Town of Fort Jones Municipal Services Review and Sphere of Influence Update - April 2021

SISKIYOU LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION CITY OF FORT JONES MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW AND SPHERE OF INFLUENCE UPDATE APRIL 2021 C F J ITY OF ORT ONES M S R UNICIPAL ERVICES EVIEW AND S I U PHERE OF NFLUENCE PDATE Prepared for: Siskiyou Local Agency Formation Commission 806 South Main Street Yreka, CA 96097 Contact Person: Rachel Jereb, Executive Officer Phone: (530) 841-2100 Consultant: 901 East Main Street Visalia, CA 93292 Contact: Steve Brandt, Project Manager Phone: (559) 733-0440 Fax: (559) 733-7821 April 2021 © Copyright by Quad Knopf, Inc. Unauthorized use prohibited. Project #160369 SISKIYOU LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION Commissioners Deborah Baird, Chair, City Representative Gary Peery, Vice Chair, Public Member-at-Large Representative Nancy Ogren, Siskiyou County Representative Ed Valenzuela, Siskiyou County Representative Matthew Bryan, City Representative Alternate Commissioners Michael Kobseff, Siskiyou County Representative Michelle DeCausmaker, City Representative Laurel Harkness, Public Member-at-Large Public Representative Staff Rachel Jereb, Executive Officer Janine Rowe, Commission Clerk Legal Counsel William Carroll, Legal Counsel Consultant 901 East Main Street Visalia, CA 93292 © Copyright by Quad Knopf, Inc. Unauthorized use prohibited. Project # 160369 TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION 1 - Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 1-1 1.1 - Role and Responsibility of Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) ..................... 1-1 1.2 - Municipal Service Review Purpose .................................................................................................... 1-1 1.3 - Methodology and Approach .................................................................................................................. 1-4 1.4 - Public Review and Adoption Process ................................................................................................ 1-4 1.5 - Required Topic Areas of Analysis ....................................................................................................... 1-4 1.6 - Issues Analyzed ........................................................................................................................................... 1-6 1.7 - Background, Setting and History ......................................................................................................... 1-7 1.8 - Services Currently Provided .................................................................................................................. 1-7 1.9 - Determinations ........................................................................................................................................... 1-8 SECTION 2 - Growth and Population Projections ................................................................................. 2-1 2.1 - Historical Data and Population Projections .................................................................................... 2-1 2.2 - Planning Documents ................................................................................................................................. 2-2 2.3 - Planning Boundaries ................................................................................................................................. 2-3 2.4 - Annexations .................................................................................................................................................. 2-3 2.5 - Land Use ......................................................................................................................................................... 2-6 2.6 - Regional Housing Needs Allocation/Plan (RHNA/P) ................................................................. 2-8 2.7 - Anticipated Service Needs ...................................................................................................................... 2-8 2.8 - Determinations ........................................................................................................................................... 2-9 SECTION 3 - Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities ......................................................... 3-10 3.1 - Determinations ........................................................................................................................................ 3-13 SECTION 4 - Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities and Adequacy of Public Services, Including Infrastructure Needs or Deficiencies ................................................................. 4-1 4.1 - Capital Investment/Improvement Program .................................................................................. 4-1 4.1.1 - Determinations ......................................................................................................................... 4-1 4.2 - Water ............................................................................................................................................................... 4-2 4.2.1 - Summary of Prior MSR Findings ....................................................................................... 4-2 4.2.2 - Current Conditions .................................................................................................................. 4-2 4.2.3 - Determinations ......................................................................................................................... 4-3 4.3 - Wastewater ................................................................................................................................................... 4-5 4.3.1 - Summary of Prior MSR Findings ....................................................................................... 4-5 4.3.2 - Current Conditions .................................................................................................................. 4-5 4.3.3 - Determinations ......................................................................................................................... 4-6 4.4 - Storm Drainage ........................................................................................................................................... 4-7 4.4.1 - Summary of Prior MSR Findings ....................................................................................... 4-7 4.4.2 - Current Conditions .................................................................................................................. 4-7 i 4.4.3 - Determinations ......................................................................................................................... 4-7 4.5 - Road Maintenance ..................................................................................................................................... 4-8 4.5.1 - Summary of Prior MSR Findings ....................................................................................... 4-8 4.5.2 - Current Conditions .................................................................................................................. 4-8 4.5.3 - Determinations ......................................................................................................................... 4-8 4.6 - Law Enforcement ....................................................................................................................................... 4-9 4.6.1 - Summary Of Prior MSR Findings....................................................................................... 4-9 4.6.2 - Current Conditions .................................................................................................................. 4-9 4.6.3 - Determinations ...................................................................................................................... 4-10 4.7 - Fire Protection .......................................................................................................................................... 4-11 4.7.1 - Summary Of Prior MSR Findings.................................................................................... 4-11 4.7.2 - Current Conditions ............................................................................................................... 4-11 4.7.3 - Determinations ...................................................................................................................... 4-13 SECTION 5 - Financial Ability to Provide Services ............................................................................... 5-1 5.1 - City Budget .................................................................................................................................................... 5-1 5.1.1 - Rates and Fees ........................................................................................................................... 5-2 5.1.2 - Proposition 218 ........................................................................................................................ 5-2 5.1.3 - Opportunities for Rate/Fee Restructuring ................................................................... 5-3 5.1.4 - Determinations ......................................................................................................................... 5-3 5.2 - Status of, and Opportunities for, Cost Avoidance and Shared Facilities ............................ 5-4 5.2.1 - Determinations ......................................................................................................................... 5-4 5.3 - Accountability for Community Service Needs, including Governmental Structure and Operation Efficiencies ........................................................................................................................................ 5-5 5.3.1 - Organizational Structure ...................................................................................................... 5-5 5.3.2 - Determinations ......................................................................................................................... 5-7 SECTION 6 - Sphere of Influence Review ................................................................................................. 6-1 6.1 - Sphere of Influence Overview ............................................................................................................... 6-1 6.2 - Present and Planned Land Uses ........................................................................................................... 6-1 6.3 - Present and Probable Need for Public Facilities and Services ............................................... 6-2 6.3.1 - Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities ............................................................ 6-2 6.4 - Present Capacity of Public Facilities and Adequacy of Public Services .............................. 6-2 6.5 - Existence of Any Social or Economic Communities of Interest .............................................. 6-2 6.6 - Fort Jones Sphere of Influence Recommendations ...................................................................... 6-3 SECTION 7 - References .................................................................................................................................. 7-1 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1-1 Regional Location .......................................................................................................................... 1-2 Figure 1-2 City of Fort Jones City Limits and Sphere of Influence .................................................. 1-3 Figure 2-1 Existing Developed Areas within the Sphere of Influence ........................................... 2-5 ii Figure 3-1 Median Household Income (2019) ..................................................................................... 3-11 Figure 3-2 Potential Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities ........................................... 3-12 Figure 4-1 Fire Department Response Types ....................................................................................... 4-12 Figure 5-1 City of Fort Jones Organizational Chart ................................................................................ 5-6 LIST OF TABLES Table 1-1 Services Matrix within the City of Fort Jones ...................................................................... 1-8 Table 2-1 Historical Population Growth (1970-2030) ........................................................................ 2-2 Table 2-2 Fort Jones 2014-2020 Housing Allocation .......................................................................... 2-8 Table 4-1 Fort Jones Road Projects .............................................................................................................. 4-8 Table 4-2 2013-2018 Reported Crime Statistics (Category 1 Crimes) ......................................... 4-9 Table 4-3 Fort Jones Fire Statistics 2017 ................................................................................................ 4-11 Table 5-1 City Revenues and Expenditures (2016-2020) .................................................................. 