests for operation of Plumas Transit Systems using a variety of sources besides fare box receipts. The operator collects fares then subtracts that amount from a monthly invoice to PCTC for the previous month’s transit operation costs, which PCTC staff review and approve. PCTC staff send up the request that the auditor move funds (as approved under the annual PCTC budget) from the PCTC accounts to the CSA 12 account, and then the payment comes out of the CSA account to the operator. The same process occurs for Senior Transportation services offered by the Public Health Agency that are partially subsidized by PCTC through the CSA. Each year the PCTC reviews and approves PHA's budget request for a partial subsidy for the operation of Seniors Transportation using only Transportation Development Act funds (they are not eligible for other funding sources). As reported by staff, financing sources are generally adequate. PCTC takes advantage of federal grants to the extent possible to go towards operations. The Local Transportation Fund (sales tax) revenue apportioned to PCTC is limited; therefore, the grants are hepful. Grant funds also help to fund approximately 85 percent of replacement costs for the vehicles. CSA 12 123 PLUMAS LAFCO PLUMAS COUNTY DISTRICTS VOLUME 5 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW Other revenue sources include FTA 5311 Rural Transit program, FTA 5310 Program for Elderly and Disabled Specialized Transit, and the State Proposition 1B program. The budget for FY 15-16 for CSA 12 was $575,000, the source of which was a transfer of funds from PCTC funds. The entire budget was dedicated to professional services provided by the contract provider and a transfer to Senior Transportation. CSA 12 owns all transit buses. Capital planning for vehicles is addressed in PCTC’s Short Range Transit Plan. CSA 12 had no debt as of the end of FY 15-16. The CSA does not take out loans to purchase vehicles. Capital purchases are generally made with grant funding. CSA 12 does not maintain a significant roll-over balance from year to year. At the end of FY 15-16, it was anticipated that there would be a $1,236 balance. CSA 12 is not a part of any joint financing mechanisms, such as a joint powers agreement (JPA). TRANSIT SERVICES Service Overview CSA 12 owns the Plumas Transit Systems buses and contracts for transit operations with a local non-profit (Plumas Rural Services). PCTC provides all subsidies required to fully fund the public transit operations. Seniors Transportation is operated by the County Public Health Agency and partially subsidized through the CSA as well. Staffing There is no staff dedicated to the operations of this CSA. Public Works employees manage the CSA’s minimal operational needs as necessary. Facilities and Capacity CSA owns eight vehicles to operate the transit system. The buses are replaced based on a replacement schedule. The purchase of new vehicles is dependent on grant funding. Federal funding can take up to a year to be finalized. While State sources can take a minimum of six months. The contractor is responsible for the maintenance of the vehicles. Routes within the transit system are dependent upon a where a minimum required fare box ratio of 10 percent can be met. If the fare box return is under that, then the route will eventually be dropped. The routes primarily run service along the State highways. There are no routes in the direction of La Porte, due to a lack of demand. A high portion of the system’s ridership is students. CSA staff reported that the primary challenge to services is its rural location. It is hard for new contractors to move into the remote area and try to win the contract. The CSA goes out to bid every six years, but generally a local non-profit wins the bid. CSA 12 124 PLUMAS LAFCO PLUMAS COUNTY DISTRICTS VOLUME 5 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW Infrastructure Needs The fleet is in good condition with the oldest vehicle being purchased in 2008. The funding programs used to purchase the vehicles have differing requirements for determining the useful life of a transit bus. Some programs require that the vehicle be retained until its value is less than $5,000, while others require it be kept for not less than 10 years before it is sold off. Depending upon the requirements this can result in a transit bus having to be taken off line and stored one to two years prior to being eligible for auction. When this occurs, the retired vehicle is kept as a “back up” in case of breakdowns or emergency repairs needed for the regular fleet vehicles. Transit buses typically need to be replaced after 250,000-300,000 miles, due to increased maintenance costs and lower reliability. As of 2013, the fleet averaged 210,000 total miles per year. The various buses are rotated through different routes so on average they are driven 30,000 miles per year. This fleet management process helps to keep the units operational over the typical seven to 10-year period required. PCTC (and subsequently CSA 12) has limited resources to purchase transit vehicles. It must rely on receiving grant funding in order not to divert funds away from operations. Service Adequacy As the CSA provides no services directly, it is challenging to assess service adequacy. CSA 12 operates as intended and few changes are possible regarding the function of the CSA. The necessity of CSA 