LAFCO
Solano Resource Conservation Districts Final MSR
Read the report at Local Agency Formation Commissions ↗
S O L A N O C O U N T Y R E S O U R C E
C O N S E RVAT I O N D I S T R I C T S
M U N I C I PA L S E RV I C E R E V I E W
F I N A L
June 12, 2015
Prepared for the
Solano Local Agency Formation Commission
by Policy Consulting Associates, LLC.
SOLANO LAFCO
RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
TA B L E O F C O N T E N T S
ACRONYMS AND DEFINITIONS .................................................................................................................................4
PREFACE ........................................................................................................................................................................6
CONTEXT ...................................................................................................................................................................6
CREDITS ....................................................................................................................................................................6
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................................8
SERVICE PROVIDERS ......................................................................................................................................................8
SPHERE OF INFLUENCE ..................................................................................................................................................8
GROWTH AND SERVICE DEMAND ....................................................................................................................................8
PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT .......................................................................................................................................9
ACCOUNTABILITY ..........................................................................................................................................................9
FINANCING .................................................................................................................................................................10
CAPACITY, ADEQUACY AND CONSTRAINTS .....................................................................................................................11
GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE OPTIONS .............................................................................................................................11
2. LAFCO AND MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEWS ...............................................................................................13
LAFCO OVERVIEW .....................................................................................................................................................13
MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW LEGISLATION .................................................................................................................13
MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW PROCESS .......................................................................................................................14
SPHERE OF INFLUENCE UPDATES .................................................................................................................................14
DISADVANTAGED UNINCORPORATED COMMUNITIES ......................................................................................................15
3. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................................17
RESOURCE CONSERVATION SERVICES ............................................................................................................................18
GROWTH & POPULATION PROJECTIONS ........................................................................................................................24
4. DIXON RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT .............................................................................................32
AGENCY OVERVIEW .....................................................................................................................................................32
GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE AND ACCOUNTABILITY .........................................................................................................41
GROWTH AND POPULATION PROJECTIONS .....................................................................................................................44
DISADVANTAGED UNINCORPORATED COMMUNITIES ......................................................................................................47
FINANCIAL ABILITY TO PROVIDE SERVICES ....................................................................................................................47
PRESENT AND PLANNED CAPACITY ...............................................................................................................................52
SERVICE ADEQUACY ....................................................................................................................................................56
STATUS AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR SHARED FACILITIES ...................................................................................................58
LAFCO POLICIES AFFECTING SERVICE DELIVERY ..........................................................................................................61
DIXON RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT DETERMINATIONS ......................................................................................63
5. SOLANO RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT ..........................................................................................66
AGENCY OVERVIEW .....................................................................................................................................................66
GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE AND ACCOUNTABILITY .........................................................................................................75
GROWTH AND POPULATION PROJECTIONS .....................................................................................................................78
DISADVANTAGED UNINCORPORATED COMMUNITIES ......................................................................................................80
FINANCIAL ABILITY TO PROVIDE SERVICES ....................................................................................................................81
PRESENT AND PLANNED CAPACITY ...............................................................................................................................84
SERVICE ADEQUACY ....................................................................................................................................................85
STATUS AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR SHARED FACILITIES ...................................................................................................87
LAFCO POLICIES AFFECTING SERVICE DELIVERY ..........................................................................................................91
SOLANO RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT DETERMINATIONS ...................................................................................93
6. SUISUN RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT ...........................................................................................96
AGENCY OVERVIEW .....................................................................................................................................................96
TABLE OF CONTENTS Policy Consulting Associates, LLC 1
SOLANO LAFCO
RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE AND ACCOUNTABILITY .......................................................................................................104
GROWTH AND POPULATION PROJECTIONS ...................................................................................................................107
DISADVANTAGED UNINCORPORATED COMMUNITIES ....................................................................................................108
FINANCIAL ABILITY TO PROVIDE SERVICES ..................................................................................................................109
PRESENT AND PLANNED CAPACITY .............................................................................................................................111
SERVICE ADEQUACY ..................................................................................................................................................112
STATUS AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR SHARED FACILITIES .................................................................................................114
LAFCO POLICIES AFFECTING SERVICE DELIVERY ........................................................................................................116
SUISUN RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT DETERMINATIONS ..................................................................................118
REFERENCES .............................................................................................................................................................121
CONTRIBUTORS .......................................................................................................................................................124
TABLE OF CONTENTS Policy Consulting Associates, LLC 2
SOLANO LAFCO
RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
L I S T O F F I G U R E S
FIGURE 3-‐1: RESOURCE CONSERVATION SERVICE PROVIDERS IN SOLANO COUNTY .............................................................22
FIGURE 3-‐2: RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICTS IN SOLANO COUNTY ...........................................................................23
FIGURE 3-‐3: POPULATION GROWTH RATES IN SOLANO COUNTY AND CALIFORNIA, DOF 2001-‐2014 .................................27
FIGURE 3-‐4: NEW RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PERMITS, U.S. CENSUS BUREAU 2000-‐2013 ..................................................28
FIGURE 3-‐5: COUNTYWIDE ADJUSTED DOF POPULATION PROJECTIONS ...........................................................................29
FIGURE 3-‐6: COUNTYWIDE ADJUSTED DOT POPULATION PROJECTIONS ...........................................................................30
FIGURE 3-‐7: ANNUALIZED GROWTH PROJECTIONS BY METHOD ........................................................................................31
FIGURE 4-‐1: DIXON RCD BOUNDARIES ...........................................................................................................................34
FIGURE 4-‐2: DIXON RCD DRAINAGE DITCH SYSTEM ........................................................................................................37
FIGURE 4-‐3: DRCD SERVICES ........................................................................................................................................38
FIGURE 4-‐4: DRCD CONTRACT SERVICES .......................................................................................................................40
FIGURE 4-‐5: DIXON RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT GOVERNING BODY .....................................................................42
FIGURE 4-‐6: PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS IN DRCD ...........................................................................................................45
FIGURE 4-‐7: DRCD REVENUE AND EXPENDITURES, FYS 09-‐10 THROUGH FY 13-‐14 .........................................................48
FIGURE 4-‐8: DRCD DITCH MAINTENANCE FEE MAP .......................................................................................................51
FIGURE 4-‐9: REGIONAL WATERSHEDS ............................................................................................................................54
FIGURE 4-‐10: DRCD FACILITIES ....................................................................................................................................55
FIGURE 4-‐11: DRCD MEMBERSHIPS ..............................................................................................................................59
FIGURE 4-‐12: DRCD COLLABORATIONS .........................................................................................................................59
FIGURE 5-‐1: SOLANO RCD BOUNDARIES ........................................................................................................................68
FIGURE 5-‐2: SORCD SERVICES ......................................................................................................................................70
FIGURE 5-‐3: SORCD CONTRACT SERVICES ......................................................................................................................75
FIGURE 5-‐4: SOLANO RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT GOVERNING BODY ..................................................................76
FIGURE 5-‐5: SORCD REVENUE AND EXPENDITURES, FYS 09-‐10 THROUGH FY 13-‐14 .......................................................82
FIGURE 5-‐6: SORCD MEMBERSHIPS ...............................................................................................................................88
FIGURE 5-‐7: SORCD COLLABORATIONS .........................................................................................................................89
FIGURE 6-‐1: SUISUN RCD BOUNDARIES ..........................................................................................................................98
FIGURE 6-‐2: SURCD SERVICES ....................................................................................................................................100
FIGURE 6-‐3: SURCD CONTRACT SERVICES ....................................................................................................................103
FIGURE 6-‐4: SUISUN RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT GOVERNING BODY .................................................................105
FIGURE 6-‐5: SURCD REVENUE AND EXPENDITURES, FYS 09-‐10 THROUGH FY 13-‐14 .....................................................110
LIST OF FIGURES Policy Consulting Associates, LLC 3
SOLANO LAFCO
RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
ACRO NYM S A ND DEF I NI TI O NS
ABAG: Association of Bay Area Governments
BCDC: San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commissions
BOE California State Board of Equalization
CEC: Conservation Education Center
CIP: Capital Improvement Plan
CPA: Certified Public Accountant
CREP: Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program
CSDA: California Special District Association
CY: Calendar year
DFW: California Department of Fish and Wildlife
DRCD: Dixon Resource Conservation District
DOF: California Department of Finance
DOT: Department of Transportation
DRWJPA: Dixon Regional Watershed Joint Powers Authority
DWR: Department of Water Resources
DWRPA: Dixon Watershed Real Property Acquisition Joint Powers Authority
FSA: Farm Services Agency
FSSD: Fairfield Suisun Sewer District
FTE: Full-‐Time Equivalent
FY: Fiscal year
GIS: Geographic Information Systems
GM: General Manager
GP: General Plan
GVRD: Greater Vallejo Recreation District
JPA: Joint Powers Authority
LAFCO: Local Agency Formation Commission
MOU: Memorandum of Understanding
MPWD: Maine Prairie Water District
MSA: Municipal Service Area
MSR: Municipal Service Review
NA: Not applicable
NP: Not provided
NRCD: Napa Resource Conservation District
NRCS: National Resource Conservation Service
OASA: Out-‐of-‐Area Service Agreement
OPR: Governor’s Office of Planning and Research
PPP: Public Private Partnership
RCD: Resource Conservation District
RD: Reclamation District
SCMAD: Solano County Mosquito Abatement District
SCS: Soil Conservation Service
SCWA: Solano County Water Agency
SEC: Sonoma Ecology Center
SLT: Solano Land Trust
ACRONYMS Policy Consulting Associates, LLC 4
SOLANO LAFCO
RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
SMPA: Suisun Marsh Preservation Agreement
SoRCD: Solano Resource Conservation District
SOI: Sphere of influence
SSJWC: San Joaquin Delta Conservancy
SuRCD: Suisun Resource Conservation District
SR: State Route
USBR: United States Bureau of Reclamation
USDA: United States Department of Agriculture
VSFD: Vallejo Sanitation and Flood District
WHIP: Wildlife Habitat Improvement Program
WRP: Wetlands Reserve Program
YRCD: Yolo Resource Conservation District
ACRONYMS Policy Consulting Associates, LLC 5
SOLANO LAFCO
RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
P R EFAC E
Prepared for the Solano Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO), this report is a
service specific municipal services review—a State-‐required comprehensive study of
resource conservation services within Solano County. The intent of this document is to
provide a detailed description of how resource conservation services are offered in Solano
County.
CONTEXT
Solano LAFCO is required to prepare this MSR by the Cortese-‐Knox-‐Hertzberg Local
Government Reorganization Act of 2000 (Government Code §56000, et seq.), which took
effect on January 1, 2001. The MSR reviews services provided by public agencies whose
boundaries and governance are subject to LAFCO. Special districts providing resource
conservation-‐related services are the focus of this review.
CREDITS
The authors extend their appreciation to those individuals at the many agencies that
provided planning and financial information and documents used in this report. The
contributors are listed individually at the end of this report.
Solano LAFCO Executive Officer, Elliot Mulberg, provided project direction and review.
Solano County prepared maps and provided GIS analysis. This report was prepared by
Policy Consulting Associates, LLC, and co-‐authored by Oxana Wolfson and Jennifer
Stephenson. Oxana Wolfson served as project manager. Jennifer Stephenson provided
research analysis. Lauren Wilkins and Terrence Matsuo provided research assistance.
The local agencies provided a substantial portion of the information included in this
document. Each local agency provided budgets, financial statements, various plans, and
responded to questionnaires.
PREFACE Policy Consulting Associates, LLC 6
SOLANO LAFCO
RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
1. EXECUTI V E S UM M A RY
This report is a Municipal Service Review (MSR) of resource conservation services
provided in Solano County by resource conservation districts prepared for the Solano Local
Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO). An MSR is a State-‐required comprehensive study
of services within a designated geographic area, in this case, Solano County. The MSR
requirement is codified in the Cortese-‐Knox-‐Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization
Act of 2000 (Government Code §56000 et seq.). After MSR findings are adopted, LAFCO
will begin updating the spheres of influence (SOIs) of the agencies covered in this report.
SERVICE PROVIDERS
This report focuses on special districts under LAFCO jurisdiction in Solano County that
provide resource conservation services. These providers were last reviewed in an MSR in
2006. Three resource conservation districts were reviewed as part of this report—Dixon
Resource Conservation District (DRCD), Solano Resource Conservation District (SoRCD)
and Suisun Resource Conservation District (SuRCD).
SPHERE OF INFLUENCE
Spheres of Influence (SOIs) for all three resource conservation districts reviewed in this
report were first established in 1984 as coterminous with the respective districts’
boundaries. In 2006, after the completion of the Municipal Service Review for all the RCDs,
their SOIs were updated and reaffirmed to be conterminous with their respective
boundaries. No changes in the spheres of influence of Dixon RCD or SuRCD are anticipated
after the adoption of this Municipal Service Review. Solano RCD expressed interest in
expanding its SOI to include all of the Solano County unincorporated areas that are
currently outside of an RCD. Additionally, Solano RCD is also considering including
incorporated areas of Solano County that are currently not in boundaries of any RCD.
GROWTH AND SERVICE DEMAND
Each resource conservation agency reviewed as part of this MSR considers its primary
customer base to be landowners. The districts protect open space and agricultural lands, as
well as natural resources and wildlife. Service demand for RCDs in Solano County is
influenced by constituent outreach, a rise in regulatory compliance requirements, and
changes in service needs due to environmental changes. All three districts reported an
increase in service demand in the last several years.