5-1 iii Introduction SECTION 1 - INTRODUCTION 1.1 - Role and Responsibility of Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) The Siskiyou Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) is the oversight agency for special districts and cities within Siskiyou County. The role of LAFCo under the Cortese- Knox-Hertzberg Reorganization Act of 2000 is to oversee local agency boundary changes and to adopt spheres of influence for local agencies. Among the purposes of LAFCOs are the discouragement of urban sprawl and the encouragement of the orderly formation and development of local agencies. As such, LAFCo is considered the “watchdog” of local agencies by the State Legislature and is solely empowered with establishing spheres of influence that dictate the provision of future service delivery to orderly growth of that agency. Therefore, it is LAFCo’s responsibility to review the information available regarding services provided by an agency and make appropriate determinations that will establish future policy for future boundary decisions, such as annexations, for the corresponding jurisdiction. 1.2 - Municipal Service Review Purpose The Municipal Services Review (MSR) process is a comprehensive assessment of the ability of existing government agencies to effectively and efficiently provide services to residents and users. The form and content of the MSR is governed by requirements of the Cortese- Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 (CKH Act) and the State of California’s Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) MSR Guidelines (Guidelines), published in August 2003. The CKH Act requires all LAFCos, including Siskiyou LAFCo, to prepare an MSR for each of its incorporated cities and special districts. The fundamental role of LAFCo is to implement the CKH Act by providing for the logical, efficient, and most appropriate formation of local municipalities, service areas, and special districts. These MSRs must be completed prior to, or in conjunction with, the update of a Sphere of Influence (SOI) or before LAFCo initiates any reorganization of district boundaries. This review is intended to provide Siskiyou LAFCo with all necessary and relevant information related to the operations and management of the City of Fort Jones (the City). The City is located approximately 15 miles southwest of the Siskiyou County seat Yreka in the Scott Valley area (see Figure 1-1 and Figure 1-2). The information in this report may be used in considering an update to the City’s SOI by Siskiyou LAFCo or for other policy related decisions related to the City. Fort Jones Municipal Services Review April 2021 Siskiyou LAFCo Page 1-1 Introduction Figure 1-1 Regional Location Fort Jones Municipal Services Review April 2021 Siskiyou LAFCo Page 1-2 Introduction Figure 1-2 City of Fort Jones City Limits and Sphere of Influence Fort Jones Municipal Services Review April 2021 Siskiyou LAFCo Page 1-3 Introduction MSRs are intended to provide LAFCo with a comprehensive analysis of service provision by cities and other service providers within the legislative authority of LAFCo. The MSR focuses on service providers within the area of the City and will make determinations in each area of evaluation, providing the basis for Siskiyou LAFCo to review possible amendments to Sphere of Influence or possible reorganization, consolidation, or annexation with those other service providers. 1.3 - Methodology and Approach The process of developing the MSR began with a kick-off meeting to discuss the existing services provided by the City to its residents. Following the meeting, a comprehensive survey was sent to the City of Fort Jones staff. The purpose of the survey was to retrieve more specific and technical information regarding the City’s operations and delivery of its various services. The information requested included documents such as planning and budgetary documents, adopted budgets, capital improvement programs, technical or special studies, and any other records related to the provision of municipal services by the City. 1.4 - Public Review and Adoption Process Two drafts of the MSR document were presented to LAFCo. A first draft allowed for public comments and a final draft was presented to the Commission for formal acceptance that incorporates any revisions, corrections, and responses to comments received at the prior public workshop. 1.5 - Required Topic Areas of Analysis The MSR contains analysis and conclusions, referred to as determinations, regarding six topic areas set forth in the CKH Act. These areas of analysis contain the essential operational and management aspects of each service provider, and together constitute a complete review of the ability of the providers to meet the service demands of the residents and businesses within the City. The six topic areas used for analysis in this MSR are as follows: 1. Growth and Population Projections; 2. Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities; 3. Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities and Adequacy of Public Services, Including Infrastructure Needs or Deficiencies; 4. Financial Ability to Provide Services; 5. Status of, and Opportunities for, Shared Facilities; and 6. Accountability for Community Service Needs, Including Governmental Structure and Operational Efficiencies. An explanation of the specific operational and management aspects considered in each of these topic areas is provided below. Fort Jones Municipal Services Review April 2021 Siskiyou LAFCo Page 1-4 Introduction 1. Growth and Population Projections Service efficiency is linked to a service provider’s ability to plan for the future need of a city while also meeting existing service demands. This section reviews projected service demands and needs based upon existing and anticipated growth patterns and population projections. This is found in Section 2. 2. The Location and Characteristics of any Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities within or Contiguous to the Sphere of Influence Unincorporated disadvantaged communities, as defined by Water Code §79505.5, may lack basic infrastructure, such as water, sewer, or fire protection, because they may have been overlooked during the comprehensive land use planning process due to their socioeconomic status. To promote equality and environmental justice in accordance with adopted local policy and Senate Bill 244, which was adopted in 2011, the proximity of any disadvantaged community to existing service providers is analyzed and discussed in order to determine if the community should be included in the SOI of the City. This is found in Section 3. 3. Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities and Adequacy of Public Services, Including Infrastructure Needs or Deficiencies Infrastructure can be evaluated in terms of condition, capacity, availability, quality, and relationship to operational, capital improvement and finance planning. This section assesses the adequacy and quality of the service providers’ physical infrastructure and analyzes whether or not sufficient infrastructure and capital are in place (or planned for) to accommodate planned future growth and expansions. This is found in Section 4. 4. Financial Ability to Provide Services This section analyzes the financial structure and health of the city with respect to the provision of services. Included in this analysis is the consideration of rates, service operations, and the like, as well as other factors affecting the city’s financial health and stability, including factors affecting the financing of needed infrastructure improvements and services. Compliance with existing State requirements relative to financial reporting and management is also discussed. This is found in Section 5. 5. Status of, and Opportunities for, Shared Facilities Practices and opportunities that may help to reduce or eliminate unnecessary costs are examined in this section. Occurrences of facility sharing are listed and assessed for efficiency, and potential sharing opportunities that would serve to better deliver services are discussed. This is found in Section 5.2. Fort Jones Municipal Services Review April 2021 Siskiyou LAFCo Page 1-5 Introduction 6. Accountability for Community Service Needs, Including Governmental Structure and Operational Efficiencies This section addresses the adequacy and appropriateness of the agency’s existing boundaries and sphere of influence and evaluates the ability of the city to meet their service demands under their existing government structure. Also, included in this section is an evaluation of compliance by the agency with public meeting and records laws. This is found in Section 5.3. 1.6 - Issues Analyzed The City of Fort Jones (City) is a general law city located 15 miles southwest of the county seat Yreka, encompassing approximately 385 acres. The City was established in 1907 and is empowered to provide various municipal services, including the following, which will be addressed in this MSR: • Water Infrastructure • Wastewater Infrastructure • Storm Drainage • Roadways • Law Enforcement • Fire Protection • Parks and Recreation • Administration, Management and Operations The preamble of the CKH Act contains a number of legislative findings and declarations that serve as a general guide for LAFCo's and their purpose for being. The first and main declaration is that: It is the policy of the state to encourage orderly growth and development, which are essential to the social and economic well-being of the state. The Legislature goes on to make further declarations in CKH Section 56001 about how the determination of orderly local government boundaries is important to orderly growth and development. The legislature also makes the following declarations in Section 56001: The Legislature finds and declares that a single multipurpose governmental agency is accountable for community service needs and financial resources and, therefore, may be the best mechanism for establishing community service priorities especially in urban areas. Nonetheless, the Legislature recognizes the critical role of many limited purpose agencies, especially in rural communities. The Legislature also finds that, whether governmental services are proposed to be provided by a single-purpose agency, several agencies, or a multipurpose agency, Fort Jones Municipal Services Review April 2021 Siskiyou LAFCo Page 1-6 Introduction responsibility should be given to the agency or agencies that can best provide government services. The main purpose of this MSR is to review past findings, if available, for various City services and evaluate if the level of services currently being provided is operating at a level that is still encouraging orderly growth and efficient service delivery to residents of Fort Jones. Once that is determined by LAFCo, then questions regarding SOI and boundary change recommendations can be answered. 1.7 - Background, Setting and History The City of Fort Jones is located 15 miles southwest of Yreka, CA, the county seat, in the Scott Valley area of Siskiyou. The City encompasses an area of approximately 385 acres with an average elevation of 2,759 feet above sea level. The City is surrounded predominantly by agricultural and forest land. Fort Jones takes its name from the frontier outpost located less than a mile south of the current city limits. The name was established in 1860 when local citizens successfully petitioned the postal department to change the name to Fort Jones. Fort Jones was incorporated as a city in 1872. The City is governed by a Council/City Administrator form of government made up of five council members elected to four-year, overlapping terms. The City works with other local and regional government agencies including Siskiyou County, City of Etna, CalFire and the California Department of Forestry. 1.8 - Services Currently Provided Fort Jones provides a wide range of services including police and fire protection, animal control, street maintenance, parks and recreation, planning, building and safety, public improvements, and general administration. The City is currently providing fire protection services to the Scotts Valley Fire Protection District. Further, City recreational facilities include the Fort Jones Museum, Walker Field park, the Walker Field and Babe Ruth Little League Field ball parks, and a park near the elementary school community center. Further description of each service and the extent of its current operations are included in Section 4 of this document. Other essential services provided to the residents of the City are overseen through various other agencies. These agencies fill voids in the municipal service needs of city residents where the City chooses not or simply cannot provide an identified service. Other entities also meet service needs for residents of the City, such as CalFire, and the US Forest Service. Law enforcement is contracted through the City of Etna. Table 1-1 illustrates the services provided in the Fort Jones area. The matrix specifies whether the services that can and are being provided now or whether those services that are authorized but not being provided currently. Fort Jones Municipal Services Review April 2021 Siskiyou LAFCo Page 1-7 Introduction Provides - means that the agency is authorized by LAFCo and state law to provide the service and that the service is currently being provided. These services may continue to be provided by the agencies at their discretion. Authorized - means that the agency is authorized by LAFCo and state law to provide the service, but this service is not currently being provided. Table 1-1 Services Matrix within the City of Fort Jones Municipal Service Type Fort Jones Water supply Provides Water distribution Provides Sewer collection & disposal Provides Storm drainage Provides Flood control Authorized Street construction Provides Street maintenance Provides Street lighting Provides Street sweeping/snow plowing Provides Street landscaping Authorized Solid waste collection, transfer & disposal Authorized Police protection Provides1 Fire protection Provides2 Animal control Provides Parks & recreation Provides Airports Authorized Ambulance service Authorized Emergency medical service Provides Heat and power Authorized Undergrounding of overhead electrical & communication facilities Authorized Generate and sell electricity Authorized Community facilities Provides Television/Cable services Authorized Transportation Authorized Cemeteries Authorized Open space conservation Authorized 1.9 - Determinations Determination 1-1 – Siskiyou LAFCo has the authority to determine the Sphere of Influence for the City of Fort Jones. 