12 as a middle man between PCTC and the contractor and Senior Transportation is unclear. There are no apparent laws precluding PCTC from directly funding the transit system or contracting with the contract agency. There is a precedent for transportation commissions owning and operating transit systems in other counties, such as in Orange County. There is the possibility that the CSA is a relic of decades old policies; however, changes in its structure at present would likely not result in any substantial benefits, and may in fact be more costly to dismantle. It is not recommended that CSA 12 be eliminated at this time. Certain improvements could be made to ensure transparency and accountability. Information regarding the County’s various CSAs could be made available on the County’s website. Additionally, financial information regarding the CSAs could be more clearly defined in the County’s budget. CSA 12 125 PLUMAS LAFCO PLUMAS COUNTY DISTRICTS VOLUME 5 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW COUNTY SERVICE AREA 12 DETERMINATIONS Growth and Population Projections v There are approximately 19,586 residents within County Service Area (CSA) 12, based on Department of Finance 2015 estimates. v While no overall population projections have been made for the CSA 12 service area, Placer County Transportation Commission makes projections for certain target groups in its Short Range Transit Plan through 2020, including the youth target group, seniors target group, persons with disabilities target group, the low income residents target group, and the zero vehicle households target group. v Based on State Department of Finance (DOF) countywide projections, it is anticipated that the CSA’s population will decrease to approximately 19,546 in 2020. It is anticipated that demand for service within the CSA will increase minimally based on the DOF population growth projections through 2020. Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities and Adequacy of Public Services, Including Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies v As the CSA provides no services directly, it is challenging to assess service adequacy. CSA 12 operates as intended and few changes are possible regarding the function of the CSA. v The operations of the transit system are well managed and planned. PCTC’s Short Range Transit Plan evaluates transit services provided by the contractor and also acts as a capital improvement plan to identify future vehicle needs. v There is sufficient capacity of the transit system to handle the highest demand routes. Low ridership is the concern; if a 10 percent farebox return is not achieved on a certain route, then it will be cancelled. v The CSA 12-owned fleet is in good condition with the oldest vehicle being purchased in 2008. The funding programs used to purchase the vehicles have differing requirements for determining the useful life of a transit bus. The buses are rotated to ensure maximum usage during the required timeframe to meet grant funding needs. v CSA staff reported that the primary challenge to services is its rural location. It is hard for new contractors to move into the remote area and try to win the contract. The CSA goes out to bid every six years, but generally a local non-profit wins the bid. Financial Ability of Agencies to Provide Services v The funding level appears to be adequate to sustain the transit system’s operations. v Special districts are required to submit annual financial reports to the State Controller’s Office (SCO); however, it appears that CSA 12 has not submitted this report. It is recommended that the County ensure that reports are submitted as required to the SCO on an annual basis. CSA 12 126 PLUMAS LAFCO PLUMAS COUNTY DISTRICTS VOLUME 5 MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW v PCTC (and subsequently CSA 12) has limited resources to purchase transit vehicles. It must rely on receiving grant funding in order not to divert funds away from operations. Status of, and Opportunities for, Shared Facilities v The CSA practices resource sharing by making use of County staff in conjunction with PCTC. Additionally, the funded agencies of CSA 12 are making further efforts at resource sharing (i.e., making available space on the Senior Transportation bus to Reno to the public). No further opportunities for resource sharing were identified. Accountability for Community Service Needs, Including Governmental Structure and Operational Efficiencies v CSA 12 demonstrated accountability in its disclosure of information and cooperation with Plumas LAFCo. The CSA responded to the questionnaires and cooperated with the document requests. v Certain improvements could be made to ensure transparency and accountability. Information regarding the County’s various CSAs could be made available on the County’s website. Additionally, financial information regarding the CSAs could be more clearly defined in the County’s budget. v The necessity of CSA 12 as a middle man between PCTC and the contractor and Senior Transportation is unclear. There are no apparent laws precluding PCTC from directly funding the transit system or contracting with the contract agency. However, changes in its structure at present would likely not result in any substantial benefits, and may in fact be costlier to dismantle. It is not recommended that CSA 12 be eliminated at this time. CSA 12 127