There were approximately 424,233 residents in Solano County in 2014. Since 2000, the
number of residents has grown by 7.5 percent. Projections for future growth differ
depending on the source (California Department of Finance, California Department of
Transportation, and the Association of the Bay Area Governments (ABAG)), and range
between 0.7 and 0.9 percent average annual growth over the next two decades. According
to ABAG, growth will be concentrated in three major centers—Fairfield, Vacaville and
Vallejo. The City of Rio Vista, however, is anticipated to see the most dramatic population
growth rate of all the cities in Solano County.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Policy Consulting Associates, LLC 8
SOLANO LAFCO
RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
It is anticipated that there will be minimal development or population growth within
unincorporated areas of each districts’ boundaries. Growth is expected to occur within and
around the incorporated areas of the districts.
PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT
All resource conservation districts in California are governed by the Public Resources
Code Division 9 (Section 9001-‐9978). The law outlines minimum requirements to guide the
operations of a well-‐managed RCD, which includes regular financial audits, filing and
paying appropriate payroll taxes, filing reports with the State Board of Equalization (BOE),
developing and adopting annual and long-‐range plans and annual reports, and preparing an
annual budget before the beginning of a fiscal year.
All three reviewed RCDs adopt annual budgets, perform regular financial audits, pay
payroll taxes and file reports with the BOE. Dixon RCD and Solano RCD appropriately
prepare long-‐range and annual plans that fulfill all the necessary requirements.
Additionally, Dixon RCD prepares annual reports that are released to constituents. Solano
RCD could improve its management practices by producing annual reports that could also
be incorporated in the District’s long-‐range plan. Suisun RCD could make improvements by
developing and adopting a long-‐range plan, annual plans and annual reports.
Besides being one of the provisions of the Public Resources Code, a long-‐range plan
provides a road map to agencies by setting priorities and identifying means to meet those
goals. Priority setting helps a district determine which needs deserve attention first and
enables it to focus its limited resources on addressing those needs. District priority setting
is accomplished through creating a mission statement, identifying goals that support its
mission, and then crafting objectives that help the district reach its goals. Also, having a
clear mission, goals, and objectives—a strategic plan—helps identify shared interests an
agency may have with other groups, agencies, or individuals and helps avoid duplicating
the work of other groups.
ACCOUNTABILITY
In addition to the previously mentioned administrative requirements, Public Resources
Code Division 9 outlines regulations that must govern each resource conservation district.
A well-‐governed RCD files an annual report to the State Controller with a Government
Compensation Report, conducts ethics training every two years, files Forms 700 for all
directors and designated staff, provides employees with sexual harassment literature, has
directors take an oath of office, maintains written records of board meeting agendas and
minutes, follows the Brown Act, and has appropriate board and personnel policies. At a
minimum each district should have policies regarding the following: associate directors,
bidding, conflicts of interest, fees for services, investments, reserves, nondiscrimination,
personnel, public records requests, reimbursements, vehicles, and volunteers.
All three RCDs file annual reports to the State Controller with the Government
Compensation Report, conduct ethics training, file appropriate Forms 700, have their
directors take an oath of office, maintain records of agendas and minutes, and follow the
Brown Act by posting agendas 72 hours in advance of board meetings. Solano RCD and
Suisun RCD, however, should make efforts to ensure that their board agendas and minutes
are also posted on their respective websites.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Policy Consulting Associates, LLC 9
SOLANO LAFCO
RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
All the districts reviewed here generally had board and personnel policies in place.
Dixon RCD, although guided by the County investment policy, could make an improvement
by establishing one of its own. Solano RCD has not adopted associate director or bidding
policies and could benefit from adding these policies to its bylaws. Suisun RCD does not
have policies related to expense reimbursements, bidding, investments and reserves,
public records requests, volunteers, and associate directors.
Overall, all of the districts reviewed demonstrated accountability by performing
outreach activities beyond what is legally required, and maintaining a system in place to
address customers’ complaints. In addition, all districts reviewed demonstrated
accountability in their cooperation with LAFCO during the MSR process.
FINANCING
RCDs generally are limited or constrained by available funding sources and have to
heavily rely on supplemental sources of income, such as grants and fees for service. RCDs
serve primarily rural areas and tend to have large boundary areas, limited population,
expansive open space and agricultural lands, which all contribute to a small tax base. While
many RCDs around California receive no property tax, resource conservation districts in
Solano County are an exception. Property tax revenue received by all three reviewed
resource conservation districts constitutes only a small share of their respective budgets.
Moreover, Suisun RCD, because of its mainly marsh composition and limited city territory
in the District, receives less than one percent of its total revenue in property taxes.
DRCD, SoRCD and SuRCD rely heavily on grants and fees for services to supplement
their incomes. Solano RCD is particularly successful among the three districts at applying
for grants that finance SoRCD’s projects.
All three districts receive a majority of their respective revenues from fees for services.
Under Division 9 of the California Resource Code, resource conservation districts in the
State of California are empowered to charge fees for services rendered, so long as charges
for services do not exceed the actual cost of rendering them (§9403.5). Districts may assist
the local community by providing various services, such as administrative services, gate
monitoring services, fish screen maintenance, pre and post inspections for programs and
projects, landowner workshops, or any other services of which the district has knowledge
or technical expertise. All three districts in Solano County take full advantage of this law
and partner and contract with other government agencies, organizations and landowners
to provide services for which RCDs collect fees.
Despite the districts’ success in supplementing their incomes, the RCDs reported
multiple financing challenges, including 1) rising costs associated with operations and
regulatory compliance, 2) stricter reporting responsibilities, which limit staff availability to
spend time on regular operations, and 3) a limited tax base which constrains revenue
opportunities.
All of the districts reported that financing levels were inadequate or marginally
adequate; however, DRCD and SoRCD appear to be financially healthy based on their
income surplus, adequate financial reserves, limited debt, success in grant writing, and
multitude of fee-‐based contracts. On the other hand, Suisun RCD possesses some income
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Policy Consulting Associates, LLC 10
SOLANO LAFCO
RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
deficit. The District currently has sufficient reserves for one year of operations and can
cover the deficit. In FY 14-‐15, there is a projected surplus.
CAPACITY, ADEQUACY AND CONSTRAINTS
Generally, there is sufficient capacity1 within all three districts to provide adequate
services. Capacity is further enhanced through shared services and facilities, as well as
partnerships and collaborations practiced by DRCD, SoRCD and SuRCD. Collaboration and
resource sharing promote efficiency, best management practices, exchange of ideas and
experiences, cost savings, and increased income due to fees for services collected from
various partners in the case of the RCDs in Solano County.
All three RCDs use performance measures to evaluate their service adequacy. The
evaluation process is mostly related to contract projects and uses fiscal and operational
outcome measures. Each project has a scope, timeline and budget, and is reviewed to assess
fiscal performance and efficacy of deliverables.
However, there were several capacity constraints reported by the reviewed districts,
the primary one being the aforementioned limited tax base. Although the districts
successfully collect additional revenue from grants and fees, these sources of income are
volatile and subject to change depending on availability of grants, success in grant writing
and need for services by landowners and partners. Capacity is also constrained by the
condition of some of the facilities used by the districts and stricter legal regulations, as well
as limited staffing in the case of Suisun RCD.
GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE OPTIONS
During the course of this MSR process, Dixon, Solano and Suisun RCDs were assessed
for potential governance structure alternatives.
One governance option is the consolidation of Dixon RCD with Solano RCD, since the
two districts are adjacent to one another, share facilities and already closely collaborate.
However, DRCD and SoRCD provide different types of services and carry out different
purposes. Dixon RCD focuses almost entirely on the maintenance of the Dixon Drain,
flooding problems, assistance to landowners with regulatory compliance, and wildlife
habitat management. Solano RCD is engaged in water quality protection, reduction of soil
erosion, invasive species control and weed management, promoting citizen-‐based land
stewardship, outreach, and conservation education. Thus functioning as two separate
autonomous entities and complementing each other’s services may be the most efficient
and logical approach to the governance structure of DRCD and SoRCD.
Similarly, Suisun RCD has an entirely different purpose and mission than the other two
districts. Its services are specific and unique to the Suisun Marsh as designated in the 1977
Suisun Marsh Preservation Act. Additionally, SuRCD is not adjacent to either one of the
other RCDs. SuRCD’s boundaries are specific to the special legislation according to which
SuRCD was formed, and the District is not considering expansion.
1 Capacity for RCDs is defined by ability to serve current and future service demand as described by financial adequacy,
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Policy Consulting Associates, LLC 11
SOLANO LAFCO
RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
The only presently viable governance structure option identified is the expansion of
Solano RCD to include all unincorporated areas of Solano County currently outside of an
RCD. The District has been serving various areas of the County outside of its boundaries for
the last decade; inclusion of these areas into the SoRCD’s boundary area would be a logical
change. Extension of the District’s boundaries would be subject to the establishment of a
tax sharing agreement with the County. The District is reportedly currently working with
Solano County LAFCO and the Department of Conservation to annex these areas, and
attempting to conduct an analysis on whether the District would also need to annex
incorporated areas currently not in an RCD. The first step in this process would be to
extend the District’s SOI to include the territory to be annexed when the Commission
updates the Spheres of Influence for the RCDs after the adoption of this MSR.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Policy Consulting Associates, LLC 12
SOLANO LAFCO
RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
2. L A FCO A ND M UNI CI PA L
SERVICES REVIEWS
This report is prepared pursuant to legislation enacted in 2000 that requires LAFCO to
conduct a comprehensive review of municipal service delivery and update the spheres of
influence (SOIs) of all agencies under LAFCO’s jurisdiction. This chapter provides an
overview of LAFCO’s powers and responsibilities. It discusses legal requirements for
preparation of the municipal services review (MSR), and describes the process for MSR
review, MSR approval and SOI updates.
LAFCO OVERVIEW
LAFCO regulates, through approval, denial, conditions and modification, boundary
changes proposed by public agencies or individuals. It also regulates the extension of
public services by cities and special districts outside their boundaries. LAFCO is
empowered to initiate updates to the SOIs and proposals involving the dissolution or
consolidation of special districts, mergers, establishment of subsidiary districts, and any
reorganization including such actions. Otherwise, LAFCO actions must originate as
petitions or resolutions from affected voters, landowners, cities or districts.
Solano LAFCO consists of five regular members: two members from the Solano County
Board of Supervisors, two city council members, and one public member who is appointed
by the other members of the Commission. There is an alternate in each category. All
Commissioners are appointed to four-‐year terms. Special districts are not represented on
the Commission.
MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW LEGISLATION
The Cortese-‐Knox-‐Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 requires
LAFCO review and update SOIs not less than every five years and to review municipal
services before updating SOIs. The requirement for service reviews arises from the
identified need for a more coordinated and efficient public service structure to support
California’s anticipated growth. The service review provides LAFCO with a tool to study
existing and future public service conditions comprehensively and to evaluate
organizational options for accommodating growth, preventing urban sprawl, and ensuring
that critical services are provided efficiently.
Government Code §56430 requires LAFCO to conduct a review of municipal services
provided in the county by region, sub-‐region or other designated geographic area, as
appropriate, for the service or services to be reviewed, and prepare a written statement of
determination with respect to each of the following topics:
v Growth and population projections for the affected area;
v The location and characteristics of any disadvantaged unincorporated communities
within or contiguous to the SOI (effective July 1, 2012);
LAFCO & MSRS Policy Consulting Associates, LLC 13
SOLANO LAFCO
RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
v Present and planned capacity of public facilities and adequacy of public services,
including infrastructure needs or deficiencies (including needs or deficiencies
related to sewers, municipal and industrial water, and structural fire protection in
any disadvantaged unincorporated communities within or contiguous to the sphere
of influence);
v Financial ability of agencies to provide services;
v Status of, and opportunities for shared facilities;
v Accountability for community service needs, including governmental structure and
operational efficiencies; and
v Any other matter related to effective or efficient service delivery, as required by
commission policy.
MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW PROCESS
The MSR process does not require LAFCO to initiate changes of organization based on
service review findings, only that LAFCO identify potential government structure options.
However, LAFCO, other local agencies, and the public may subsequently use the
determinations to analyze prospective changes of organization or reorganization or to
establish or amend SOIs. Within its legal authorization, LAFCO may act with respect to a
recommended change of organization or reorganization on its own initiative (e.g., certain
types of consolidations), or in response to a proposal (i.e., initiated by resolution or petition
by landowners or registered voters).
MSRs are exempt from California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to
§15306 (information collection) of the CEQA Guidelines. LAFCO’s actions to adopt MSR
determinations are not considered “projects” subject to CEQA.
SPHERE OF INFLUENCE UPDATES
The Commission is charged with developing and updating the sphere of influence (SOI)
for each city and special district within the county.2 SOIs must be updated every five years
or as necessary. In determining the SOI, LAFCO is required to complete an MSR and adopt
the seven determinations previously discussed.
An SOI is a LAFCO-‐approved plan that designates an agency’s probable future boundary
and service area. Spheres are planning tools used to provide guidance for individual
boundary change proposals and are intended to encourage efficient provision of organized
community services and prevent duplication of service delivery. Territory cannot be
annexed by LAFCO to a city or a district unless it is within that agency's sphere.
The purposes of the SOI include the following: to ensure the efficient provision of
services, discourage urban sprawl and premature conversion of agricultural and open
space lands, and prevent overlapping jurisdictions and duplication of services.
2 The initial statutory mandate, in 1971, imposed no deadline for completing sphere designations. When most LAFCOs
failed to act, 1984 legislation required all LAFCOs to establish spheres of influence by 1985.