1 The City now contracts with the City of Etna for law enforcement services. 2 Mutual Aid agreements exist with the City of Fort Jones, Etna, Scott Valley Fire Protection Department. There are Separate Aid agreements with Cal Fire and US Forest Service. Fort Jones Municipal Services Review April 2021 Siskiyou LAFCo Page 1-8 Introduction Determination 1-2 - A single multipurpose governmental agency, such as a city, County Service Area, Public Utility District or Community Services District, is the preferred entity by LAFCo and could be accountable for all community service needs and financial resources and, therefore, may be the best mechanism for establishing community service priorities especially in urban areas. Governmental services should be given to the agency or agencies that can best provide government services. Determination 1-3 - The City of Fort Jones is currently providing the following services: • Water Infrastructure • Wastewater Infrastructure • Storm Drainage • Roadways • Parks and Recreation • City Hall • Snow Plowing • Emergency Medical Service • Law Enforcement • Fire Protection Determination 1-4 – The only service being provided by other agencies or private entities within or around the City of Fort Jones is the law enforcement services provided by the City of Etna. Fort Jones Municipal Services Review April 2021 Siskiyou LAFCo Page 1-9 Growth and Population Projections SECTION 2 - GROWTH AND POPULATION PROJECTIONS The purpose of this section is to evaluate service needs based on existing and anticipated growth patterns and population projections. The MSR Guidelines call for LAFCo to determine historic and projected growth and absorption patterns in relationship to a service provider’s boundaries and SOI. In addition, LAFCo is tasked with evaluating the impact and compatibility of such growth on and with land use plans, services, local government structures and growth patterns. 2.1 - Historical Data and Population Projections Historical population data and future projections have been obtained from the U.S. Census Bureau, and the California Department of Finance. For analysis purposes, this data is compared to other source data relating to growth and population including the City’s General Plan population projections (City of Fort Jones 2006). According to the CA Department of Finance, the City’s population is currently 739 (CA Department of Finance n.d.). Historical census data indicates that the City of Fort Jones had a population of 639 in 1990, 660 in 2000, and 710 in 2010. According to U.S Census Bureau, the City’s population, as of January 1, 2017, was 819 (444 males and 375 females) (U.S. Census Bureau 2017). The total number of housing units was 401, of which approximately 352 were occupied. The breakdown in household size is as follows: one-person household – 29.3%, two-person household – 30.4%, three-person household – 7.4%-, and four or more-person household – 33.0% (U.S. Census Bureau 2017). According to the City of Fort Jones General Plan, the median family income in 2000 was $25,625 (City of Fort Jones 2006). The 2013-2017 American Community Survey five-year estimates state that the median total household income is $36,136. Similarly, the Census Bureau estimates the 2017 demographic makeup of the City of Fort Jones as 72.4% white, 12% Hispanic or Latino, 12.1% Asian, and 8.8% America Indian and Alaska Native. Based on the Town of Fort Jones Housing Element 2009-2014 population projections, the City of Fort Jones is expected to grow by 0.83% per year on average through 2050. According to the Siskiyou County General Plan, the county as a whole is expected to grow at a rate of .30% annually. The differentiation between the predictions being negligible, it can be concluded that the population growth of Fort Jones will remain slow and constant, as per the Fort Jones General Plan. The smaller growth rate would likely lead to reduced pressure to build new parks and public facilities as a result of immediate or significant growth periods. Additionally, services directly linked to population growth have adequate time to properly plan for when additional resources may be required to accommodate new residents to the region or fill service gaps with existing service to current residents. Table 2-1 compares the City of Fort Jones’ population to the overall population of Siskiyou County for years 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000, 2010, and projected for years 2020, 2025 and 2030. This assumes the county’s General Plan predictions of a growth rate of .30% annually. Fort Jones Municipal Services Review April 2021 Siskiyou LAFCo Page 2-1 Growth and Population Projections Table 2-1 Historical Population Growth (1970-2030) Fort Jones Siskiyou County Average Year Average Annual Population Population Annual Growth Rate Growth Rate 1970 515 33,224 1980 544 +5.6% 39,732 +19.6% 1990 639 +17.5% 43,300 +9.0% 2000 660 +3.3% 44,301 +2.3% 2010 710 +7.6% 44,900 +1.4% 2015 751 +5.8% 44,731 -0.38% 2020 745 -0.7% 44,461 -1.1% 2025 7473 +0.30% 44,541 +.18% 2030 749 +0.30% 44,581 +.09% Source: Department of Finance E-4 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State As indicated in Table 2-1, Fort Jones population reached approximately 745 by year 2020, while extrapolating its historical growth rate results in an estimated population of 749 by 2030. It is anticipated that the City will comprise approximately 1.68% of the overall County population by year 2030, compared to 1.58% in 2010. 2.2 - Planning Documents The following long-range planning documents have been adopted by the City: 2009-2014 Housing Element for the Town of Fort Jones; 2025 General Plan. The City of Fort Jones plans for future growth, albeit slow, through the implementation of policies and standards set forth in its General Plan. The General Plan is a long-term, comprehensive framework to guide physical, social, and economic development within the community’s planning area. The Fort Jones 2025 General Plan is a long-range guide for attaining the City’s goals within its ultimate service area and accommodating its population growth to the year 2025. The Fort Jones 2025 General Plan, adopted in January of 2006, coordinates all components of the City’s physical development, and sets objectives, policies and standards which guide future growth within the City’s planning area. Senate Bill 375 contained a statutory amendment providing an option to applicable transportation agencies to change the update schedules for the regional transportation plan and housing element (HE). A metropolitan planning organization (MPO) or regional transportation planning agency ((RTPA) on a five-year regional transportation plan (RTP) update schedule can elect to adopt its RTP every four years. After the election is made, all local governments within the region of the MPR or RTPA change from a five-year to an eight- 3 2020-2030 population projections were calculated using the annual growth rate provided within the Siskiyou County General Plan. Fort Jones Municipal Services Review April 2021 Siskiyou LAFCo Page 2-2 Growth and Population Projections year HE planning period beginning with the next HE update (State of California SB 375 2008). The Housing Element also needs to be reviewed and approved by the California State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). The City of Fort Jones Housing Element, while part of the 2025 General Plan, is separately bound and was last updated in 2012. The City’s General Plan provides the foundation and policy base to guide future growth within the City. 2.3 - Planning Boundaries Fort Jones (2012) SOI extends from McAdams Creek Road in the north to Eastside Road to the south. The SOI also extends from Douglas Street to the west and past the edge of High Street to the east. This boundary includes a total of 578 acres of land within and surrounding the current (2012) city limits, which consists of approximately 396 acres. 2.4 - Annexations The City of Fort Jones is not actively considering annexations of land within the SOI. Sufficient zoned vacant land exists for up to 145 single-family units; 186 multi-family units, and 78 mobile home units. If totally built out, this would be more than double the current population. Additionally, there are many parcels in the City that could accommodate a second dwelling, per the Housing Element. Should this occur, the City could accommodate a total population of 1,565. Being that the current population of the City is 819, combined with the projected growth of .3%-.8% per year, Fort Jones does not need to annex land within the SOI for quite some time. There are three policies within the 2030 General Plan related to annexations: Policy LU-1A: As vacant land in the City becomes limited, encourage the development and annexation of suitable land adjacent to the City’s Sphere of Influence, which can be readily served with water and sewer services. Policy LU-1B: Lands within the Sphere of Influence should be zoned upon annexation consistent with those designations noted on the General Plan Land Use Map. Policy LU-1C: Upon annexation of 25 percent of the Sphere of Influence (or approximately 50 acres), the City should commence negotiation with the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) to consider expansion of the City’s Sphere of Influence to maintain a reasonable supply of land for future growth. At the same time, the City should review the General Plan goals and objectives to ensure that it still reflects the desired vision for the community and update the Plan, as necessary. There are also land use policies pertaining to Fort Jones in the Scott Valley Area Plan. This plan includes land use policies for the entirety of Siskiyou County. The Area Plan was adopted as an amendment to the county’s Land Use Element in 1980. The Scott Valley Area Plan includes a discussion and policies concerning how the county will address land use issues and project proposals within the Spheres of Influence of the two cities in Scott Valley: Fort Fort Jones Municipal Services Review April 2021 Siskiyou LAFCo Page 2-3 Growth and Population Projections Jones and Etna. This Area Plan notes that Spheres of Influence represent the ultimate growth limits for these cities and includes maps depicting the Spheres. In order to ensure that future growth located in the unincorporated area and inside the spheres of influence for the Town of Fort Jones and City of Etna occurs in an orderly fashion, the following development policy pertaining to annexation applies: Policy 25- All proposed development within Etna or Fort Jones spheres of influence must be referred to the applicable city for comment prior to a county decision on any proposed development. The intent of this policy is to ensure that development in the unincorporated areas will not create future development problems for the applicable city upon annexation. Land within the City of Fort Jones’s SOI boundary may be annexed into the City upon approval by the Siskiyou County LAFCO, thereby transferring land use authority for the land within the County of Siskiyou to the City of Fort Jones. Fort Jones is not expected to grow significantly through the addition of new territory to its boundaries in the coming years and, accordingly, major annexations are not anticipated. Most of the Fort Jones Sphere of Influence is undeveloped land lying west of the city and is currently in agricultural use. A smaller portion of the Sphere exists on the east side, although this area contains a steep hillside slope and would only provide land for a limited number of dwellings. The land west of the city is more compatible for development, and like the rest of the city, lies within the 100-year flood plain of Moffett Creek. In accordance with Government Code Section 65859, the City may pre-zone the unincorporated area in the Sphere or zone the land upon annexation consistent with the General Plan. Existing developed areas within the existing SOI are shown in Figure 2-1. Fort Jones Municipal Services Review April 2021 Siskiyou LAFCo Page 2-4 Growth and Population Projections Figure 2-1 Existing Developed Areas within the Sphere of Influence Fort Jones Municipal Services Review April 2021 Siskiyou LAFCo Page 2-5 Growth and Population Projections 2.5 - Land Use The City is located within the eastern portion of Siskiyou County, bordered by the Klamath Mountains and Klamath National Forest to the west. It is the second smallest city in the county. Elevations average 2,759 feet above sea level. Major access roads include California State Route 3 and Scott River Road. The City has a developed core area that hugs State Highway 3 and Scott River Road along the southern edge. The Fort Jones 2025 General Plan noted that in 2006, Fort Jones’s land use was comprised of mostly residential space. Multi-family units represent less than 10% of the total housing inventory, however, approximately 43% of the total housing in Fort Jones is rented. Sites currently exist in the City for single family, multi-family, and mobile home park development. Sufficient zoned vacant land exists for up to 145 single-family units; 186 multi-family units, and 78 mobile home units. If totally built out, this would more than double the population (City of Fort Jones 2006). Two locations accommodate nearly all the commercial business in Fort Jones: The Main Street/State Highway 3 downtown historic area, and the southern commercial area at the Scott River Road/State Highway 3 intersection. Both of these areas have limited vacant land but are suitable for development of small commercial enterprises on vacant or redeveloped parcels. More land is eventually needed to accommodate the service and business needs of the community as it expands, as well as the needs of the increasing population in the rural area of Scott Valley. There is an estimated three acres of vacant commercial land in the City area on numerous parcels, sufficient to accommodate over 26,000 square feet of commercial use. Additionally, there is almost six acres of commercially zoned land currently in residential use. Were this land to be converted, over 50,000 square feet of additional commercial use could be accommodated. Based on current projections, this is sufficient land to accommodate the projected growth beyond year 2025. An increasingly popular trend in Siskiyou County is self-employment, working within the home. This includes persons who telecommute, using modern communication technology to accomplish their business tasks without the need for commercial office space. There are also cottage industries where family or few employees’ work within a residence, not generating noise or creating traffic in a manner that would change the character or impact of the residential neighborhood (City of Fort Jones 2006). If this trend stays popular, Fort Jones could potentially have a higher growth rate than expected, being that newcomers would not arrive looking for employment. There are three areas zoned for industrial use in the City. A few industrial businesses are currently located on approximately seven acres of land. Approximately 25 acres of vacant industrial land is available for development in this area, with ready access to both sewer and water. Due to the rural nature of the community and its distance from major transportation routes, it is expected that there will be limited demand for conventional industrial development. Fort Jones Municipal Services Review April 2021 Siskiyou LAFCo Page 2-6 Growth and Population Projections Most of the Fort Jones Sphere of Influence is undeveloped land lying west of the City and is currently in agricultural use (City of Fort Jones 2006). A smaller portion of the Sphere exists on the east side, although this area contains a steep hillside slope and would only provide land for a limited number of dwellings. The land west of the City is more compatible for development, and like the rest of the city, lies within the 100-year flood plain of Moffett Creek. Should the area west of the city be annexed and connected to city water and sewer, it could accommodate approximately 800 single-family dwelling units at an average of four units per acre. The County zoning currently regulates land use in the Sphere. Nearly all of the land is zoned to accommodate agricultural activity. The City’s 2025 General Plan Land Use Element outlines several policies relating to land management, and development within and surrounding the City. Some of these policies, which are applicable to the MSR process, are reiterated below. Policy LU-1A: As vacant land in the City becomes limited, encourage the development and annexation of suitable land adjacent to the City’s Sphere of Influence, which can be readily served with water and sewer services. Policy LU-1C: Upon annexation of 25 percent of the Sphere of Influence (or approximately 50 acres), the City should commence negotiation with the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) to consider expansion of the City’s Sphere of Influence to maintain a reasonable supply of land for future growth. At the same time, the City should review the General Plan goals and objectives to ensure that it still reflects the desired vision for the community and update the Plan, as necessary. Policy LU-1D: Provide for the development of commercial and industrial areas where suitable land exists with good access and where such uses will have a minimum of conflict with adjacent land uses. Policy LU-3D: Commercial development should be encouraged within and adjacent to the established downtown area as a means of enhancing and strengthening the community center. Policy LU-4C: During project reviews, significant trees, drainages, or other natural features should be protected to the extent practicable. The City may require buffers between 1) dissimilar land uses, 2) between urban use and open space, sensitive commercial areas, sensitive biological resources, streams and wetlands, or agriculture land. Buffers may include solid barriers, additional setbacks, redesign, or other means to protect the resource. Policy LU-4D: Encourage, as a high priority, the conservation of existing residential and commercial structures through preservation and rehabilitation, and support grant applications when they are proposed to aid this effort. As prescribed by General Plan Policy, the City should promote diversity of land uses to meet the needs of the residents of Fort Jones. Prioritization should lie with infill, preserving open Fort Jones Municipal Services Review April 2021 Siskiyou LAFCo Page 2-7 Growth and Population Projections space, and smart growth in order to diversify mixed use and commercial development in strategic locations of the City of Fort Jones. 2.6 - Regional Housing Needs Allocation/Plan (RHNA/P) California's Housing Element Law (Government Code, §§ 65580 et seq.) mandates that a local jurisdiction develop and approve a Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) to accommodate a share of the region’s projected housing needs as part of the process of updating local housing elements of the general plan. HCD is responsible for allocating each region’s share of the statewide housing need to each of California’s Council of Governments (COG), who in turn allocate a share of the region’s housing needs to each of the cities and counties in the region for the planning period. In the case of Siskiyou County, which is a non- COG area, the Siskiyou County Public Health and Community Development Department is responsible for allocating the RHNA to individual jurisdictions within the county, including Fort Jones. The 2014-2019 RHNP establishes the total number of housing units that the City of Fort Jones must plan for within a 5.5-year planning period. Based on the adopted RHNP, each city and county must update the housing element of its general plan to demonstrate how the jurisdiction will meet the expected growth in housing need over this period of time. Table 2-2 Fort Jones 2014-2020 Housing Allocation Total # of Projected Very Low Low Moderate Above Units Needed Income Income Moderate Based on Growth 9 2 (24.9%) 1 (15.3%) 2 (17.2%) 4 (42.6%) Source: Housing Element for the Town of Fort Jones 2014-2019 According to Table 2-2 from the City’s Housing Element, the City of Fort Jones will need 9 additional housing units based on the anticipated growth between January 1, 2014 to June 30, 2019. Of these 9 units, three of them must be designated for very low, and low-income individuals. 2.7 - Anticipated Service Needs The potential for population growth for the City is very limited and highly dependent on the economy. The City of Fort Jones General Plan directs development and growth to vacant lots within the City through goals and policies that promote infill development. As such, growth beyond the existing city limits of Fort Jones would not be necessary until infill development has been exhausted. Infill developments within the City would likely have many existing services within their immediate area such as water, sewer, streets, parks, lighting, and/or snowplow services. Fort Jones Municipal Services Review April 2021 Siskiyou LAFCo Page 2-8 Growth and Population Projections Furthermore, law enforcement services would already be servicing the surrounding properties and would be aware that the new development is within their jurisdiction. 2.8 - Determinations Determination 2-1 - U.S. Census data indicates that the City had a 1990 population of 515, a 2000 population of 660, and a 2010 population of 839. Determination 2-2 – The Fort Jones General Plan anticipates 12.8% population growth to 868 by 2025. However, actual growth has been must less. Determination 2-3 - The City plans for future growth through the implementation of policies and standards set forth in its General Plan. The City’s General Plan was updated in 2006 and is a long-range guide for attaining the City’s goals within its ultimate service area and accommodating its population growth to the year 2025. The City’s General Plan provides a policy base to guide future growth within the City. Determination 2-4 - The City also plans for future growth through the preparation and implementation of specific plans and master plans. Applicable plans for the City include the Scott Valley area plan. Determination 2-5 - Present land use in the area includes residential, commercial, and industrial related uses, with most of the land being dedicated to residential use. Growth and development potential are limited and there is no expectation of any substantial changes in the planned land use as a direct result of this review. Determination 2-6 - Present needs for public facilities and services are currently being met. Probable needs for public facilities and services are not currently anticipated to vary from present needs, as future demands are expected to remain relatively the same. No significant growth or population increases are currently anticipated to affect the City’s ability to provide of services. The City does not have any major plans for future expansion of boundaries. Determination 2-7 - The City’s updated General Plan contains a number of policies that promote development on vacant and underdeveloped properties. Determination 2-8 – The General Plan policies dictate that growth generally be directed to the established downtown area. Fort Jones Municipal Services Review April 2021 Siskiyou LAFCo Page 2-9 Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities SECTION 3 - DISADVANTAGED UNINCORPORATED COMMUNITIES Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities (DUCs) are defined as inhabited territory (12 or more registered voters) that constitutes all or a portion of a community with an annual median household income that is less than 80% (or $60,188) of the statewide annual median household income, which was $75,235 according to the 2015-2019 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates (United States Census Bureau 2019). These communities were identified as an area of concern by Senate Bill 244 that was adopted in State Law in 2011. These communities may lack essential municipal services such as water or sewer as they may have been developed prior to infrastructure being installed in proximity to them. Pursuant to State Law, LAFCo is now required to identify any DUC adjacent to the City and determine if they should be included with any SOI amendment. The entire area outside the city limits but inside the SOI have a median income less than $60,188 (Figure 3-1). The City is the sole provider of water, wastewater, and structural fire protection (with support from various agencies) within the city limits. The County of Siskiyou and the City have mutual aid agreements for fire protection. Other service providers outside the city limits are comprised of single, privately operated facilities such as water wells and septic systems. Based on the information available, it can be determined that, although the entire SOI meets the definition of a DUC as it pertains to income level, the City is the lone service provider for water, wastewater, and structural protection. Any neighborhood outside the City could qualify as a disadvantaged neighborhood, pending further analysis or review by the City in compliance with Housing Element law. Fort Jones Municipal Services Review April 2021 Siskiyou LAFCo Page 3-10 Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities Figure 3-1 Median Household Income (2019) Fort Jones Municipal Services Review April 2021 Siskiyou LAFCo Page 3-11 Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities Figure 3-2 Potential Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities Fort Jones Municipal Services Review April 2021 Siskiyou LAFCo Page 3-12 Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities 3.1 - Determinations Determination 3-1 – There are areas currently within the City’s s Sphere of Influence that can be considered unincorporated disadvantaged communities due to median household income being below 80 percent of the statewide average. Determination 3-2 – The City shall update its General Plan Housing Element in compliance with Government Code Section 65302.10(d) to properly identify potential unincorporated island, fringe, or legacy communities inside or near its boundaries. Determination 3-3 – The City shall conduct an analysis of water, wastewater, stormwater drainage and structural fire protection of any identified unincorporated island, fringe, or legacy communities inside or near its boundaries. Determination 3-4 – Following proper updates of the General Plan in accordance with Housing Element law by the City, LAFCo shall revisit the presence of unincorporated disadvantaged communities and more specifically identify and prioritize these neighborhoods for service delivery by the City, if applicable. Fort Jones Municipal Services Review April 2021 Siskiyou LAFCo Page 3-13 Present and Planned Facilities and Services Capital Investment/Improvement Program SECTION 4 - PRESENT AND PLANNED CAPACITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND ADEQUACY OF PUBLIC SERVICES, INCLUDING INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS OR DEFICIENCIES The purpose of this section is to evaluate the infrastructure needs and deficiencies of the City of Fort Jones in terms of availability of resources, capacity to deliver services, condition of facilities, planned improvements, service quality, and levels of service. LAFCo is responsible for determining that an agency requesting an SOI amendment is reasonably capable of providing needed resources and basic infrastructure to serve areas within the City and its SOI. It is important that these findings of infrastructure and resource availability are made when revisions to the SOI and annexations occur. LAFCo accomplishes this by evaluating the resources and services to be expanded in line with increasing demands. 