LAFCO & MSRS Policy Consulting Associates, LLC 14
SOLANO LAFCO
RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
LAFCO cannot regulate land use, dictate internal operations or administration of any
local agency, or set rates. LAFCO is empowered to enact policies that indirectly affect land
use decisions. On a regional level, LAFCO promotes logical and orderly development of
communities as it considers and decides individual proposals. LAFCO has a role in
reconciling differences between agency plans so that the most efficient urban service
arrangements are created for the benefit of current and future area residents and property
owners.
The Cortese-‐Knox-‐Hertzberg (CKH) Act requires to develop and determine the SOI of
each local governmental agency within the county and to review and update the SOI every
five years. LAFCOs are empowered to adopt, update and amend the SOI. They may do so
with or without an application and any interested person may submit an application
proposing an SOI amendment.
LAFCO may recommend government reorganizations to particular agencies in the
county, using the SOIs as the basis for those recommendations.
In addition, in adopting or amending an SOI, LAFCO must make the following
determinations:
v Present and planned land uses in the area, including agricultural and open-‐space
lands;
v Present and probable need for public facilities and services in the area;
v Present capacity of public facilities and adequacy of public service that the agency
provides or is authorized to provide;
v Existence of any social or economic communities of interest in the area if the
Commission determines these are relevant to the agency; and
v Present and probable need for water, wastewater, and structural fire protection
facilities and services of any disadvantaged unincorporated communities within the
existing sphere of influence.
By statute, LAFCO must notify affected agencies 21 days before holding the public
hearing to consider the SOI and may not update the SOI until after that hearing. The LAFCO
Executive Officer must issue a report including recommendations on the SOI amendments
and updates under consideration at least five days before the public hearing.
DISADVANTAGED UNINCORPORATED COMMUNITIES
On October 7, 2011, Governor Brown signed SB 244, which makes two principal
changes to the Cortese-‐Knox-‐Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000. SB
244 requires LAFCOs to: (1) deny any application to annex to a city territory that is
contiguous to a disadvantaged unincorporated community (DUC) unless a second
application is submitted to annex the disadvantaged community as well; and (2) evaluate
disadvantaged unincorporated communities in a municipal service review (MSR) upon the
next update of a sphere of influence after June 30, 2012.
The intent of the statute is to encourage investment in disadvantaged unincorporated
communities that often lack basic infrastructure by mandating cities and LAFCOs to include
them in land use planning.
LAFCO & MSRS Policy Consulting Associates, LLC 15
SOLANO LAFCO
RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
SB 244 defines disadvantaged unincorporated community as any area with 12 or more
registered voters, or as determined by commission policy, where the median household
income is less than 80 percent of the statewide annual median.
SB 244 also requires LAFCOs to consider disadvantaged unincorporated communities
when developing spheres of influence. Upon the next update of a sphere of influence on or
after July 1, 2012, SB 244 requires LAFCO to include in an MSR (in preparation of a sphere
of influence update): 1) The location and characteristics of any disadvantaged
unincorporated communities within or contiguous to the sphere; and 2) The present and
planned capacity of public facilities, adequacy of public services and infrastructure needs
or deficiencies including needs or deficiencies related to sewers, municipal and industrial
water, and structural fire protection in any disadvantaged unincorporated community
within or contiguous to the sphere of influence.
In determining spheres of influence, SB 244 authorizes LAFCO to assess the feasibility
of a reorganization and consolidation of local agencies to further orderly development and
improve the efficiency and affordability of infrastructure and service delivery. LAFCOs
should revise their local policies to include the requirements imposed by SB 244 to ensure
they fulfill their obligations under this legislation. There are no DUCs in Solano County.
LAFCO & MSRS Policy Consulting Associates, LLC 16
SOLANO LAFCO
RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
3. I NTRO DUCTI O N
Solano County is located about halfway between the cities of San Francisco and
Sacramento and is bordered by Napa, Yolo, Sacramento, Sonoma, and Contra Costa
counties. It is officially one of the nine Bay Area counties and one of four North Bay
counties. The County is the easternmost county of the North Bay, and a portion of it
geographically extends into the Sacramento Valley. The county seat is the City of Fairfield
and the largest city is Vallejo. Other cities in the County include Benicia, Dixon, Rio Vista,
Suisun City, and Vacaville.
Solano County was one of the original counties of California, created in the 1850s at the
time of statehood. The County derives its name directly from a Native American chief–Chief
Solano of the Suisun people.
The County encompasses approximately 910 square miles, consisting of 830 square
miles of land and 80 square miles of water. About 128 square miles of the County, or 14
percent of the total land area, lies within seven incorporated cities. Because of Solano
County’s commitment to focusing development within urban areas, about 95 percent of the
County’s population lives in the cities.
Agriculture has historically been both, an important industry in Solano County and a
central part of the County’s identity. Agricultural lands account for more land than any
other land use. Agriculture contributes to regional economic health and prosperity, defines
much of the County’s visual character, supports wildlife habitats and migration corridors,
provides open space and recreational amenities for residents and visitors, and acts as
community separators defining the County’s cities.3
Solano County also lies at the intersection of numerous geographical and geological
provinces that, together with variations in hydrology and climate, have resulted in the
formation of unique and rare biological and ecological conditions and a rich diversity of
native species and habitats. Solano County is home to both natural gas deposits and
valuable wind resources. Its soils and water resources contribute to a rich agricultural
landscape.
The County’s location, at the junction of the San Francisco Bay and the Sacramento–San
Joaquin Delta, and its varied topography has created a variety of habitat types, including
extensive areas of marshland and wetlands along the Bay and Delta, forests of the Coast
Range, and vernal pool complexes and riparian corridors found throughout the upland
areas of the County. These habitat types support numerous species including rare or
threatened animal and plant species, such as the California red-‐legged frog, Callippe
butterfly, giant garter snake, Swainson’s hawk, fairy shrimp, California tiger salamander,
and Boggs Lake hedge-‐hyssop. The Delta and surrounding areas are among the most
diverse ecosystems in the world. Studies comparing species richness and rarity have
identified the greater San Francisco Bay region as one of the five most valuable biological
areas within the United States and one of the 25 most valuable regions in the world.
3 Solano County General Plan, Agriculture.
LAFCO & MSRS Policy Consulting Associates, LLC 17
SOLANO LAFCO
RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
As previously mentioned, Solano County has remained relatively undeveloped, with
large portions of the County remaining in agriculture and open space. Sizeable areas of
habitat and wildlife movement corridors allow viable populations to persist. If protected,
these lands could continue to play an important role in maintaining biodiversity and
ecosystem processes. Incentive-‐based programs, mitigation banks, conservation
easements, and other land use planning tools can enable the sustained protection and
enhancement of these resources.
Many plans and programs enacted by federal, state, and local legislation relate directly
to biological resources policies and programs. These plans and programs are administered
by agencies with powers to enforce federal, state, and local laws. Both the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (FWS) and the California Department of Fish and Game (DFG) enforce
regulations that protect wildlife resources. Special permits are required for alteration,
dredging, or any activity in a lake or stream, as well as other activities that may affect fish
and game habitat. Both agencies also regulate impacts on sensitive plant and animal
species. Future development in Solano County that has the potential to affect wildlife
habitat is subject to the regulations of both of these agencies. The Bureau of Reclamation,
Solano County Water Agency (SCWA), and its eight member agencies, including the City of
Vacaville, the City of Fairfield, Suisun City, the City of Vallejo, the Solano Irrigation District,
and the Maine Prairie Water District, have agreed to implement conservation measures to
ensure the protection of threatened and endangered species and their habitat within the
SCWA service area (which includes all of Solano County, University of California at Davis in
Yolo County, and a portion of Reclamation District 2068 in Yolo County). Resource
conservation districts, including Dixon, Solano and Suisun, are legally charged with and
empowered to protect natural resources in Solano County. Agencies engage in
implementation of the Federal Endangered Species Act, California Endangered Species Act,
Suisun Marsh Preservation Act, Oak Woodlands Conservation Act, and Solano Multi-‐Species
Habitat Conservation Plan in Solano County.4
RESOURCE CONSERVATION SERVICES
This section provides an overview of resource conservation services and resource
conservation districts in Solano County. The most recent municipal service review (MSR)
for the Solano resource conservation districts was completed in 2006. For a detailed
description of each district, please refer to the agency-‐specific chapters of this report.
Overview
In response to the national “Dust Bowl” crisis of the 1930s, when millions of acres of
cropland were destroyed by drought and attendant soil loss, the federal government
passed legislation in 1937 establishing the Soil Conservation Service (SCS). After
realization that a federal agency in Washington may not be sufficiently responsive to local
needs, local counterparts of the SCS were set up under state law to be controlled by local
boards of directors. Thus “Soil Conservation Districts” were born, which began forming in
4 Solano County General Plan, Resources.
LAFCO & MSRS Policy Consulting Associates, LLC 18
SOLANO LAFCO
RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
the late 1930s and quickly spread throughout the 48 states. Soil Conservation Districts
began to perform the functions originally envisioned by the formation of the SCS.
Under Division 9 of the Public Resources Code, Soil Conservation Districts were
originally empowered to manage soil and water resources for conservation, but these
powers were expanded in the early 1970s to include “related resources,” including fish and
wildlife habitat. This expansion of powers was reflected in the change of name from “Soil”
Conservation Districts to “Resource” Conservation Districts (RCDs) in 1971.
Today, RCDs in California manage a diversity of resource conservation projects,
including soil and water conservation projects, wildlife habitat enhancement and
restoration, control of exotic plant species, watershed restoration, conservation planning,
education, and many others.
Since most RCDs receive very little or no regular funding through local taxation, they
rely heavily on grants and other types of fundraising to stay in operation. Under Division 9
of the California Public Resources Code, RCDs are permitted to function to a certain degree
as enterprise districts because the directors may establish and charge fees for services
provided by the district to, and upon the request of, persons or governmental entities. No
fee must exceed the cost reasonably borne by the district in providing the service.
At one time, RCD directors were elected on a local basis. With rising costs for holding
elections, most RCD directors are now appointed by County Boards of Supervisors. Division
9 enables districts to have five, seven, or nine directors, who serve as voting members of
the Board of Directors. To be eligible to serve on the Board directors must reside within the
district and either own real property in the district or alternatively have served, pursuant
to the district’s rules, for two years or more as an associate director providing advisory or
other assistance to the Board of Directors, or to be a designated agent of a resident
landowner within the district. Because of the natural conditions prevailing in the territory
of Suisun RCD (in Solano County) and Grasslands RCD (in Merced County), the majority of
privately owned lands therein are owned by persons residing outside of these districts.
Therefore, owners of land within these two districts or their agents may serve on their
respective Boards of Directors regardless of whether they are residents of the districts.
Associate directors who served on their Boards for two years or more are also eligible to
become directors.
Many resource conservation districts in addition to the directors serving on their
Boards also have associate directors. The position of an associate director has been
established to allow members of the community opportunities to participate in RCD
activities without being on the Board or when they do not meet the stricter requirements
for directors, such as owning property in the district. Associates often are chosen for their
special expertise in an area of one of the functions of the district. An associate director’s
role is to assist with field days, field tours, annual meetings, contests, educational activities,
and other special events, and serve in advisory capacity to the board. Associate directors
may not vote on district business or assume the official responsibilities of board members.
Under Division 9, however, associate directors may qualify for board positions after they
have served for a period of time as associate directors, as was previously mentioned.
As a portion of the state Public Resources Code, Division 9 outlines the structures,
powers, and authorities of RCDs under state law, it also provides for state-‐level support of
LAFCO & MSRS Policy Consulting Associates, LLC 19
SOLANO LAFCO
RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
RCDs through the state Department of Conservation. Although Department of Conservation
does not have regulatory oversight of RCDs it serves districts through offering ongoing
training on Division 9 and related government codes, providing technical assistance
through education, as well as offering some financial assistance to districts through
competitive grant awards. On its website, the Department of Conservation provides RCDs
with helpful governance and management guides, such as the Minimum CA RCD
Requirements Checklist, The Resource Conservation District Guidebook, and California
Resource Conservation District Director’s Handbook to name a few.
Service Providers
This report focuses on resource conservation service providers located in Solano
County, which are under the jurisdiction of Solano LAFCO. As shown in Figure 3-‐1, three
special districts were reviewed as part of this Municipal Service Review.
In addition to the districts reviewed as part of this MSR, Napa County Resource
Conservation District (NCRCD), which is mainly located in Napa County, extends slightly
into Solano County, as shown in Figure 3-‐2. Although there is a small area of NCRCD located
in the southwestern Solano County, Napa County LAFCO is the principal LAFCO for NCRCD,
as the assessed value of property within the District is greater in Napa County. As principal
LAFCO, Napa LAFCO and not Solano LAFCO is responsible for adopting municipal service
review determinations and updating the District’s sphere of influence (SOI).
NCRCD was formed in 1945 and covers over 500,000 acres of predominantly rural land
in Napa and Solano Counties including the Napa River watershed from Mt. St. Helena to the
Napa-‐Sonoma Marsh, much of the Putah Creek watershed, and the upper portion of the
Suisun Creek watershed. NCRCD’s boundary includes most of Napa County (with the
exception of those portions of the City of Napa that were incorporated as of 1945) and a
small portion of Solano County known as “Cullinan Ranch,” which has a population of zero.
This area of approximately 2,000 acres was annexed to NCRCD in 1952 and is comprised of
tidal wetlands providing habitat for a number of native fish, plants, and wildlife species.
Cullinan Ranch was once a network of deep water channels and vegetated marsh plain.