4.1 - Capital Investment/Improvement Program Upon completion of this Municipal Services Review, the City of Fort Jones had not completed a Capital Improvement Plan. The Siskiyou County 2016 Regional Transportation Plan, however, has identified both short-range and long-range capital improvements for the next 20 years for the Town of Fort Jones. Projects range from ADA compliance to road rehabilitation to installation of curb, gutter, and sidewalk, the total predicted pricing of which to exceed $4.1 million. The current status of said projects are unknown. 4.1.1 - DETERMINATIONS Determination 4.1-1 –Every few years the county adopts its Regional Transportation Plan which identifies key capital projects that are needed in order to enhance services to residents. Determination 4.1-2 – The City actively sets milestones and goals for the projects in order to benchmark its progress in achieving specific levels of service for its residents. Fort Jones Municipal Services Review April 2021 Siskiyou LAFCo Page 4-1 Present and Planned Facilities and Services Water 4.2 - Water 4.2.1 - SUMMARY OF PRIOR MSR FINDINGS The 2011 MSR for the City of Fort Jones noted that the City maintains its own water facilities and services. The water plant located on Newton Street within the City limits. The control well and parts have not had major renovations since the 1950s. According to the General Plan, water is supplied to the town by one primary well with a 0.72 MG per minute capacity, and two secondary wells with a total capacity of 375 gallons per minute. The secondary wells are rarely used and have not been necessary for drought periods, even when agricultural wells in the area were drying up. The previous MSR concluded that it is possible to maintain adequate water levels in the City’s reservoirs without restricting water consumption. 4.2.2 - CURRENT CONDITIONS The City still maintains its own water and sewer facilities, water being provided by one primary well with a 500 gallon per minute capacity and two secondary wells with a total capacity of 370 gallons per minute (City of Fort Jones 2006). The actual capacity of the system is not known, but there has not been a need to restrict water usage during the summer months. The city has two water tanks of 180,000 gallons and 200,000 gallons, respectively. The increasing age of the water system is something to take into consideration when discussing the current conditions. The Newton Street Control System (APN 055-041-260) was constructed in 1950, the Wellhouse emergency standby (APN 055-041-260) was constructed in 1975, and the Pump house (APN 055-251-140) was constructed in 1991. According to the Infrastructure Rehabilitation Feasibility Study of 2008, all these systems need improvements including a new storage tank, repair of bolted steel tank, new distribution pipes, a new well, and a dedicated tank fill line. Needs and Deficiencies As of the completion of this Municipal Services Review, the City has not implemented a Water Master Plan. That being said, the City should undergo an evaluation of its existing water system to determine where leaks and other losses are occurring in order to preserve its water resources. As mentioned before, the City was also in need of a new storage tank, repair of bolted steel tank, distribution pipes, a new well, and a dedicated tank fill line. According to the prior MSR, published in 2011, the City has applied to various state and federal agencies for grant monies and has received approximately $260,000 worth of improvements to the municipal water system and loans which enabled the City to install a new 200,000-gallon water tank and reline and paint the exiting storage tank. The other aforementioned improvements require funding as well, and the city plans to complete the remainder of the improvements identified in the Infrastructure Rehabilitation Feasibility Study of 2008. Fort Jones Municipal Services Review April 2021 Siskiyou LAFCo Page 4-2 Present and Planned Facilities and Services Water Numerous programs within the General Plan identify tasks for the City to undertake to address needs and deficiencies of their water utility: Policy PF-1A: The City shall prepare master water and sewer plans to accommodate projected growth needs for the next 20 years. Policy PF-1B: The City shall prepare a Capital Improvement staging and financing plan which will identify needed improvements based on current deficiencies, sewer and water master plans and growth projections. Policy PF-2B: The City shall consider programs to reduce impacts on public facilities from new development. This could include off-site improvements, over-sizing of water and sewer lines, impact fees and connection fees, and reimbursement agreements for extending facilities beyond the project or for over-sizing. By implementing the already adopted programs within the next five years, the City will be able to identify current deficiencies within the water system that go beyond what was studied in the Rehabilitation Feasibility Study. The most important factor in determining the likelihood of the necessary infrastructure improvements is the acquisition of the appropriate monies to complete said improvements. As stated in the previous MSR, it is suggested that the City adopt a financing strategy to update its water and wastewater infrastructure. This could be through the use of a development impact fee, among other things. 4.2.3 - DETERMINATIONS Determination 4.2-1 – The City provides water to residents within the city through the use of two tanks. Determination 4.2-2 – The City should prepare a Water Master Plan to determine an estimated water usage and to accommodate the development and growth envisioned within the General Plan. Determination 4.2-3 – The City should implement a program to assess the quality of water on a regular basis. Determination 4.2-4 – The City should produce an annual report to City Council on water supply and water quality. Determination 4.2-5 – The City should implement a Capital Improvements Plan for the phasing of updates to the water supply system when feasible, including the completion of metering of the water supply system as well as the for the phasing of updates to the water distribution system when feasible. Determination 4.2-6 – The City should adopt a financing strategy to update its water and wastewater infrastructure. This could be through development impact fees, grants, or any other forms of financing the City sees fit. Fort Jones Municipal Services Review April 2021 Siskiyou LAFCo Page 4-3 Present and Planned Facilities and Services Water Determination 4.2-7 – The City should implement a program to assess the distribution network as the City completes updates and regular maintenance. Fort Jones Municipal Services Review April 2021 Siskiyou LAFCo Page 4-4 Present and Planned Facilities and Services Wastewater 4.3 - Wastewater 4.3.1 - SUMMARY OF PRIOR MSR FINDINGS The City provides collection and disposal of wastewater with minimal treatment. A Preliminary Engineering Report for the Tow of Fort Jones was completed by Hammond Engineering in September 2004 and includes a summary of the existing wastewater system, projections of future demand, recommended improvements, and estimates of cost. There is no wastewater treatment as part of the disposal process; rather, there is an above ground tank with two chambers that reduces the amount of material and converts to effluent before it is directed into one of the evaporation ponds adjacent to the Scott River. The collection system is strictly for sanitary sewer flow and no storm water flow is conveyed into the system. The previous MSR recommended the following improvements for the wastewater system: • Replacement of manholes with new cast-in-place or precast manholes; • Replace sewer mains with new PVC pipe, with a minimum size of 8”; and • Removal of the Imhoff tank and installation of a solids grinder. Due to the close proximity to the Scott River and crop fields, there is concern with potential contamination and a cleaner effluent or more efficient method of wastewater is needed. The Imhoff tank should be abandoned and a comminutor (solids grinder) installed in its place to reduce the accumulation of solids prior to disposal to the evaporation ponds. The estimated cost for these recommended system improvements in 2004 was $936,026. It is assumed that this estimated cost has increased since those estimates. 4.3.2 - CURRENT CONDITIONS The City provides for the collection, treatment, and disposal of sewage. The collection system is available to basically all the lots within the City. The treatment plant is located southwest of the City, between the City boundary and the Scott River. The sewage treatment system is primarily a lagoon system where treatment effluent is evaporated with zero discharge. The sewage collection system is strictly for sanitary sewer flow and no storm water flow is conveyed into the system. The collection system consists of approximately 27,000 linear feet of sewer/main lines (City of Fort Jones 2006). There are four main sewage pump stations in town. There is also one privately-owned sewage pump station serving the supermarket, and 15 small individual residential pump systems serving 15 homes. According to the Fort Jones 2017-20018 Budget, the Income and Expense lines of the Sewer Department were equal, leading to the conclusion that the department does not run at a deficit (City of Fort Jones 2017). While this is a positive conclusion, it should be noted that Fort Jones Municipal Services Review April 2021 Siskiyou LAFCo Page 4-5 Present and Planned Facilities and Services Wastewater the City is still in need of an excess of money in order to pay for the recommended system improvements mentioned in the previous MSR. Needs and Deficiencies As of the writing of this Municipal Services Review, there is no evidence that the City of Fort Jones has addressed the issues listed in the last MSR of 2011. There is, however, evidence of grant funding from the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) in the amount of $455,900. The funding is for the planning of wastewater facility improvements. The purpose of the wastewater facility improvements is to address compliance issues related to the function of the existing wastewater treatment facility, address treatment and disposal options, and develop a long-term plan for effluent disposal. 4.3.3 - DETERMINATIONS Determination 4.3-1 – The Fort Jones Wastewater Treatment Plant provides sewer treatment to the entire City. Determination 4.3-2 – The City should create a Sewer System Management Plan to be reviewed at every budget cycle in order to determine if funds are needed to revise the document based on growth, development, or regulatory changes within the city. Determination 4.3-3 – The City should aggressively pursue state and federal grant funding to finance state-mandated infrastructure improvements and system upgrades, along with the system upgrades mentioned in the previous MSR of 2011. Fort Jones Municipal Services Review April 2021 Siskiyou LAFCo Page 4-6 Present and Planned Facilities and Services Storm Drainage 4.4 - Storm Drainage 4.4.1 - SUMMARY OF PRIOR MSR FINDINGS The Fort Jones MSR from 2011 determined that the City is in need of a master storm drain plan to fully comply with the requirements of the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board. 4.4.2 - CURRENT CONDITIONS There is no evidence of a recent service issue with the current storm drainage system in the City. As of the completion of this MSR, there is no evidence that Fort Jones adopted a Storm Drainage Master Plan per the MSR from 2011. 4.4.3 - DETERMINATIONS Determination 4.4-1 – There are no known service issues with the current storm drainage system in the City. Determination 4.4-2 – The City is in need of a master storm drain plan to fully comply with the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board. Fort Jones Municipal Services Review April 2021 Siskiyou LAFCo Page 4-7 Present and Planned Facilities and Services Road Maintenance 4.5 - Road Maintenance 4.5.1 - SUMMARY OF PRIOR MSR FINDINGS The City of Fort Jones MSR from 2011 concluded that there will be minimal new street development in the next decade, and the capacity of the Public Works Department is expected to be adequate for long-term maintenance of streets and roads in Fort Jones. There are a series of projects identified in the Siskiyou County Regional Transportation Plan, but the significant funding shortfall for road improvement projects have prevented these projects from being completed. Projects range from ADA compliance to road rehabilitation to installation of curb, gutter, and sidewalk, the total predicted pricing of which to exceed $4.1 million dollars (Siskiyou County 2016). 4.5.2 - CURRENT CONDITIONS The following City of Fort Jones road projects are included in the 2016 Siskiyou County RTP: Table 4-1 Fort Jones Road Projects Route Description Cost Construction Year Carlock Newton, Matthews Streets Pedestrian/ADA $376,000 2020 Dale Street Rehabilitate Road $72,000 2017 Mittan Street Rehabilitate Road $51,000 2017 Note: Construction year is anticipated. Source: 2016 Siskiyou County Regional Transportation Plan Funding for the listed projects is expected to come from STIP/Regional Surface Transportation Program (RSTP), and local funds. Most of these projects are carryover projects from the 2011 Siskiyou County RTP; construction will occur as funding becomes available. The 2016 RTP lists an additional four unconstrained (long-range) road projects totaling $4,153,000 for Fort Jones. 4.5.3 - DETERMINATIONS Determination 4.5-1 – The City actively maintains the existing road systems and is in the midst of two road rehabilitation projects. Determination 4.5-2 – The City utilizes various funding sources for the operations and maintenance of maintaining streets within the city limits. However, the City should consider adopting a Capital Improvements Program for streets in order to allow for comprehensive financial planning of resources. Determination 4.5-3 – The City should investigate opportunities for funding to complete the four unconstrainted (long-rage) road projects totaling $4,153,000. Fort Jones Municipal Services Review April 2021 Siskiyou LAFCo Page 4-8 Present and Planned Facilities and Services Law Enforcement 4.6 - Law Enforcement 4.6.1 - SUMMARY OF PRIOR MSR FINDINGS The Town of Fort Jones contracts with the City of Etna for law enforcement services within the city limits. There is a police station located within the City at 11960 East Street. The City contracts for two full time police officers, a part time Community Services Officer, animal control, the police station, and patrol vehicles. 4.6.2 - CURRENT CONDITIONS Fort Jones no longer contracts with the Siskiyou County Sheriff’s Office for law enforcement services. The City now contracts with the City of Etna for Law Enforcement Services. A police substation was established in Fort Jones by renting space with a local business which will allow residents to meet locally with law enforcement rather than having to leave town. The City also contracts with the City of Etna for two full time police officers, a part time Community Services Officer, animal control, and patrol vehicles. Crime Statistics Crime statistics for Fort Jones were obtained from the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) and are shown in Table 4-2. Table 4-2 2013-2018 Reported Crime Statistics (Category 1 Crimes) Category 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Population 681 680 684 684 690 690 Violent Crime 0 2 1 2 7 2 Murder/non-negligent manslaughter 0 0 0 0 0 0 Rape 0 1 0 0 0 0 Robbery 0 0 0 0 0 0 Aggravated Assault 0 1 1 2 7 1 Property Crime 16 11 10 7 10 34 Burglary 5 6 2 3 3 12 Larceny-theft 8 5 4 4 4 21 Motor vehicle theft 3 0 4 0 3 1 Arson 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Reported Crimes 16 13 11 9 17 36 Source: www.fbi.gov The rate of Category 1 Crimes in the City has stayed mostly the same in the years 2014 through 2018. The largest increase in the crime rate was in 2019 the total reported crimes increase from 17 to 36. The overwhelming majority of such crimes were property crimes in years reviewed. Fort Jones Municipal Services Review April 2021 Siskiyou LAFCo Page 4-9 Present and Planned Facilities and Services Law Enforcement The City does not have an adopted standard for sworn officers per 1,000 residents within the General Plan. However, the 2018 ratio for the Western region of the United States for cities whose population is under 10,000 residents was approximately 4.2 sworn officers per 1,000 (Federal Bureau of Investigations 2021).The Western region ratio of officers to residents sets a standard ratio that can be used to guide employment of officers within Fort Jones into the future. Although the City is seemingly providing that equivalent with two (2) contract officers with the City of Etna, this staffing level would still be lower than the regional average. However, the lack of increase in crimes over the period of study would suggest that the City is providing the appropriate service. Monitoring of the statistics should be done annually in order to ensure that no additional resources should be contributed to provide additional officers. 4.6.3 - DETERMINATIONS Determination 4.6-1 – The City contracts with the City of Etna for localized law enforcement services. Determination 4.6-2 – The City contracts for a police substation, two full time police officers, a part time Community Services Officer, animal control, and patrol vehicles. Determination 4.6-3 – The City should monitor crime statistics yearly to determine if there will eventually be a need for additional patrol personnel. Fort Jones Municipal Services Review April 2021 Siskiyou LAFCo Page 4-10 Present and Planned Facilities and Services Fire Protection 4.7 - Fire Protection 4.7.1 - SUMMARY OF PRIOR MSR FINDINGS According to the previous MSR from 2011, the fire department from 2007-2009 responded to an average of 306 calls per year. Most of the calls the Fire Department responded to were medical-related. The rise in 911 emergency (and non-emergency) medical calls was one of the major challenges facing the fire department. At the time of the 2011 MSR, the infrastructure and capital needs related to the Fort Jones Volunteer Fire Department were recommended by the chief and submitted to the City Council for approval. New and upgraded infrastructure and equipment is financed by the City’s general fund when possible, and/or by grants. As a small rural community, public safety services rely heavily on public contributions and donations. 4.7.2 - CURRENT CONDITIONS Fort Jones Fire Department is a Combination Paid/Volunteer Fire Department, established in 1877 (Fort Jones Fire Department 2019). The department serves all of Scott Valley, along with the City of Fort Jones. It is the primary response for Medical and Vehicle Accident Response from the Top of Forest Mountain on Highway 3, Callahan, Top of Etna Summit, to 24 miles down Scott River Road, with a primary response area of 380 square miles, with a secondary response area of approximately 865 square miles through automatic aid agreements. Fort Jones Fire Department is the busiest Fire Department in the Scott Valley, with a total response in 2015 of over 400 calls for service, including medical, search and rescue, hazardous materials, technical rope rescue, water rescue, structure fires, vehicle fires, wildland fires, and vehicle accidents. The department has maintained 100% response to emergency incidents for over 20 years (Fort Jones Fire Department). In 2017 the Fort Jones Fire Department responded to 414 incidents. Table 4-3 Fort Jones Fire Statistics 2017 Incidents Inside City Outside City Etna Other Total Medical Aids: 81 172 5 0 258 Fires: 5 28 0 7 40 Public Asst: 12 10 0 0 22 Other Calls: 28 44 2 20 94 Total: 126 254 7 27 414 Source: https://www.fortjonesfire.org/content/statistics/ Most of the incidents the department responds to are medical, as shown in Figure 4-1: Fort Jones Municipal Services Review April 2021 Siskiyou LAFCo Page 4-11 Present and Planned Facilities and Services Fire Protection Figure 4-1 Fire Department Response Types Source: Fort Jones Fire Department Facilities and Equipment The Fort Jones Fire Department is located at 31 Newton Street in Fort Jones. The Station was built in 1981 at an original size of 5,000 square feet. In 2010, the Fire Department added barracks, which added an additional 1,000 square feet. The Fort Jones Fire Department is staffed 24 hours a day, seven days a week. The Fire Department has an active Intern/Resident program for students or others looking to make the Fire Service a career. There is one full time Assistant Chief who is paid for by a Safer Grant for Recruitment and Retention. In the summer months, due to an increase in call volume, two additional season firefighters are hired. The department currently has three fire engines, one truck, one rescue truck, and two chief trucks (Fort Jones Fire Department 2019). In the Special City Council meeting in April 2020, the Fort Jones City Council approved the Scott Valley Fire Study (City of Fort Jones 2019). Fort Jones, Etna, and the Scott Valley Fire Protection District are considering consolidation of fire services. A consultant has been hired and the feasibility study is in progress. Needs and Deficiencies The City is located within a region that is potentially affected by wildfire since forested lands border the community to the east and northeast. Of particular concern is the close proximity of buildings in the downtown commercial area, proximity to forest lands, and the lack of Fort Jones Municipal Services Review April 2021 Siskiyou LAFCo Page 4-12 Present and Planned Facilities and Services Fire Protection adequate water storage, should water sources be interrupted for any reason. Appropriate planning can reduce the risk of urban and wild land fires. Local agencies should implement the minimum measures contained in State law with the assistance and direction provided by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CDF). These regulations specify minimum standards for access points, road lengths, widths and grades, water supply and storage, clearance around buildings, and other factors affecting emergency access and safety. Per the General Plan, the city can reduce the risks associated with urban wildland fires by: • Evaluating the water system to ensure adequate water supplies in the worst-case fire situation. This evaluation should include the number and location of fire hydrants, areas of low water pressure, and the overall system water storage capacity. If deficiencies are found, appropriate mitigation measures should be pursued. • Maintaining mutual aid agreements with local, state, and federal fire suppression agencies such as the CDF, U.S. Forest Service, the cities of Yreka and Etna and other Siskiyou County fire suppression agencies. • Sponsor training for the local fire department. • Enforce regulations prohibiting excessive plant growth or other flammable materials on private property. • Evaluating the current resources of the local fire department and, if deficiencies are found, enact plans to correct the deficiencies. • Evaluate the present communication system for adequacy regarding prompt fire reporting. • Develop limited and total evacuation plans and procedures. Starting in 2005, the City Council increased the Fire Department’s budget by 5% with the understanding that the money would be set aside for capital outlay projects. It was previously unknown where the money currently was, as $407,000 was missing for said projects. In the October 2018 City Council meeting, the Fire Department Chief asked why the money had not been accounted for. None of the City Council members disputed the fact that the money should be somewhere, and the council’s administrative financial officer said that he was still reviewing documents related to the issue (Jester 2018). As of the completion of this document, the issue had been investigated into the claims of missing funds and found that the monies were simply misallocated by the Fire Department for operating expenses rather than for capital projects. This issue is deemed resolved and closed by the City. 4.7.3 - DETERMINATIONS Determination 4.7-1 – The City provides fire protection with a volunteer/paid fire department that serves all of Scott Valley along with the City itself. The department is financed by the City’s general fund when possible, grants, and public contributions and donations. Fort Jones Municipal Services Review April 2021 Siskiyou LAFCo Page 4-13 Present and Planned Facilities and Services Fire Protection Determination 4.7-2 – The City should continue to program repairs to existing facilities in order to meet the needs of staff to provide a level of service acceptable to residents. Determination 4.7-3 – The City should continue mutual aid and automatic aid agreements with adjacent agencies in order to provide overlapping and supplemental service within the city limits and sphere of influence. Determination 4.7-4 – The City should wait for the results of the feasibility study to determine the likelihood of consolidation of fire services with Fort Jones, Etna, and Scott Valley Fire Protection District. Determination 4.7-5 – The City should continue to reduce the risks associated with urban wildland fires by implementing the ideas presented in the General Plan. Determination 4.7.6 – The City conducted an investigation into the erroneous claims of the previous Fire Chief and determined the funds were not misappropriated, as alleged, but were misallocated by the Fire Department itself for Operational expenses. Fort Jones Municipal Services Review April 2021 Siskiyou LAFCo Page 4-14 Financial Ability to Provide Services SECTION 5 - FINANCIAL ABILITY TO PROVIDE SERVICES This section analyzes the financial structure and health of the City of Fort Jones with respect to the provision of services. Included in this analysis is the consideration of rates, service operations, and the like, as well as other factors affecting the City’s financial health and stability, including factors affecting the financing of needed infrastructure improvements and services. Compliance with existing State requirements relative to financial reporting and management is also discussed. An examination of financing includes an evaluation of the fiscal impacts of potential development, and probable mechanisms to finance needed improvements and services. Evaluating these issues is important to ensure new development does not excessively burden existing infrastructure and the ability of the City to fund existing improvements and services. An examination of rate restructuring should identify impacts on rates and fees for services and facilities and recognize opportunities to positively impact rates without decreasing service levels. The focus is on whether there are viable options to increase the City’s efficiency through rate restructuring prior to any SOI adjustment. Annual audit reports and financial statements for the City were reviewed in accordance with the MSR Guidelines. The purpose of this review is to determine fiscal viability, suitability of current funding practices, and potential fiscal impacts resulting from new legislation. 