A century of active farming has caused the land to sink as the rich organic soils of the
marsh dried out, oxidized and literally blew away in the wind. Currently, the site has
subsided some six feet and is below mean sea level. Reintroducing tidal flows into the site
will initially create open water habitat, but sediment suspended in the fresh water flows of
the Napa and Sacramento-‐San Joaquin Rivers will deposit inside the site and slowly build
up to where vegetation can colonize.
NCRCD’s primary concern in Napa County is the conservation, protection, and
restoration of agricultural, rural, grazing, farming, parks and open space land, which
constitutes the majority of land in Napa County. The services that NCRCD provides to
landowners include erosion control plans and information regarding resources and
regulations, watershed management, and other relevant data. Technical services for
government agencies cover surface and ground water monitoring, soil analysis, and habitat
assessments. NCRCD also works with local schools and community organizations to
educate students and the public about natural resource functions and conservation
practices.
LAFCO & MSRS Policy Consulting Associates, LLC 20
SOLANO LAFCO
RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
According to Division 9 of the California Public Resources Code, RCDs are empowered
to conserve natural resources within their districts by implementing projects on public and
private lands and to educate landowners and the public about resource conservation.
Beyond this, RCDs are given the right to form associations to coordinate resource
conservation efforts on a larger level. The core functions of a district revolve around its
right to use diverse means to further resource conservation within its boundaries.
Figure 3-‐1 details the various services provided by each of the three reviewed resource
conservation agencies under Solano LAFCO purview—Dixon RCD, Solano RCD and Suisun
RCD. The bounds of each of these agencies are shown in Figure 3-‐2.
LAFCO & MSRS Policy Consulting Associates, LLC 21
SOLANO LAFCO
RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
Figure 3-‐1: Resource Conservation Service Providers in Solano County
Service DRCD SoRCD SuRCD
Soil conservation Yes Yes Yes
Watershed conservation/management Yes Yes No
Water quality conservation Yes Yes Yes
Woodlands conservation No Yes No
Wildlife conservation Yes Yes Yes
Runoff control Yes Yes No
Pollution control Yes Yes Yes
Prevent and control soil erosion Yes Yes No
Protect water quality Yes Yes Yes
Develop and distribute water No No No
Improve land capabilities No No No
Facilitate coordinated resource
management efforts Yes Yes Yes
Watershed restoration and enhancement Yes Yes No
Farm and range land
conservation/management Yes Yes No
Open space conservation No No No
Waterway protection and restoration Yes Yes Yes
Vegetation/habitat preservation Yes Yes Yes
Erosion prevention Yes Yes No
Invasive species control Yes Yes Yes
Educational workshops Yes Yes Yes
Informational fliers, brochures, and white
papers Yes Yes Yes
Scientific studies Yes No Yes
Flood plain management Yes No No
Creek/waterway cleanups No Yes No
Documentation of native species Yes Yes No
Advising and assisting individuals and
public agencies Yes Yes Yes
Conduit for grants and other financing Yes Yes Yes
Source: Policy Consulting Associates research
LAFCO & MSRS Policy Consulting Associates, LLC 22
Yolo County
·|}þ
128
Tremont Rd
Sievers Rd
Dixon Ave
Solano Resource Conservation District
DIxon Resource Conservation District
dvlB
Napa County
Midway Rd
nosreffeJ
Vaca
Valley
Pky
W
Monticello
Rd
ooden
Valley
Rd
Ala
M
m
a
o
r s
D
h
r
all Rd
·|}þ
113 Sacramento County
Waterman Blvd Air Base Pky
Rockville Rd
Suisun Resource Conservation District
·|}þ
12
·|}þ
160
Contra Costa County San Joaquin County
dR
yelkluB
Dixon
Rd
wis
Le
Vacaville Hawkins Rd Swan Rd
evA
reyR
Fairfield
Travis Blvd
Suisun City
Jameson
Canyon
Rd
Rio Vista
Birds
Landing Rd
Vallejo
Benicia
dR
holihS
Solano County Resource Conservation Districts
Figure 3-2
Putah
Creek Rd Putah Creek
Capell
Valley
Rd
§¨¦
505 §¨¦
5
Channel
Shipping
Water
Deep
Monticello Rd §¨¦
80
Rd
Peabody
Cordelia Rd
0 2.5 5
Miles
Solano RCD
§¨¦ Napa
680 Dixon RCD
Resource Conservation District
Grizzly Bay
Suisun RCD
Sacramento
River
N
So
a
l
p
a
a
n o
R
C
C
o
D
unty Boundary
City Boundaries
§¨¦
Surrounding Counties
780
Water
SanPablo Bay Suisun Bay
Major Roads
Created by Neuvert GIS Services, LLC - April 9, 2015 - V3 Data sources: Solano County; Esri; USGS; CaSIL
SOLANO LAFCO
RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
GROWTH & POPULATION PROJECTIONS
This section reviews historical and recent population and economic growth, projected
growth, and growth areas.
Land Use and Growth Policies
The County has historically required that development requiring water and sewer
service be incorporated within one of the County’s cities. Based on this policy, most
residential, commercial and industrial development in the County has been in incorporated
areas.
In 1980, the Solano County Board of Supervisors adopted a General Plan Land Use and
Circulation Element that established a development policy of city-‐centered growth. Under
the 1980 General Plan, urban development was to be confined to patterns that did not
conflict with essential agricultural lands, while rural and suburban development was to be
confined to non-‐essential marginal agricultural lands. The 1980 General Plan was intended
to provide policy guidance for shaping growth and development within the unincorporated
areas of Solano County, and for protecting its agricultural and natural resources, until the
year 1995.
Proposition A, an initiative measure passed by the voters of Solano County in June 1984,
reaffirmed the 1980 General Plan’s cornerstone policies of city-‐centered growth and
farmland protection, and imposed strict limitations on the County Board of Supervisor’s
ability to allow new residential, commercial, or industrial development in agricultural and
open-‐space areas. Proposition A was a limited-‐term measure that was to expire in
December 1995.
In 1994, the voters of Solano County proposed the Orderly Growth Initiative, in order to
extend the protections of Proposition A until December 31, 2010. In response to broad
public support for that proposal, the Solano County Board of Supervisors adopted the
Orderly Growth Initiative as its Resolution No. 94-‐170 on July 26, 1994.
On November 4 2008, Solano voters passed Measure T, which was an amendment to
Solano County's 1994 Orderly Growth Initiative that updated certain provisions of the
Solano County General Plan related to agriculture and open space policies and land use
designations, and extended the amended initiative until December 31, 2028.
By passing Measure T, the voters required that the County would:
v Maintain the current development strategy of city-‐centered growth;
v Retain the overall function of the Orderly Growth Initiative, while updating and
refining the initiative’s policies and land use designations;
v Protect and support agriculture as an important component of Solano County’s
economy and quality of life;
v Provide an opportunity for farm-‐based, businesses, such as wineries, to develop
successfully within Solano County;
v Encourage the location of new industrial and agricultural processing facilities;
INTRODUCTION Policy Consulting Associates, LLC 24 24
SOLANO LAFCO
RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
v Sustain and enhance Solano County’s natural environment, including its diverse
species, watersheds, natural communities, and wildlife corridors;
v Ensure sufficient opportunities for residential, commercial, and industrial
development within areas served by the cities, in order to provide all of Solano
County’s residents with a vibrant economy and affordable housing options;
v Protect the health, safety, and welfare of Solano County’s residents by avoiding more
air pollution, water pollution, water shortages, traffic congestion, noise and other
adverse environmental impacts from urban sprawl;
v Prevent costly and inefficient extensions of urban services and infrastructure to
rural areas of the County;
v Permit Solano County to continue to bear its fair share of regional growth and
provide safe, decent affordable places for people to live in Solano cities;
v Prevent piecemeal amendments of the Solano County General Plan that would allow
development on agricultural and open space lands;
v Help increase the County’s supply of good jobs by encouraging job development in
the growing agriculturally-‐based industries; and
v Allow the County to update and amend its General Plan periodically as necessary to
comply with State law and changing conditions, while requiring that any such
amendments be consistent with the cornerstone policies of city-‐centered growth
and protection of farmlands and open space.
About 20 percent of the unincorporated land area in Solano County is some type of
undeveloped natural resource land. This includes marsh and watershed lands in the
southern and western portions of the County comprising 101,307 acres. Over 329,000
acres of land are in agricultural use, which is approximately 70 percent of the
unincorporated land area. Agricultural land is concentrated in the eastern portion of the
County and in smaller areas scattered throughout the County. Watershed lands are also in
agricultural use.
Residential land uses occupy about 6,878 acres developed mostly at rural residential
densities of one dwelling unit per 2.5 or more acres. Rural residential development has
been concentrated in the area north of Vacaville in the English Hills, Allendale and Olive
School areas, along Leisure Town Road east of Vacaville, in the Tolenas area of
unincorporated Suisun City, and the Green Valley area north of Fairfield.
Residential estate use at densities of one unit per ¼ to 1 acre exist in the Green Valley,
Rockville Corners, Willotta Oaks, Old Town Cordelia, Elmira, Birds Landing, and Collinsville
areas. A small amount of the unincorporated county’s residential land is used for urban
density residential single family and multifamily development including apartment
buildings, duplexes, triplexes and similar housing types located in unincorporated areas in
the Vallejo area.
Industrial land uses account for about 2,125 acres of land area in the unincorporated
county. Most of the existing industrial development in the County is within cities.
INTRODUCTION Policy Consulting Associates, LLC 25 25
SOLANO LAFCO
RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
Approximately 641 acres are in commercial land use, which includes retail, commercial
services, and service stations. Smaller commercial developments are located in the
unincorporated county areas to serve the needs of local residents and visitors. Highway-‐
oriented commercial development represents the predominant commercial land use in the
unincorporated area with the majority of such land located along I-‐80.
Other uses of land in the County include public use (such as schools, cemeteries, and
federal lands), which accounts for about 1,517 acres, park and recreation land (791 acres),
and vacant land, which comprises about 1,011 acres.
Historical Growth
There were 394,542 residents in Solano County in 2000, according to the 2000 Census.
The population in the unincorporated communities was 19,322, composing five percent of
the County’s entire population. Since 2000, the rate of growth in the County has tapered off
to small increments. Between 2000 and 2010, Solano grew by 18,802 or 4.8 percent, which
is significantly less than the 15.9 percent population gain experienced in the previous
decade. The population of the County in 2010 was 413,344. All of the growth during both
decades occurred within the cities, due to the Orderly Growth Initiative discussed earlier.
In fact, the population in the unincorporated portions of the County decreased by 11
percent between 1990 and 2000 and by three percent from 2000 to 2010.
The California Department of Finance’s (DOF) January 1st, 2014 estimate of the
population of Solano County is 424,233. Between 2010 and 2014 the County grew by
10,889 residents or 2.6 percent. The population in the unincorporated communities grew
by two percent during the same time period. From 2013 to 2014, DOF estimates that the
total population of the County, as well as in unincorporated areas, rose by one percent.
Solano County annually averaged 0.5 percent positive population growth from 2000 to
2014.
Among comparable counties, Solano County was in the middle tier of population
growth. Placer and Solano counties experienced 0.6 percent population growth during
2012. Tulare and Stanislaus counties experienced the largest rate of growth—0.9 percent—
among all counties. Marin and San Luis Obispo experienced the lowest rate of growth at 0.2
percent.
INTRODUCTION Policy Consulting Associates, LLC 26 26
SOLANO LAFCO
RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
Figure 3-‐3: Population Growth Rates in Solano County and California, DOF 2001-‐2014
0.03&
0.025&
0.02&
0.015&
0.01&
0.005&
0&
!0.005&
!0.01&
!0.015&
!0.02&
!0.025&
2001& 2002& 2003& 2004& 2005& 2006& 2007& 2008& 2009& 2010& 2011& 2012& 2013& 2014&
Population growth in the County (both incorporated and unincorporated) has been for
the most part below the statewide growth rate over the last 14 years as shown in Figure 3-‐
3. However, more recently, in 2012, countywide population growth equalized with that of
the State, exceeded the State’s in 2013, and became comparable again to the State’s in
2014. After the growth rate of the unincorporated communities skyrocketed above the
statewide growth rate in 2006, it declined to negative growth where it remained through
2011. After 2011, the growth rate in unincorporated Solano began to rise and equalized
with the statewide rate during the period from 2012 to 2014. Growth in the incorporated
areas of the County mirrored that of the County as a whole.
The Department of Transportation Solano County Economic Forecast published in 2013
explains that the Solano County population increase from 2007 to 2012 was due entirely to
the natural increase (new births), as the County lost an average of 1,900 residents per year
through net migration.
Solano County’s population density is 466 residents per square mile, including both
incorporated and unincorporated areas.
INTRODUCTION Policy Consulting Associates, LLC 27 27
'etaR'htworG
Year'
Unincorporated& California& Incorporated&
Source:&California&Department&of&Finance,&Population&Estimates&for&Cities,&Counties&and&State&2004!2014&
SOLANO LAFCO
RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
Development
Historical Development
Figure 3-‐4: New Residential Building Permits, U.S. Census Bureau 2000-‐2013
2500"
2000"
1500"
1000"
500"
0"
2000" 2001" 2002" 2003" 2004" 2005" 2006" 2007" 2008" 2009" 2010" 2011" 2012" 2013"
The number of new residential permits issued in unincorporated Solano County peaked
in 2003 and 2004 at 57, as shown in Figure 3-‐4. Similarly, the number of permits issued in
the incorporated cities of Solano County experienced a rise in 2004 to 2,278. Between 2000
and 2014, Solano County cities issued 97 percent of all the building permits approved in
the County. The overall number of permits declined in 2006 and 2007, and went further
down in 2008, after which it fluctuated minimally through 2013.