5.1 - City Budget The Annual Budget reflects the City Council’s goals and targets and funding sufficient to maintain basic service levels. The City’s projected revenue for all funds in the coming 2020/2021 Annual Budget is $1,414,132 (City of Fort Jones 2020). The projected expenses total $1,362,853, leaving a net income of $51,279 (City of Fort Jones 2020). The revenues and expenditures from previous years up to the preliminary 2020/2021 are shown in Table 5-1, below (California State Controller's Office 2020). Table 5-1 City Revenues and Expenditures (2016-2020) (Projected) (Preliminary) Source 2015-2016 1 2016-2017 1 2017-2018 1 2018-2019 1 2019-2020 2 2020-2021 2 Revenues $850,008 $965,962 $1,576,043 $1,451,112 $1,162,861 $1,414,132 Expenditures $881,947 $761,626 $1,248,382 $1,558,076 $1,289,870 $1,362,853 Total (-$31,939) (+$240,336) (+$327,661) (-$106,964) (-$127,009) (+$51,279) 1 - California State Controller’s Office – Cities Financial Data. 2 – Fort Jones 2020/2021 Proposed Operating Budget The City’s deficit should not be construed as though the City is operating inappropriately. The City actually operated at a net surplus for the fiscal years 2016-2018. The deficit could Fort Jones Municipal Services Review April 2021 Siskiyou LAFCo Page 5-1 Financial Ability to Provide Services be due to the expenditure in the expenses section of the budget totaling $100,000 that is identified as “Sewer Prop 1 Project” (City of Fort Jones 2018). This is funding that will eventually be reimbursed by the grant the City received from the State Water Resources Control board. Additionally, the City has operated at a surplus of approximately $150,000 the previous two years so it could potentially draw from reserves to cover additional, essential expenditures, if needed. The surest way to understand the City’s financial situation though would be through an audit. The City has never completed an audit, although they are currently in the middle of a four- year audit. It is therefore suggested that the City finish their audit to understand the intricacies of their current financial situation. Overall, the City should adopt budget policies and strategies that drive the development of a sound budgetary structure. The City should maintain benchmarks and goals in order to measure their effectiveness from year to year. A summary of their achievements is also presented to the City Council in order to allow for proper planning during the budgeting process in order to reallocate funds accordingly in order to meet missed benchmarks. 5.1.1 - RATES AND FEES The City sets rates and fees for various services it provides. However, all rates for services provided by the City may only be used to support delivering that specific service and are subject to Proposition 218, described in Section 5.1.2. Therefore, all of the City’s rates are subject to Proposition 218 Hearing Notices, except some incidental fees such as use permits, building permits, business licenses, and vehicle violations. Fees set by the City are not subject to Proposition 218 and, instead, may be adjusted through a resolution adopted by the City Council. This allows for easier adjustment for various factors such as inflation or establishment of new services provided by City staff. The City adopts fees at the beginning of the fiscal year and provides a comprehensive list of fees through the Master Fee Schedule that is revised accordingly. The fees include: • Usage fees for the various recreation facilities throughout the City; • Building Permit Fees for review and inspection; • Business license fees; and • Police service and vehicle fines. 5.1.2 - PROPOSITION 218 Proposition 218 restricts local government’s ability to impose assessment and property related fees and requires elections to approve many local governmental revenue raising methods. This initiative, approved in 1996, applies to nearly 7,000 cities, counties, special districts, schools, community college districts, redevelopment agencies, and regional organizations. It ensures that all new taxes and most charges on property owners are subject to voter approval and especially to the tools of using property related fees to fund Fort Jones Municipal Services Review April 2021 Siskiyou LAFCo Page 5-2 Financial Ability to Provide Services governmental services instead of property related services. Of potential concern is the long- term effect the proposition has created in a local government’s ability to fill the growing divide between infrastructure needs and the provision of governmental services for the new infrastructure. Proposition 218 has not proven to be a factor in limiting the City’s ability to provide services. Fort Jones is a lower-income, disadvantaged community, and many of the residents cannot afford higher rates. There is a plan for the City to increase the rates in the near future, and Proposition 218 might prove the feat more difficult than anticipated. Therefore, it is suggested that the City perform a fee study in order to gain an understanding of what kind of fees it can impose on the citizens, and also to help educate the citizens on why fees are going up, if they indeed do. 5.1.3 - OPPORTUNITIES FOR RATE/FEE RESTRUCTURING The City’s Fee Schedule is subject to periodic comprehensive revisions and updates. There is no evidence suggesting that the City would not be able to provide services to the SOI areas for fees consistent with citywide fees for such services. Further, since it appears that the City’s practice is to review these fees and adopted revised fees parallel with approving the two-year budget, it can be assumed that future years will follow the same review and update procedure in order to ensure that full cost recovery is obtained for services rendered. In order to be sure of the financial stability and adequacy of the fees, it is suggested that the City conduct a fee study. 5.1.4 - DETERMINATIONS Determination 5.1-1 – The City conducts an open, transparent budgeting process aimed at balancing the needs of the City with the financial resources available but should use adopted budgeting policies and benchmarks to measure fiscal health. Determination 5.1-2 – The City attempts to utilize other forms of revenue available besides property taxes and fees, such as grants, in order to supplement its revenue stream. Determination 5.1-3 – The City is currently in the midst of a four-year audit. The City should finish and analyze their audit to understand their current financial situation and make any necessary changes. Determination 5.1-4 – There is no evidence suggesting that the City would be unable to provide services to the SOI areas for fees consistent with citywide fees for services. In order to ensure that full cost recovery is obtained for services rendered, the City should conduct a fee study. Determination 5.1-5 – The City’s utilization of an open budgeting process allows the City to be financially able to provide an adequate level of service to residents. Fort Jones Municipal Services Review April 2021 Siskiyou LAFCo Page 5-3 Financial Ability to Provide Services 5.2 - Status of, and Opportunities for, Cost Avoidance and Shared Facilities Practices and opportunities that may help to reduce or eliminate unnecessary costs are examined in this section, along with cost avoidance measures that are already being utilized. Occurrences of facilities sharing are listed and assessed for efficiency. Potential sharing opportunities that could result in better delivery of services is also discussed. An examination of cost avoidance opportunities should identify practices and opportunities that may help eliminate unnecessary or excessive costs to provide services. Such costs may be derived from a variety of factors including duplication of service efforts and facilities; inefficient budgeting practices; higher than necessary administration and operating cost ratios; inefficient use of outsourcing opportunities; and inefficient service boundaries. An examination of opportunities for shared facilities should determine if public service costs can be reduced as a result of identification and development of opportunities for sharing facilities and resources. The benefits of sharing costs for facilities are numerous, including pooling of funds to enjoy economies of scale; reduced service duplications; diversion of administrative functions of some facilities; reduced costs; and providing better overall service. Maximizing opportunities to share facilities allows for a level of service that may not otherwise be possible under normal funding constraints; however, facilities sharing opportunities are not without their challenges. When a municipality enters into a shared agreement, it generally relinquishes a portion of its control of the facility. Additionally, the facility may not be entirely suited to accommodate the municipality’s needs. However, the City’s location makes it difficult to share facilities or services with other agencies besides Siskiyou County. Consolidating fire services would be the easiest to do. The Fort Jones, Etna, and Scott Valley Fire Protection District are considering consolidation of fire services (City of Fort Jones 2019). A consultant has been hired and the feasibility study is in progress. In any event, the City should continuously review its ability to maximize facilities by looking for partners to share operating and construction costs with new facilities either through the update of various planning documents or during the two-year budget cycle. 5.2.1 - DETERMINATIONS Determination 5.2-1 – During the budget review cycle or an update of a planning document, the City should review its existing agreements with various agencies to identify the potential for cost sharing opportunities of services and/or facilities. Determination 5.2-2 – The City should complete the feasibility study to see if consolidation of fire services with Etna and Scott Valley Fire Protection District would be beneficial to all parties involved. Fort Jones Municipal Services Review April 2021 Siskiyou LAFCo Page 5-4 Financial Ability to Provide Services 5.3 - Accountability for Community Service Needs, including Governmental Structure and Operation Efficiencies This section addresses the adequacy and appropriateness of the existing city boundary and SOI of the City of Fort Jones, assesses the management structure and overall managerial practices of the City, and evaluates the ability of the City to meet its service demands under its existing government structure. Also included in this section is an evaluation of compliance by the City with public meeting and records laws. An examination of government structure should consider the advantages and disadvantages of various government structures that could provide public services. In reviewing potential government structure options, consideration may be given to service delivery quality and cost, regulatory or government frameworks, financial feasibility, operational practicality, and public preference. An examination of local accountability should evaluate the accessibility to and levels of public participation with the agency’s management and decision-making processes. The MSR Guidelines note measures such as legislative and bureaucratic accountability, public participation, and easy accessibility to public documents and information as important in ensuring public participation in the decision-making process. 