Population Projections
Population projections for the County vary depending on the data source that is used.
Solano County relies on the Department of Finance for its population projections.
The population of Solano County is projected to grow to 634,852 by 2060 according to
the latest projections by the DOF. The DOF has not used the 2010 Census benchmark in its
long-‐term projections, however. Using the 2010 Census count and the DOF projected
growth rate of 54 percent, the population of Solano County in 2060 is anticipated to be
636,550. Using the same Census 2010 benchmark method, the estimated population in
2020 and 2030 will be 446,412 (eight percent increase since 2010) and 491,879 (19
percent increase since 2010) respectively. The DOF projections adjusted to the 2010
Census benchmark through 2060 are shown in Figure 3-‐5.
INTRODUCTION Policy Consulting Associates, LLC 28 28
(stimrep(gnidliuB
Year(
Unincorporated" Incorporated"
Source:"United"States"Census"Bureau,"Building"Permits"by"County"or"Place,"2000C2013"
SOLANO LAFCO
RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
Figure 3-‐5: Countywide Adjusted DOF Population Projections
700,000"
600,000"
500,000"
400,000"
300,000"
200,000"
100,000"
0"
Another source of population projections is the Association of Bay Area Governments
(ABAG), which is the regional land use planning agency for the Bay Area, including the
counties of Napa, Sonoma, Marin, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Alameda, Contra
Costa, and Solano. ABAG's projections include a set of policy assumptions that are based on
the region's principles for growth. The projections assume that, over time, State, regional,
and local policies and programs will change in a way that shifts new growth toward areas
near transit and existing downtowns. These policies and programs are assumed to have an
increasing effect on population over the thirty-‐year forecast horizon.
According to ABAG’s 2009 San Francisco Bay Area Vision Project, although other
counties will experience higher absolute population increases, Solano County will have the
highest percentage increase in population of any county in the Bay Area between 2000 and
2030. Solano’s population will increase by 46 percent or nearly 182,000 residents, by 2030.
ABAG projects growth to be clustered in three major centers: Fairfield, Vacaville and
Vallejo, which will account for nearly three-‐quarters of the County’s 62,970 new
households. Fairfield will have the most growth, with 16,190 new households. Vacaville
will add 15,250 households, and Vallejo 14,890. Rio Vista is expected to have the largest
percentage increase in its population of any city in the entire region between 2000 and
2015 of 229 percent.
Elsewhere in the County, Dixon is expected to continue to grow. The number of
households in Dixon is projected to more than double between 2000 and 2030—one of the
highest growth rates in the Bay Area. Fairfield, Suisun City, Vacaville, and Vallejo will
continue to experience significant growth, while Benicia’s population and households will
grow at a relatively low rate. There is a potential to develop three-‐ and four-‐story
commercial buildings along portions of the I-‐80 corridor and mixed-‐use development
INTRODUCTION Policy Consulting Associates, LLC 29 29
"noitalupoP
"0102 "5102 "0202 "5202 "0302 "5302 "0402 "5402 "0502 "5502 "0602
Year"
Source:(U.S.(Census(2010,(Califonria(Department(of(Finance,(State(and(County(
Popultion(Projections(2010?2060((
SOLANO LAFCO
RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
around Capitol Corridor rail stations. Transportation improvements include the creation of
two new Capitol Corridor stations, one adjacent to Travis Air Force Base and another in
Dixon. The pattern of development preserves Solano County’s strong agricultural industry
and character by focusing development within its incorporated cities. Significant household
and employment growth is expected to occur in the downtowns of Vallejo (including
adjacent Mare Island), Benicia, Fairfield, Suisun City, Vacaville, and Dixon.
ABAG’s Jobs Housing Connection Strategy 2012 projects that the population of Solano
County will grow by 24 percent from 2010 to 2040, amounting to 512,368 in 2040.
Figure 3-‐6: Countywide Adjusted DOT Population Projections
600,000"
500,000"
400,000"
300,000"
200,000"
100,000"
0"
2010" 2015" 2020" 2025" 2030" 2035" 2040"
The California Department of Transportation (DOT) also makes population projections
for each county in the State. According to the DOT, the population in Solano County was
expected to grow by 0.4 percent in 2013. Annual growth in the period from 2013 to 2018 is
forecasted to average 0.7 percent. Similar to the DOF, the DOT has not used the 2010
Census benchmark in its projections; therefore, estimates presented in this report are
adjusted based on the benchmark. Based on adjusted estimates using the Census 2010
population count, the Solano population is projected to be 442,278 in 2020 and 483,612 in
2030. The DOT projections adjusted to the 2010 Census benchmark through 2040 are
shown in Figure 3-‐6.
INTRODUCTION Policy Consulting Associates, LLC 30 30
*noitalupoP
Year*
Source:"U.S."Census"2010,"California"Department"of"Transportation,"Solano"
Economic"Forecast"
SOLANO LAFCO
RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
Figure 3-‐7: Annualized Growth Projections by Method
Method 2010*2040
DOF$Projections 0.9%
Department$of$Transportation$Projections 0.7%
ABAG$Projections 0.7%
Source:$California$Department$of$Finance,$California$Department$of$Transportation,$
Association$of$Bay$Area$Governments
A comparison of the annualized growth rates through 2040 for each of the
projection methods discussed is shown in Figure 3-‐7. As shown, the DOT and ABAG
projections are similar and slightly more conservative than DOF projections. Over the
period of 30 years, DOF projected that Solano County population will grow by 33 percent,
DOT projections showed an increase of 25 percent, while ABAG estimated a rise of 24
percent.
Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities
LAFCO is required to evaluate disadvantaged unincorporated communities as part of
this service review, including the location and characteristics of any such communities. A
disadvantaged unincorporated community is defined as any area with 12 or more
registered voters, or as determined by commission policy, where the median household
income is less than 80 percent of the statewide annual median.5
The California Department of Water Resources (DWR) has developed a mapping tool to
assist in determining which communities meet the disadvantaged communities median
household income definition.6 According to DWR, there are no communities that meet the
definition of a disadvantaged unincorporated community in Solano County.
DWR is not bound by the same law as LAFCO to define communities with a minimum
threshold of 12 or more registered voters. Because income information is not available for
this level of analysis, disadvantaged unincorporated communities with smaller populations
that meet LAFCO’s definition cannot be identified at this time.
5 Government Code §56033.5.
6 Based on Census data, the median household income in the State of California in 2010 was $57,708, 80 percent of which
is $46,166.
INTRODUCTION Policy Consulting Associates, LLC 31 31
SOLANO LAFCO
RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
4. DI XO N RESO URCE
CO N S ERVATI O N DI STRI CT
Dixon Resource Conservation District (DRCD) is a multi-‐county district operating in
Solano and Yolo counties. Solano County LAFCO is the principal LAFCO for DRCD, as the
assessed value of property within the District is greater in Solano County. As principal
LAFCO, Solano LAFCO is responsible for adopting service review determinations and
updating the District’s sphere of influence (SOI). The most recent MSR for the District was
completed in 2006.
Dixon RCD supports responsible resource use and planning by encouraging the
controlled use of soil, water and related natural resources. Additionally, DRCD operates
and maintains the existing drainage system while researching ways to improve or expand
the level of storm drainage. The District has also developed specific policies and programs
to guide its involvement with regional growth, farmland preservation, water and soil
conservation, and wildlife habitat establishment and improvement.
AGENCY OVERVIEW
Background
DRCD was formed on September 2, 1952 to construct, operate and maintain the Dixon
Drain, which is a 70-‐mile long system of ditches designed to prevent or alleviate flooding
on agricultural lands. DRCD acted as the sponsor and the lead agency of the project; the
Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) provided cost-‐sharing funds to farmers for
the construction of the drain. The District currently oversees the operation and
maintenance of the drain, which, while originally designed to remove only winter water,
now also collects irrigation tailwater in spring and summer.
The principal act that governs the District is Division 9 of the California Public
Resources Code.7 The principal act empowers resource conservation districts to control
runoff, prevent and control soil erosion, protect water quality, develop and distribute
water, improve land capabilities, and facilitate coordinated resource management efforts
for watershed restoration and enhancement.8 Districts must apply and obtain LAFCO
approval to exercise services authorized by the principal act but not already provided.9
Boundaries
DRCD is located within Solano and Yolo counties, as shown in Figure 4-‐1. The District
borders Solano RCD in Solano County to the west and Yolo RCD in Yolo County to the east
and north. The southern boundary of DRCD is adjacent to Solano County lands that lack a
7 Public Resources Code §9001 et seq.
8 Public Resources Code §9001.
9 Government Code §56824.10.
DRCD Policy Consulting Associates, LLC 32
SOLANO LAFCO
RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
designated resource conservation service provider. DRCD includes 180 square miles, about
65 percent of which are located in Solano County and 35 percent in the southern portion of
Yolo County in an area known as the Yolo Bypass. The District’s boundaries include most of
the City of Dixon.
Sphere of Influence
The sphere of influence (SOI) for Dixon RCD was first established in 1984 as
coterminous10 with the District’s boundaries. The SOI was then updated in 2006, at which
time it was reaffirmed to be conterminous with the DRCD boundaries.
10 Meaning, the District’s SOI is the same as its boundaries.
DRCD Policy Consulting Associates, LLC 33
Yolo County
Tremont Rd
Sievers Rd
Dixon Ave
dvlB
nosreffeJ
Midway Rd
·|}þ
Vaca Valley
Pky
113
Marshall Rd
Alamo Dr
Sacramento Cou
dR
yelkluB
Dixon Resource Conservation District
Figure 4-1
Davis
River
Yolo County Hutchinson Dr
Winters
Putah
Creek Rd Putah Creek
Stevenson
Bridge R d
Pedrick
Rd
Hopkins
Rd
·|}þ
113
Mace
Blvd
Jefferson
Blvd
West Sa
Pock
c
et
R
ram
Flo
e
rin
n
Rd
t
§¨¦
o
5
d
§¨¦
505
Dixon
Yolo County Clarksburg
Cantelow Rd Clarksburg Rd R
iver
R
§¨¦ d
80
Rd
wis
Le
Vacaville Hawkins Rd Swan Rd
Deep
Water
Shipping
Channel
Courtland Rd
Sa
S
c
a
r
c
a
r
m
a
e
m
n
e
t
n
o
t
o
C
R
i
v
o
e
r
unty
0 1 2
Rd Miles
Peabody
evA
reyR
D
So
Ix
la
o
n
n
o
R
C
C
o
D
unty Boundary
City Boundaries
Parcel Lines
Major Roads
Water
d
Created by Neuvert GIS Services, LLC - April 6, 2015 -V2 Data sources: Solano County; Esri; USGS; CaSIL
SOLANO LAFCO
RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
Type and Extent of Services
Services Provided
DRCD’s services can generally be divided into four categories that include drainage
services, regional drainage services through Dixon Regional Watershed Joint Powers
Authority, services provided as part of the Dixon/Solano RCD Water Quality Coalition, and
services that were provided in the Yolo Bypass Wildlife Area. The District conducts
extensive constituent outreach related to all four categories.
v Drainage Services: DRCD operates and maintains a system of ditches (as shown in
Figure 4-‐2) designed to provide winter drainage, reduce duration of flooding and
diminish ponding of winter water on agricultural lands. The District also strives to
make available technical, financial and educational resources, whatever their source
and focus or coordinate them so that they meet the needs of the local land manager
for conservation of soil, water and related natural resources. To operate the system,
the District participates in the Dixon Regional Watershed Management Plan and a
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between DRCD, Reclamation District (RD)
2068, Maine Prairie Water District (MPWD), and the City of Dixon. Maintenance of
the drainage system is financed by an annual ditch maintenance fee collected from
all landowners in the drainage service area, as shown in Figure 4-‐8.
v Dixon Regional Watershed Joint Powers Authority (JPA): The parties to the
previously mentioned MOU created the Dixon Regional Watershed JPA to construct,
own, and operate regional drainage facilities that were previously planned for in the
Dixon Regional Watershed Management Plan. DRCD is currently providing
administrative and secretary service to the JPA, for which it is reimbursed for the
cost of providing this service.
v Dixon/Solano RCD Water Quality Coalition: As a result of the Regional Water
Quality Control Board adopting the Conditional Waiver of Waste Discharge
Requirements for discharges from irrigated lands the District decided to partner
with Solano RCD to achieve economies of scale in providing assistance to
landowners to comply with this new regulation. The two districts formed a
coalition in 2003 and started to enroll landowners in the water quality program;
currently, the coalition has about 92 percent of eligible irrigated acres enrolled in
the program. The two districts are also signatories to the larger Sacramento Valley
Water Quality Coalition. Owners of irrigated lands pay membership fees that are
used to pay for monitoring and a portion of the Sacramento Water Quality
Coalition’s cost. Both districts provide service to the local coalition as contractors
and are reimbursed for the cost of providing the service.
v Yolo Bypass Wildlife Area: The District entered into a lease agreement with the
Department of Fish and Wildlife in 2004 and held the master lease covering all
agricultural activities on the 16,000-‐acre Yolo Bypass Wildlife Area. DRCD sublet
portions of the property to tenants, who in cooperation with the Department and
the District produced corn, tomatoes, rice, wild rice, livestock, and other crops,
while demonstrating how, if properly implemented, farming and grazing can
produce valuable wildlife habitat. Rent collected from tenants was used to support
DRCD Policy Consulting Associates, LLC 35
SOLANO LAFCO
RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
improvements and operations on the Yolo Bypass Wildlife Area. DRCD received a
fee of 15 percent from all rents from the agricultural activities. As of April 30, 2015,
however, the master lease agreement has ended.
DRCD Policy Consulting Associates, LLC 36
Lateral A Tremont No. 1 Lat. B Lateral C
Lat.
A
Lat.
C M axwell
Lateral E
Tremont No. 2
Lateral
F
Lateral D
Trem
1
.oN
laretaL laretaL yoJ-revliS 2 .oN laretaL
North
Cros
3
s
Drain
A
3 .oN laretaL A5 .oN
laretaL
4A
4 .oN
laretaL
B5
5 .oN laretaL
ont
No. 3
3 .oN
tnom erT
lanaC
- niaM 8602
DR
edistseW V-1 Dr
B
laretaL
ain
Dixon Main Drain
Hass Slough
Duck
Slough
edistseW
Figure 4-2: DRCD Drainage Ditch System Dixon RCD
Drainage Ditch System
Garnett
Mc
Neill
Puta
hcnaR
skrapS
h Creek
Stevenson
Bridge Phillips
yerruC
Sievers
T
K
re
id
m
w
o
e
I 8
l
n
0
l
t
H
wy
113
sivaD
dlO Tremont No
Mace
. 1
CR
C
3
R
6
35
A 601
R C
CR34A
0 0.5 1
±
2 3 4
Miles
redeorhcS
loohcS
ttiP
Dixon Ave E
Vaughn
Lateral C
Lateral A
F
laretaL
R unge
sekiS
Tremont No. 2
yelkluB Hackman
edyH
CR 38A
501
R C
601
R
C
Legen
R
C
C
o
o
i
d
ty
u
a
n
d
o
s
t
f
y
D
B
ix
o
o
u
n
n d
B
a
o
r
u
ie
n
s
dary
Dixon RCD Outer Legal Boundary
Miller Thomsen Drainage Ditches
401
R
Ditch - Private
Midway Yolano C CR 152 Ditch - Public
King
loohcS
ttiP
311
yw
H kcirdeP
nebboR
Trefoil
leztE
Delh
dnalsI
ytrebiL
i
CR155
701R
C
dR Swan
noxiD
oiR
Binghampton Rd
Bunker
Station
Creation Date: Dec 14
Created by: DRCD
Notes:
- DRCD Outer Legal Boundary was verified with the
1972 Solano tax map and 1962 recorded boundary.
SOLANO LAFCO
RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
Figure 4-‐3 further details the services provided by DRCD. If a service is not provided by
DRCD, but is offered by another agency, it is indicated in the figure.
Figure 4-‐3: DRCD Services
Service Agency Details
Assist landowners and farmers in
Soil conservation Yes partnership with USDA NRCS programs
Watershed Assist landowners and farmers in
conservation/management Yes partnership with USDA NRCS programs
Assist landowners and farmers in
Water quality conservation Yes partnership with USDA NRCS programs
Woodlands conservation No
Assist landowners and farmers in
Wildlife conservation Yes partnership with USDA NRCS programs
Assist landowners and farmers comply
with Regional Board Irrigated Lands
Runoff control Yes Regulator Program
Assist landowners and farmers comply
with Regional Board Irrigated Lands
Pollution control Yes Regulator Program
Assist landowners and farmers comply
with Regional Board Irrigated Lands
Prevent and control soil erosion Yes Regulator Program
Assist landowners and farmers comply
with Regional Board Irrigated Lands
Protect water quality Yes Regulator Program
Solano Irrigation
District, Maine Prairie
Water District and RD
Develop and distribute water 2068
Natural Resources
Improve land capabilities Conservation Service
Participate with other local and state
Facilitate coordinated resource agencies to address resource
management efforts Yes management efforts
Watershed restoration and Assist landowners and farmers in
enhancement Yes partnership with USDA NRCS programs
Farm and range land Assist landowners and farmers in
conservation/management Yes partnership with USDA NRCS programs
Solano Land Trust
Open space conservation and cities
DRCD Policy Consulting Associates, LLC 38
SOLANO LAFCO
RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
Service Agency Details
Waterway protection and Assist landowners and farmers in
restoration Yes partnership with USDA NRCS programs
Assist landowners and farmers in
partnership with USDA NRCS
programs, design and implement
drainage system improvement to
Vegetation/habitat preservation Yes included habitat components
Assist landowners and farmers comply
with Regional Board Irrigated Lands
Erosion prevention Yes Regulator Program
Participate in the Solano County Weed
Management Area and identify and
remove invasive species in Dixon RCD
Invasive species control Yes drainage system
Provide workshops for landowners
and farmers to inform them of
requirements of the Regional Board’s
Educational workshops Yes Irrigated Lands Regulator Program
Provide informational fliers, brochures
and white papers for landowners and
farmers to inform them of
Informational fliers, brochures, requirements of the Regional Board’s
and white papers Yes Irrigated Lands Regulator Program
Participate with UC and other research
to better understand the water quality
Scientific studies Yes issues in local drainages
Participate in and lead some drainage
Flood plain management Yes and flood planning projects
Solano RCD and other
Creek/waterway cleanups local agencies
Documentation of native species Yes Through planning documents
Primarily focused on drainage, water
Advising and assisting quality, and wildlife friendly farming
individuals and public agencies Yes practices
Farm and Ranch Cleanup and USDA
Bay-‐Delta initiative bring state and
Conduit for grants and other federal funds to landowners to address
financing Yes their resource concerns
Source: Policy Consulting Associates research, Dixon Resource Conservation District
On an annual basis, Dixon RCD implements multiple programs and projects that are
generally classified as one of the specific categories that include drainage and flooding,
water quality, wildlife habitat, weed control, land use and planning, outreach, or
management of DRCD.
DRCD Policy Consulting Associates, LLC 39
SOLANO LAFCO
RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
Service Area
The District provides services outside of its boundary area. DRCD and Solano RCD
(SoRCD) jointly manage the Dixon/Solano RCD Water Quality Coalition for all irrigated land
in the Central Valley portion of the County. Until recently, DRCD also provided lease
management services within the Yolo Bypass Wildlife Area, half of which is located outside
of the District’s bounds.
The District reported that there were areas within DRCD where services were not
provided by the District. Specifically, drainage services are not provided to the areas that
have not participated in the drainage system improvements. Generally these lands are in
the upper watershed to the northwest of the City of Dixon and the Union Pacific Railroad
Right of Way.
Services to Other Agencies
Figure 4-‐4 lists and provides details on the contract services provided by DRCD to other
agencies.
Figure 4-‐4: DRCD Contract Services
Agency Type of Service Compensation Areas Serviced
California Department Lease management 15% of gross rents Yolo bypass wildlife
of Fish and Wildlife area
Water Coalition Program management Fee for service Solano County (central
valley)
Dixon Regional Agency management JPA jurisdiction JPA jurisdiction
Watershed JPA
DWRPA11 JPA Agency management JPA jurisdiction JPA jurisdiction
Source: Dixon Resource Conservation District
Contracts for Services
The District receives management and administrative services from other agencies and
organizations provided through contracts. Accounting services are provided by Solano
County. Perry, Bunch & Johns provides auditing, while payroll services are performed by
Aegean Tax and Accounting.
Overlapping Service Providers
Within the District’s boundaries, National Resource Conservation Service (NRCS)
provides cost-‐sharing assistance for the implementation of conservation practices on
agricultural lands. This overlap has presented an opportunity to foster a cooperative
relationship between the national and local levels of conservation. Dixon RCD works in
11 Dixon Watershed Real Property Acquisition JPA was formed by the members of Dixon Regional Watershed JPA to be
able to exercise all property acquisition options.
DRCD Policy Consulting Associates, LLC 40
SOLANO LAFCO
RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
cooperation with NRCS to assist with projects located on agricultural lands and managed
wetlands.
The District’s boundaries, which include the City of Dixon and the southern Yolo Bypass,
were created to serve discrete watersheds within the northeastern portion of Solano
County and the southern portion of Yolo County; these watersheds are consistent with the
drainage services provided. Maine Prairie Water District, Reclamation District No. 2068
and Solano Irrigation District provide drainage services to lands within their respective
boundaries, which complement the district drainages.
Solano RCD also provides services within the District’s boundaries to DRCD residents at
the request of DRCD. However, these services, which include assistance with developing a
rural property, grant writing, and expertise in vegetative practices, are complimentary
since DRCD does not provide the same services.
GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE AND ACCOUNTABILITY
Accountability of a governing body is signified by a combination of several indicators.
The indicators chosen here are limited to 1) agency efforts to engage and educate
constituents through outreach activities, in addition to legally required activities such as
agenda posting and public meetings, 2) a defined complaint process designed to handle all
issues to resolution, and 3) transparency of the agency as indicated by cooperation with the
MSR process and information disclosure.
According to the Division 9 of the Public Resources Code, the Board of Directors of an
RCD must consist of five, seven or nine directors serving four-‐year terms. Directors can
either be elected in a general election or appointed by the County Board of Supervisors.
The directors receive no compensation for their services as such, but each is allowed
reasonable and necessary expenses incurred in attendance at meetings of the Board or
when otherwise engaged in the work of the district at the direction of the Board of
Directors. To be eligible to serve on the Board directors must be registered voters in the
State, “reside within the district and either own real property in the district or alternatively
have served, pursuant to the district’s rules, for two years or more as an associate director
providing advisory or other assistance to the Board of Directors, or be a designated agent
of a resident landowner within the district.”12
Associate director positions were established to allow members of the community
opportunities to participate in RCD activities without being on the Board or give those who
did not meet the qualifications of a director a chance to take an active role in the district.
Associates often are chosen for their special expertise in an area of one of the functions of
the district. Associate directors do not have the right to vote on Board matters. However,
they can attend meetings and provide the district with extra expertise. Frequently associate
directors also contribute by serving on various district committees.13
12 Public Resources Code §9352 (a), (b).
13 California Conservation Partnership and California Department of Conservation, The Resource Conservation District
Guidebook: A Guide to District Operations and Management, 1999, pp. 1-‐8, 1-‐9.
DRCD Policy Consulting Associates, LLC 41
SOLANO LAFCO
RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
The Dixon RCD Board of Directors is composed of five local property owners who are
appointed by the Solano County Board of Supervisors, in-‐lieu of election, to four-‐year
staggered terms. There is currently one vacancy. In addition to the Board members, two
persons currently serve as associate directors. Board members take an oath of office. If a
position opens up mid-‐term, the new position opening is posted in public locations and on
the District’s website. The new position is filled by appointment by the Board of
Supervisors.
Dixon RCD holds Board meetings on the second Wednesday of each month at 6:00 pm
March through October and at noon November through February in the conference room at
the district office. Information about Board meetings is shown in Figure 4-‐5.
Figure 4-‐5: Dixon Resource Conservation District Governing Body
Dixon Resource Conservation District
Governing Body and Board Meetings
Manner of Selection Appointed by Board of Supervisors
Length of Term Four years
On the second Wednesday of every month at 6 pm March through October
Meetings and at noon November through February in the conference room at the
district office.
Agenda Distribution Agendas are posted online.
Minutes Distribution Minutes are available online and upon request.
Contact
Contact John. S. Currey, District Manager
Mailing Address 1170 N Lincoln St., Suite 110, Dixon, CA.
Phone 707-‐678-‐1655 ext. 105
Fax 707-‐678-‐5001
Email/Website John-‐currey@dixonrcd.org/www.dixonrcd.org
Source: Dixon Resource Conservation District
Board meeting agendas and minutes are posted online. Agendas are also posted in the
front window of the District’s office. In addition to the required agendas and minutes, the
District tries to reach its constituents through annual newsletters, water quality outreach
efforts and the website that contains information regarding Board meetings, education and
outreach, programs, and contact information. However, some of the program information is
out of date, and a few web pages do not contain any information.
DRCD board members receive no compensation; however, they do get reimbursed for
some expenses. Government Code §53235 requires that if a district provides compensation
or reimbursement of expenses to its board members, the board members must receive two
hours of training in ethics at least once every two years and the district must establish a
written policy on reimbursements. It was reported that the District’s board members last
received ethics training in spring of 2015. The District has established a policy on expense
reimbursements.
DRCD Policy Consulting Associates, LLC 42
SOLANO LAFCO
RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
If a customer is dissatisfied with the District’s services, complaints may be submitted to
the district manager who tries to resolve them. If the district manager is unable to find a
solution, the Board will hear the complainant. There have been no complaints in 2013 or
2014.
DRCD has adopted a set of policies that guides and directs the District’s governance and
administration, including policies related to fees for services, public record requests,
vehicle use, volunteers, associate directors, bidding, and nondiscrimination. There is no
investment policy, but DRCD funds are deposited in the Solano County treasury and
governed by the County investment policy. The District has established its personnel
policies and provides its employees with sexual harassment literature. As required by
Government Code §53065.5, the District filed an annual report to the State Controller with
a government compensation report for 2013.
The Political Reform Act (Government Code §81000, et seq.) requires state and local
government agencies to adopt and promulgate conflict of interest codes. The Fair Political
Practices Commission has adopted a regulation (California Code of Regulations §18730),
which contains the terms of a standard conflict of interest code, which can be incorporated
by reference in an agency’s code. The District provided its conflict of interest code.