5.3.1 - ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE The City of Fort Jones operates under the council-administrator form of government. The Chief Executive Officer is the City Administrator who is appointed by the City Council and carries out City policies. All other department heads in the City serve under contract of the City Manager. The City Manager’s Office has the responsibility to ensure the needs and concerns of the community and the City organization are properly addressed. The City Council is responsible for governing as well as establishing the overall priorities and direction for the City’s municipal government. The Council’s responsibilities include the adoption of City ordinances and policies (such as the General Plan), approval of programs, services, projects, contracts and agreements, adoption of the annual budget, and establishment of short- and long-term goals for the City. Actions of the Council, including opportunities for public involvement and public hearings, are regulated in accordance with applicable statutes and City procedures. Fort Jones Municipal Services Review April 2021 Siskiyou LAFCo Page 5-5 Financial Ability to Provide Services Figure 5-1 City of Fort Jones Organizational Chart Source: City of Fort Jones LAFCO Questionnaire Response The City Council is elected on an at-large basis. Once elected, it is the duty of each Councilmember to represent the interests of all residents of the City. However, this structure of election allows residents to elect all council members but may result in areas of the City being unrepresented. The Council conducts public, noticed meetings on the second Monday of each month at 6:00 PM at City Hall, located at 11960 East Street. Special meetings are posted at City Hall if needed (City of Fort Jones 2017). The City is required to follow the open meeting law set forth in the Brown Act (California Government Code Section 54950 et seq.). The intent of this legislation is to ensure that deliberations and actions of a legislative body be conducted openly and that all persons be permitted to attend any meeting except as otherwise provided in the law. Agendas must be posted at least 72 hours in advance of a meeting, and information made available to the Council must also be available to the public. There appear to be ample opportunities for public involvement and input at regularly scheduled meetings. The agenda is posted at numerous locations, posted on the Internet, and sent to local media. It can be emailed out to those residents who request an agenda and is also posted to the City’s website. Public notices (pursuant to the Government Code) are published to advertise certain types of hearings and press releases are issued to inform the public on significant city-wide issues and projects. Fort Jones Municipal Services Review April 2021 Siskiyou LAFCo Page 5-6 Financial Ability to Provide Services The City’s budget process is a key mechanism used to review efficiencies in the management of City services and programs. The budget process includes a review of previous accomplishments, upcoming goals and programs, and specific funding to carry out those programs. The budget is adopted through a public hearing process by the City Council. As a municipality, the City is structured to meet the needs and expectations of urban/suburban levels of development. As a multiple service provider with established service systems, the City would be able to efficiently provide a comprehensive range of services. With existing and planned development within the SOI, the extension of infrastructure and services into these areas would be logical and generally more efficient than if provided by other utilities. Provision of services and infrastructure by the City into the SOI should not overlap or conflict with other service providers. The inclusion of the SOI areas into the City is not anticipated to have a significant effect on the governmental structure of the City. 5.3.2 - DETERMINATIONS Determination 5.3-1 – The City Council is elected at-large and utilizes a mayor appointment format, which serves for a term of two years. This may prevent some areas of the City from being represented on the City Council. Determination 5.3-2 – The City conducts open meetings in compliance with the Brown Act that allows for complaints and comments regarding services and potential conflicts or inefficiencies to be identified to the City Council by residents. Determination 5.3-3 – The City utilizes an organizational structure that obtains efficiency through department heads who oversee multiple divisions. Determination 5.3-4 – The City makes reports, documents, council agendas and other information available to the public that detail operations and services provided by the City at City Hall as well as on its website. Determination 5.3-5 – The current City structure is efficient, transparent and meets expectations of its residents with the resources available. Fort Jones Municipal Services Review April 2021 Siskiyou LAFCo Page 5-7 Sphere of Influence Review SECTION 6 - SPHERE OF INFLUENCE REVIEW 6.1 - Sphere of Influence Overview As part of any SOI review, LAFCo is required to consider all the information presented in the Municipal Service Review conducted for that agency. Additionally, LAFCo must also make written statement of its determinations for that agency regarding the following: 1. The present and planned land uses in the area, including agricultural and open-space lands; 2. The present and probable need for public facilities and services in the area; 3. The present capacity of public facilities and adequacy of public services that the agency provides or is authorized to provide; 4. The existence of any social or economic communities of interest in the area if the commission determines that they are relevant to the agency; and 5. The present and probable need for those public facilities and services of any disadvantaged unincorporated communities within the existing SOI. After a written determination has been made with respect to the aforementioned areas of review, LAFCo may adopt an SOI that is appropriate for the agency’s provision of service. This section of the report fulfills the requirements of Government Code Section 56425 and allows LAFCo to adopt an SOI that is consistent with the written determinations for the City of Fort Jones. 6.2 - Present and Planned Land Uses The City adopted a General Plan update in January 2006. The planning area within the General Plan provided a basis for the land use analysis and future development policies. The planning area does not extend past the city limits; however, areas outside the city limits are addressed only in the case of concepts pending future evaluations of appropriate land uses for annexations. Land outside the city limits is also addressed as it pertains to access and connectivity of goods and services to city residents. The current SOI would appear to be adequate to meet present and future service needs of residents. The SOI covers adjacent, existing communities which may need services in the future if their service provider is no longer able to operate. The areas within the SOI but without the City Limits are mainly agricultural and rural. Were these areas to develop and become more populated, the City would consider annexation in order to provide basic services. The City would be able to possibly step in as successor agency in the future. As stated in the General Plan, annexations within the SOI will require evaluation but this process is typical for any proposal for reorganization. This would include various areas which have been identified by the City for proposed annexation. The City has stated the desire to expand the Sphere of Influence to incorporate buildable land on the east side of Highway 3 and to eliminate the irregular configuration that Fort Jones Municipal Services Review April 2021 Siskiyou LAFCo Page 6-1 Sphere of Influence Review currently exists. Upon the completion of the environmental documentation and approval of appropriate entitlements which will undergo analysis pertaining to service delivery, an amendment to the SOI would then be appropriate. As these areas do not currently have any designation, it is feasible to determine the adequacy of service delivery to land uses. Once a plan of services has been submitted to LAFCo along with the appropriate CEQA documentation, it is not unreasonable to assume that the SOI could be amended if capacity is confirmed to be available for the perspective sites. 6.3 - Present and Probable Need for Public Facilities and Services The City provides a range of services to its residents, while sometimes coordinating with other agencies to best provide services in a comprehensive manner. Additionally, the City has outlined its growth and development within the adopted General Plan. The only probable need for public facilities would be for the existing areas within the SOI, were these areas to become more developed. It is also within the City’s best interest to continue to update their existing facilities, along with conducting studies to determine the timeline and funding opportunities to do so. 6.3.1 - DISADVANTAGED UNINCORPORATED COMMUNITIES The City does not provide water and wastewater services outside the city limits within the SOI. The City does provide structural fire protection within the entirety of the SOI. The area outside the city limits but in the SOI is mostly agricultural land. The City would be the logical service provider for this area. Therefore, the City would need to prepare to extend these services to this area as part of any reorganization within, and development of, the area. However, this area is already within the SOI and therefore no amendment would need to be made. 6.4 - Present Capacity of Public Facilities and Adequacy of Public Services The City currently provides a level of service which is satisfactory to meet the needs of residents. The city reviews its service levels and should set benchmarks that allow for easy review on an annual basis to determine if additional resources must be allocated. Creating master plans on a five-year basis would allow for better tracking and evaluation of service levels and needs. Furthermore, inclusion of a CIP within the two-year adopted budget would further show the enhancements and improvements completed to further enhance infrastructure systems operated by the City. 6.5 - Existence of Any Social or Economic Communities of Interest As stated in Section 3, there are currently communities of social or economic interest within or adjacent to the existing SOI, identified as DUCs. However, by keeping these neighborhoods within the SOI, it would allow the City to be a viable service provider under the provisions of Government Code §56133 and subject to the policies of Siskiyou LAFCo, in the event than an existing service provider is no longer able to do so. Fort Jones Municipal Services Review April 2021 Siskiyou LAFCo Page 6-2 Sphere of Influence Review 6.6 - Fort Jones Sphere of Influence Recommendations As shown in the MSR and throughout the determinations of this document, the City of Fort Jones is currently providing services at an adequate level to its citizens. The City is accountable to its customers through the City Council, which are elected at-large. However, given the revenue structure of the City, it amicably pieces together multiple sources of revenue such as Gas Tax and grant opportunities to provide a wide range of services within the city limits. However, the City needs to monitor its revenues compared to expenditures, as the financial statement for 2018-2020 appears to show a slight deficit for this past fiscal year. The growth of the City is managed through the General Plan. As a result, modest growth has been planned and identified within the City but policies for development will allow for services and infrastructure planning to catch up with the needs of future residents. In conclusion, based on the analysis provided within this report, the existing SOI for the City of Fort Jones is adequate to service the existing residents as well as possible future needs of communities within it. Recommendation 6-1 – It is recommended that the City of Fort Jones SOI remain unchanged. Recommendation 6-2 – With the recent adoption of a General Plan to guide growth policies, the City’s existing SOI is acceptable to accommodate present and future growth needs for residents. Recommendation 6-3 - With the adoption of a General Plan to guide growth policies, the capacity of public facilities is required to be reviewed during new development proposals by the City to accommodate the present and future needs of residents in a responsible manner. Recommendation 6-4 – The City may be considered a logical service provider for adjacent, existing communities if one of the current service providers is no longer solvent or able to provide services. At that time, a feasibility study should be commissioned to identify potential options for successor agencies to provide fire protection services to these communities. Recommendation 6-5 – Future amendments to the SOI should be completed following completion of a plan for services, environmental review in accordance with CEQA, and approval of entitlements, such as General Plan Amendments and/or Prezoning, by the City Council. At that time, LAFCo would be able to evaluate the service delivery expansion to these areas and if any additional measures need to be taken. Fort Jones Municipal Services Review April 2021 Siskiyou LAFCo Page 6-3 References SECTION 7 - REFERENCES CA Department of Finance. n.d. "Demographic Estimates." CA Department of Finance. Accessed 2019. http://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/E-1/. California State Controller's Office. 2020. "Cities Financial Data." City of Fort Jones. 2020. "2020/2021 Proposed Operating Budget." City of Fort Jones. 2017. Budget 2017-2018. Budget, Fort Jones: City of Fort Jones. City of Fort Jones. 2019. City Council Meeting Minutes June 2019. City Council Meeting Minutes, Fort Jones: City of Fort Jones. City of Fort Jones. 2006. City of Fort Jones 2025 General Plan. General Plan, Fort Jones: City of Fort Jones. City of Fort Jones. 2015-2017. City of Fort Jones Financial Statement. Financial Statement, Fort Jones: City of Fort Jones. —. 2019. "Fort Jones City Council ." City of Fort Jones. April. Accessed July 2019. https://fortjonesca.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/April-8-2019-Minutes- signed.pdf. City of Fort Jones. 2018. FY 2018-2019 Annual Budget. Budget, Fort Jones: City of Fort Jones. City of Fort Jones. 2017. "MSR Questionnaire ." Questionnaire Reponse, Fort Jones. City of Weed. n.d. Meet Our Mayor and Council. Accessed April 3, 2019. https://www.ci.weed.ca.us/index.asp?SEC=97B83618-FA99-4E3C-B2ED- 427B747B6DE5&Type=B_DIR. Federal Bureau of Investigations. 2021. 2019 Crime in the United States. Crime Report, Federal Bureau of Investigations. Fort Jones Fire Department. 2019. Fort Jones Fire Department. Accessed July 2019. https://www.fortjonesfire.org/. Jester, Danielle. 2018. "More Than $400,000 Missing in Fort Jones." The Siskiyou Daily News, October 16: 1. Michael Baker International. 2016. 2014-2019 Housing Element. City of Etna: California Department of Housing and Community Development. Siskiyou County. 2016. Siskiyou County Regional Transportation Plan. Transportation Plan, Siskiyou County. Fort Jones Municipal Services Review April 2021 Siskiyou LAFCo Page 7-1 References State of California SB 375. 2008. "B 375." U.S. Census Bureau. 2017. Fort Jones Demographic Information. United States Census Bureau. United States Census Bureau. 2019. "2015-2019 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates." Fort Jones Municipal Services Review April 2021 Siskiyou LAFCo Page 7-2