Government Code §87203 requires persons who hold office to disclose their
investments, interests in real property and incomes by filing appropriate forms with the
appropriate filing agency (i.e., the County or the Fair Political Practices Commission) each
year. In addition, the conflict of interest code of each district determines who among the
officers and directors files the Form 700 with the County’s Registrar of Voters. The District
reported that all of the Board directors had filed Forms 700 with the Fair Political Practices
Commission for 2013. The District’s conflict of interest code requires the DRCD designated
employees file their Forms 700 with the District, which then makes these forms available
for public inspection and reproduction.
During the course of this MSR process, DRCD demonstrated full accountability in its
disclosure of information and cooperation with Solano LAFCO. The District responded to
the questionnaires and cooperated with document requests.
Determinations
v DRCD is governed by the Board of Directors that consists of five landowners who
are appointed by the Board of Supervisors to four-‐year staggered terms. Directors
receive no compensation. There is currently one vacancy. The District also has two
associate directors.
v Dixon RCD holds Board meetings on the second Wednesday of each month at six in
the evening March through October and at noon November through February in the
conference room at the district office.
v The District demonstrated accountability and transparency with regard to its
governance by cooperating with the MSR process, adopting an annual budget prior
to the start of the fiscal year, publishing agendas for public meetings as legally
required, maintaining a website, and filing Form 700 Statements of Economic
Interest.
DRCD Policy Consulting Associates, LLC 43
SOLANO LAFCO
RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
v DRCD follows all the minimum requirements legally mandated by Public Resources
Code Division 9, including basic reporting and training requirements, quarterly and
monthly requirements, and policies and plans requirements.
v The District’s Board members receive ethics training as required; DRCD has
established a policy on expense reimbursements.
v There is one governance structure option for DRCD, which is consolidation with
Solano RCD. The two districts currently closely collaborate and share facilities.
However, DRCD and SoRCD serve different territories and demographic groups, in
addition to providing different services that do not overlap but complement each
other.
GROWTH AND POPULATION PROJECTIONS
This section discusses the factors affecting service demand, such as land uses, and
historical and anticipated population growth.
Land Use
Land use within the Solano County portion of the District is predominately agricultural;
similarly, the land uses in the Yolo County portion of the District are agricultural and open
space. Land uses in the District’s boundary area within the City of Dixon are largely
residential, commercial and industrial. The District’s boundaries encompass approximately
180 square miles.
Population
There are about 20,456 residents within the District, based on Solano County GIS
analysis of 2010 Census population information.14 The population density within the
District is about 114 people per square mile.
Projected Growth and Development
The District reported that minimal growth had occurred within the District over the last
five years. The demand for services, however, has reportedly increased. According to
DRCD, the increase in service demand occurred due to the increase in regulatory
compliance requirements for irrigated lands.
The District generally expects moderate growth in the next 10 years. Vast majority of
growth within DRCD is concentrated in the City of Dixon. DRCD is aware of four proposed
developments within its boundaries, shown in Figure 4-‐6.
14 This population figure may be slightly inflated based on comparison of known populations in other areas with those
generated through the GIS analysis.
DRCD Policy Consulting Associates, LLC 44
SOLANO LAFCO
RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
Figure 4-‐6: Planned Developments in DRCD
Development Units/square Location Status Will DRCD serve
footage the
development?
Brookfield Homes About 400 South Dixon, east Ongoing Yes
housing units side of SR 113 construction of
models and
senior housing
Pulte Homes About 300 South Dixon, west May be Yes
housing units side of SR 113 constructing
models next
Northeast 600 acres of Northeast Dixon, On hold Yes
Quadrant-‐ industrial and west of Pedrick
Multiple retail Road
landowners development
Northeast Dixon 640 acres of Northeast Dixon, One individual To be determined
Agricultural agricultural east of Pedrick project under
Service Area support Road construction (40
industries acres)
Source: Dixon Resource Conservation District.
The City of Dixon has enacted a Measure B Residential Growth Implementation
Ordinance that limits annual residential growth in the City to a number of new dwelling
units equal to three percent or less of the total number of housing units existing on
December 31st of each prior calendar year. Each calendar year the Community
Development Director must estimate the number of new allotments for the coming year.
The estimate for 2015 was 189 new allotments; however, there are no residential
developments proposed that would be requesting all or part of the 2015 estimated
allocation to date. The development agreements for Brookfield and Pulte Homes have
already been approved in prior years.
The California Department of Finance (DOF) projects that the population of Solano
County will grow by eight percent from 2010 to 2020. Thus, the average annual population
growth in the County is anticipated to be approximately 0.8 percent. Based on these
projections, the District’s population would increase from 20,456 in 2010 to approximately
22,092 in 2020. It is anticipated that demand for service within the District will increase
minimally, based on the DOF population growth projections through 2020.
Growth Strategies
The District is not a land use authority, and does not hold primary responsibility for
implementing growth strategies. The land use authority for unincorporated areas is the
County. DRCD reviews and comments on county and city planning documents.
DRCD Policy Consulting Associates, LLC 45
SOLANO LAFCO
RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
The District usually receives a public notification of any new developments constructed
in the County and the City of Dixon. These notifications are reviewed by staff to determine
potential impacts to the District’s drainage system and to landowners within the District.
Any new development projects that may impact the District are reviewed at Board
meetings to determine the projects’ impacts and how the impacts may be reduced.
A majority of the lands within the District are designated in the Solano County’s General
Plan as agricultural, with some territory covered by the resource conservation overlay.
Similarly, land uses in Yolo County are agricultural and open space, with delta protection
overlay. Because of these agriculture and open space oriented land uses, it is anticipated
that there will be minimal development or population growth within the District. A
majority of growth in the District occurs in the City of Dixon. Solano County has historically
required that developments requiring water and sewer service be incorporated within one
of the County’s cities. Based on this policy, most residential, commercial and industrial
development in the County has been in incorporated areas. Similarly, Yolo County focuses
on protecting its agricultural and open space resources, resisting urbanization, and
directing growth into the existing incorporated cities. Over 93 percent of Yolo County
remains as farmland and open space.15
Although some of the District’s territory is within the City of Dixon’s SOI, meaning that
it is anticipated that the areas will eventually be annexed by the City, DRCD will be
minimally affected. These areas will not be detached from the District since the cities do
not provide resource conservation services and most of the city territory is already
included in the District. Annexation would affect DRCD by transferring land use authority
from the County to the City of Dixon and through the potential urbanization of these
annexed areas.
Determinations
v In 2010, DRCD had an estimated population of 20,456.
v The District reported that minimal growth had occurred within the District over the
last five years. Demand for services has reportedly increased. The District generally
expects moderate growth in the next 10 years. Growth is concentrated in the City of
Dixon. There are four known planned development within DRCD boundaries, three
of which are anticipated to be served by the District (e.g. drainage services).
v Based on the Department of Finance (DOF) population forecasts, the District’s
population is projected to increase from 20,456 in 2010 to approximately 22,092 in
2020.
v Because the territory within DRCD is primarily agricultural and open space, it is
anticipated that there will be minimal development or population growth within the
District, with the exception of the City of Dixon.
15 Yolo County General Plan 2030, Land Use Element, LU-‐1, LU-‐8.
DRCD Policy Consulting Associates, LLC 46
SOLANO LAFCO
RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
DISADVANTAGED UNINCORPORATED COMMUNITIES
LAFCO is required to evaluate disadvantaged unincorporated communities as part of
this service review, including the location and characteristics of any such communities. A
disadvantaged unincorporated community is defined as any area with 12 or more
registered voters, or as determined by commission policy, where the median household
income is less than 80 percent of the statewide annual median.16
The California Department of Water Resources (DWR) has developed a mapping tool to
assist in determining which communities meet the disadvantaged communities median
household income definition.17 According to DWR, there are no communities that meet the
definition of disadvantaged unincorporated community in Solano County. As such, there
are no disadvantaged unincorporated communities within or adjacent to DRCD’s bounds
and sphere of influence.
Determinations
v According to the Department of Water Resources, there are no communities that
meet the definition of a disadvantaged unincorporated community in Solano County.
As such, there are no disadvantaged unincorporated communities within or
adjacent to DRCD’s bounds and sphere of influence.
FINANCIAL ABILITY TO PROVIDE SERVICES
The financial ability of agencies to provide services is affected by available financing
sources and financing constraints. This section discusses the major financing constraints
faced by the District and identifies the revenue sources currently available to the District.
The District reported that its financing level was marginally adequate to deliver
services. The main financial challenge is an increase in the regulatory compliance cost for
ditch maintenance. In order to add a new revenue source, the District is considering a
contract with USDA to provide engineering support for farm bill programs.
In the last several years, the District has implemented some cost-‐containment
strategies, including annual review of reconciled financial reports for expenditures that
have been steadily increasing and regular review of purchases.
Revenues and Expenses
In FY 13-‐14, the District’s revenue was $419,288, which consisted of 22 percent of
property taxes, 61 percent of charges for services, nine percent of intergovernmental
revenue, eight percent of miscellaneous revenue, and less than one percent of revenue from
use of money.
16 Government Code §56033.5.
17 Based on census data, the median household income in the State of California in 2010 was $57,708, 80 percent of which
is $46,166.
DRCD Policy Consulting Associates, LLC 47
SOLANO LAFCO
RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
For its internal controls, the District divides its revenues and expenditures into two
overall categories—governmental services and professional services. Governmental
services include standard drainage services and assistance to landowners within the
District to address natural resource concerns. The “drainage systems revenue” is from
annual ditch maintenance fees (see Figure 4-‐8), and “other governmental activities
revenue” is from property tax revenues. DRCD’s goal is to keep the net position between
the drainage system and other governmental activities close to a zero balance.
Professional services include providing staff to other programs and support services
that benefit landowners and growers within the District that further the mission of the
District. DRCD has continued to accumulate revenues in excess of expenses from
professional services. Some of these reserves are being used toward long-‐term
improvements to local drainage and projects, such as updating and improving the District’s
policies, drainage standards and records.
In 2013, the District reviewed its ditch maintenance charge and the Dixon/Solano RCD
Water Quality Coalition membership fee. The ditch fee remained $2 per acre, while the
coalition membership fee increased by $0.50 per acre from $2 to $2.50 per acre. The lease
management of the Yolo Bypass Wildlife Area used to bring the District 15 percent of its
lease income; however, the master lease agreement has recently ended.
The District’s expenditures in FY 13-‐14 amounted to $405,094, out of which 44 percent
was spent on salaries and benefits and 54 percent on services and supplies. A small portion
was spent on other charges and fixed assets.
At the end of FY 13-‐14, the District revenues exceeded its expenditures by $14,192. In
fact, DRCD’s revenues exceeded expenditures in each of the last five years, as is clear from
Figure 4-‐7.
Figure 4-‐7: DRCD revenue and expenditures, FYs 09-‐10 through FY 13-‐14
Year FY 09-‐10 FY 10-‐11 FY 11-‐12 FY 12-‐13 FY 13-‐14
Revenues $318,027 $321,711 $336,867 $348,509 $419,288
Expenditures $291,932 $278,769 $314,655 $296,681 $405,094
Balance $26,095 $42,942 $22,212 $51,828 $14,194
Source: Audited Financial Statements FYs 09-‐10, 10-‐11, 11-‐12, 12-‐13. Unaudited Financial Statements FY 13-‐
14.
Capital Improvements
The District does not adopt a capital improvement plan (CIP). Capital improvements are
limited to the annual assessment of ditch and culvert repairs and long-‐term regional
planning and implementation by the Dixon Regional Watershed JPA of needed
improvements as outlined in the Dixon Watershed Management Plan from 2000 and
subsequent individual project documents. Thus DRCD’s capital improvement planning is
conducted in partnership with local agencies and recorded in the regional planning
documents.
DRCD Policy Consulting Associates, LLC 48
SOLANO LAFCO
RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
In FY 13-‐14, the District spent $4,497 on fixed assets. In FY 13-‐14, DRCD was also
planning to spend $26,000 on office repairs, ditch improvements and a three-‐mile drain
extension. The District is in the process of evaluating its office location and rental options.
By July 1st, 2015, DRCD will reportedly either move its office to a new location or invest in
the improvements of the existing location. The District continuously makes ditch
improvements.
Outstanding Debt
The District’s long-‐term liability consists entirely of compensated absences. The balance
at the end of FY 12-‐13 was $10,606.
Reserves
The District does not have a policy regarding financial reserves, but has the Board’s
standing direction that each September or October the Board would review the prior year’s
reconciled financial reports and make allocations to the reserve accounts as needs are
identified.
DRCD has five reserve accounts. The imprest cash reserve reflects the cash held outside
of the county funds, such as the District’s First Northern Bank accounts, which are used on
an ongoing basis for payroll and petty cash needs. The reserve had $25,500 at the end of FY
13-‐14. The general reserve is intended for fiscal uncertainty. When approved by the Board,
it is used to buffer yearly variations in cash flow and to defer staffing level adjustments as
future needs or projects are developed. The general reserve contained $50,000 as of June
30, 2014. The future equipment acquisition reserve, which had $20,000 at the end of FY 14,
is used to plan for and purchase new equipment, such as anticipated computer needs and
other office equipment. The future capital improvement acquisition district reserve, with
$50,000 in it at the end of FY 13-‐14, is used to plan for and implement a schedule of DRCD
drainage system improvements, such as anticipated major culvert replacements.
Additionally, there is a future improvement acquisition regional reserve that amounted to
$350,000 at the end of FY 14. The regional reserve is used to plan for and implement
regional drainage system improvements, such as anticipated assistance to the Dixon Main
Drain/V-‐drain project.
Determinations
v The District reported that its financing levels were marginally adequate to deliver
services. The main financial challenge is an increase in the regulatory compliance
cost for ditch maintenance.
v At the end of FY 13-‐14, the District revenues exceeded its expenditures by $14,192.
The District’s expenditures exceeded revenues in each of the last five fiscal years.
v In FY 13-‐14, a majority of the District’s revenue came from contract fees that
included ditch maintenance charges, coalition membership fees, and fees for lease
DRCD Policy Consulting Associates, LLC 49
SOLANO LAFCO
RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
management of the Yolo Bypass Wildlife Area.18 Property tax revenue constituted
about 22 percent of the total revenue.
v Capital improvement needs and improvements are planned in partnership with
local agencies and recorded in the regional planning documents.
v The District’s long-‐term liability consists entirely of compensated absences.
v The District has been directed by the Board to maintain five financial reserves,
which include reserve accounts for imprest cash, general, future equipment
acquisition, future capital improvement acquisition district, and future capital
improvement acquisition regional.
v Based on the District’s income surplus for the last five fiscal years, adequate
financial reserves, and limited debt, as well as ability to receive substantial income
from fees for services, DRCD appears to be in adequate financial health.
18 The District’s lease agreement for the Yolo Bypass Wildlife Area has ended as of April 30, 2015.
DRCD Policy Consulting Associates, LLC 50
601 RC
551RC
401 RC
dnalsI ytrebiL
yelkluB
yawdiM
ihleD
nawS
namkcaH sekiS
Tremont
egnuR
08 I
nebboR dR nebboR
kcirdeP
nhguaV dR
notpmahgniB
yerruC
Sievers
311 ywH dR noxiD oiR
53
RC 501 RC
relliM
63RC
ecaM
gniK
leztE
redeorhcS
spillihP
loohcS ttiP
keerC
hatuP
A43RC
edyH
llewxaM nesmohT
lioferT
Becker
sivaD dlO
noitatS
oidaR
egdirB nosnevetS
yesaC
701RC
A601 RC
83
RC
A83
RC
251
RC
401RC
CR 103A onaloY
pihsniW
kraP onaloS
Levee
notpmahgniB noitatS reknuB
311 ywH
Kidwell repraH
E evA
noxiD
loohcS ttiP loohcS ttiP
Campbell
hcnaR skrapS
llieNcM
ttenraG
paM
eeF
ecnanetniaM
hctiD
DCRD
:8-4
erugiF
stnemssessA
hctiD
noxiD
±
seliM
4
3
2
1 5.0
0
dnegeL sdaoR
tnemssessA
hctiD DCRD
stnemssessA
hctiD
edistuO
/w srebmeM
DCRD
stnemeergA
evitanretlA
/w srebmeM
DCRD eiriarP eniaM
8602
tcirtsiD
noitamalceR
yradnuoB
lageL retuO
DCR noxiD
seiradnuoB
ytnuoC
yradnuoB
noxiD fo ytiC
aerA lairtsudnI
gA EN
31 ceD
02 :etaD
noitaerC
DCRD :yb
detaerC
2102 :sreyaL
lecraP :setoN
eht
htiw
deifirev
saw
yradnuoB
lageL
retuO
DCRD
-
.yradnuob
dedrocer
2691
dna pam
xat onaloS
2791
PCH
onaloS
eht
morf
si yrotirrret
eiriarP
eniaM
-
.esabatad
yrotirret
8602 tcirtsiD
noitamalceR
-
.deifirev
eeyolpme
saw
SOLANO LAFCO
RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
PRESENT AND PLANNED CAPACITY
The District reported that it presently had sufficient capacity to provide adequate
services to its existing service area, however, not to the future growth area. New capacity,
as related to drainage facilities, will have to be constructed in partnership with the Dixon
Regional Watershed Joint Powers Authority and Solano County.
Existing Demand
The District’s customers include landowners in the Dixon RCD drainage project service
area, all rural landowners, and farmers with property in the District.
The District expects an increase in service demand due to further escalation in
regulatory compliance requirements for irrigated lands and increased industrial and
residential developments needing drainage services. DRCD accommodates increases in
service demand through planning of the expansion of drainage service areas and
coordination with the Dixon Regional Watershed JPA and its other member agencies that
include Dixon RCD, Maine Prarie Water District, Reclamation District 2068, and the City of
Dixon.
The District developed the 2007-‐2012 Long Range Plan, which was subsequently
updated in 2011 with the planning horizon of another five years. The plan contains short-‐
and long-‐term goals directed at planning for future service needs. Examples of these goals
include completing drainage projects, continuing work on the water quality issues, and
providing input on the Solano General Plan updates. The plan identifies New South Channel
as a priority geographic area. Priority issues are drainage, water quality, wildlife friendly
farming, countywide education, and district operations. The plan highlights key trends and
culture changes in the District that should be taken into consideration when planning for
future services. Some trends and changes of note include the decreasing size of land
parcels, increasing urbanization, changing expectations of service for drainage, change in
the perception of agricultural water quality, higher understanding of environmental needs
and conditions, use of technology in agriculture, and increases in regulation.
Facilities
The District’s office is located in the USDA-‐leased Dixon Service Center, which is
provided by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). In the late summer of
2015 USDA Service Center will be relocating. Dixon RCD and Solano RCD have determined
that the most cost-‐effective option is to stay in the current location. The two districts will
jointly lease office space that they are currently occupying at 1170 N Lincoln St, Suite 110
in Dixon.
DRCD’s office hours are Monday through Friday from 8 am till 5 pm. The condition of
the office was reported to be good.
As shown in Figure 4-‐2, DRCD operates and maintains the drainage system, which is a
network of ditches that drains the land within DRCD south of Dixon, emptying into the RD
2068 canal on Swan Road. The Dixon Drain system, constructed by DRCD, is comprised of
four segments within three distinct watersheds, including Putah Creek Watershed, Yolo
Bypass Watershed and Dixon-‐Dudley Creek Watershed, as can be seen in Figure 4-‐9.
DRCD Policy Consulting Associates, LLC 52
SOLANO LAFCO
RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
The system played a big role in bringing formerly non-‐arable land into production and
in reducing crop damage due to winter flooding. Increased runoff from the City of Dixon
has increased the load on the Dickson-‐Dudley Creek Watershed. As a result, Dixon Regional
Watershed JPA was formed to study the regional drainage needs with the goal of reducing
flooding by regaining the level of service originally constructed in the regional drainage
facilities and increasing capacities where feasible.
As shown in Figure 4-‐10, the system consists of existing earthen channel and numerous
culverts, the overall condition of which was reported to be good. The annual maintenance
consisting of sediment removal and culvert replacement has maintained the current
condition.
It appears that currently the District’s facilities have sufficient capacity to provide
adequate services; however, capacity is marginally constrained by the rising costs of
maintenance, permitting and regulatory compliance.
DRCD Policy Consulting Associates, LLC 53
A St
Midway Road
Swan Road
0 3,500 7,000
Scale in Feet
Sikes
Road
Etzel
Road
Delhi Road
S
First
St
Vaughn Road
Hackman Road
E. Dixon Ave
Casey Road
Hawkins Road
Pitt School
Road
Pedrick
R oad
Union
Pacific RR
Radio Station Road
Binghampton Road
N
Maine Prairie Road
orton
R
oad
Station
R
d
Bunker
Robben
Road
Tremont No. 1
Lateral A
Tremont No. 1
Lat.
B Lateral C
Lat.
A
Lat.
C
M
axw
ell Tremont No. 2
Lateral
F
Basin B
Lateral D
Basin A
Basin C 3A
4A
Lateral
No. 4 4B
3
.oN
tnom
erT
4C
Lateral
No. 1
Silver-Joy
Lateral
Lateral
No.
2
Lateral No. 3 A5 .oN
laretaL
5B
V-3 Dra
Lateral
No.
5
in
lanaC
- niaM 8602
DR
Westside
V-1 Drain
Lateral
B
Dixon Main Drain
Hass Slough
Duck
Slough
3
.oN
tnomerT
Lateral
B
Tremont No. 2
Lateral
D
Lateral
F
N:\Clients\294
Dixon
RCD\00-11-03
Benefit
Area
Map\GIS\Figures\v10_Figure
X_Regional
Watersheds.mxd
6/8/2012
Figure 4-9: Regional Watersheds
LEGEND
City Limits
Sphere of Influence
Private Ditch
Public Ditch
Dixon NE Quadrant Agricultural
and Industrial Area
Tremont No. 1 Watershed
Tremont No. 2 Watershed
Tremont No. 3 Watershed
Lateral 4 and Lateral 5 Watershed
Basin A / Lateral 1 Tributary Area FIGURE #
Basin A / Lateral 1 Tributary Area
to be diverted to Westside Pond
and McCune Creek Dixon RCD
Basins B and C / Laterals 2
and 3 Tributary Area REGIONAL WATERSHEDS
V Drain Watershed
onaloS oloY
Tremont No. 2
NorthC ross
Drain
North C D r r o a s in s L N a o t . e 4 ral
Lateral
D
A
laretaL Tremont No. 1
Maxwell
Lane
Lateral
Lateral No. 1
Putah Creek
Lateral
A
Lateral
C
Yellow Highlighted Segment Facility of
Dixon Regional Watershed
Joint Powers Authority
Lateral No.5
Lateral
B
Lateral C
South Cross
Drain
Lateral
B
Tremont No. 1
Tremont
3
Lateral F
Lateral
E
Silvey-Joy
Lateral
Lateral
D
Lateral E
Lateral No. 3
Lateral No. 5
Trem
ont
No.
3
Lateral
No.
3
North Cross Drain
Lateral
No. 5
Westside
Lateral
No. 2
Lateral No. 4
RD
2068 Main Canal
Tremont No. 1
Tremont No. 2
Dixon Main Drain RD 2068
Irrigation
Ditch
Facility
Arden Hutchinson La Rue 1st F
113
Kidwell
Pedrick
80
113
A
mond
Al
ey lkluB
r King
y t ber
Li
I and sl
L
bi
tre y I
nals d
Bun ek r S o ti n at
84
113
loohcSt
tiP
Pedrick
Stevenson
Bridge Mace
Sparling
Sievers
H
F
Dixon Dixon
Buckley
Hawkins Swan Binghamton
yelkluB
Putah Creek
104
Tremont
Porter
Midway Midway
401
Figure 4-10: DRCD Facilities
SCWA
Solano Habitat Conservation Plan 95 Cowell
Figure A-13
95
Dixon Resource Conservation
District Facilities
Legend
Plan Area
Dixon Resource Conservation District
Drainage Service Area
Dixon Resource Conservation District
Potential Drainage Service Expansion Areas
Interstate Highways
S
M
ta
a
t
j
e
o r
R
R
o
o
u
a
te
d
s
s
Robb
ne
Streets iS sek
CWA Jurisdictional Features Total on Map
Culvert or Bridge Crossing 141 t Pti Sc looh 401 Dixon Resource Conservation District
Stream, Channelized 15,000 ft. Name Feature Type Length (Feet)
for Flood Control Dixon Main Drain H 5,120
Lateral A H 12,370
Irrigation Ditch - Combined 341,800 ft. Lateral B H 10,290
Supply and Drainage Lateral C H 10,130 Lateral D H 35,830 Lateral E H 16,340 Non-jurisdictional Features Lateral F H 10,130 None on map Lateral No. 2 H 21,060
Lateral No. 3 H 35,930
Lateral No. 4 H 23,860
Lateral No. 5 D 3,030 Lateral No. 5 H 18,300
Maxwell Lane Lateral H 2,670 Extent of North Cross Drain H 4,540 North Cross Drain D 5,400 Figure RD 2068 Main Canal H 5,570
Le
wis
S
seki
S
S
T
i
o
r
l
e
u
v
m
t
e
h
y
o
-
C
n
J
t
r
o
o
N
y
s
o
s
L
.
a
D
1
te
ra
ra
in
l
H
H
H
1
3
6
3
1
,
,
5
,
8
4
8
4
6
0
0
0
Tremont No. 1 D 3,330 Tremont No. 2 H 35,250
Tremont No. 2 D 3,270
Tremont No. 3 H 31,960
Westside H 7,940
Feature Type Key
Feature Type Name Symbol
0 1 2 Miles N a D r i o e x t m o e n : a S p R t p e r e e s d a o m u a r s s c r e a e n C p d o o r i n r te r s i e d g r a b v t y a io t i t n o h n e d i D tc i h st e r s ict. Robb ne S Ir t r r i e g a a m tio , n C D ha i n tc n h e l - i z C e o d m fo b r i n F e l d o o S d u p C p o l n y t a ro n l d Drainage H D
Culvert and bridge crossings mapped by LSA.
SOURCE: Aerial Imagery from the USDA; NAIP (2009) and Dixon Resource Conservation District
I:\SWG1001\GIS\Maps\Public Draft\Appendix A\FigureA-13_DixonResourceConservationDistrictFacilities.mxd (11/5/2012)
SOLANO LAFCO
RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
Infrastructure Needs
The District’s infrastructure needs generally consist of ditch and culvert repairs, as well
as extensions of the existing system.
Routine drainage system improvements range from minor culvert replacements to
major culvert replacements under the County roads. The District’s process is to complete
several repairs a year and to identify new repair needs through its annual inspection.
The major drainage improvements are coordinated and planned through the Dixon
Regional Watershed JPA. The current Dixon Main Drain/V-‐drain Enlargement Project is
planned to be completed by the fall of 2016. DRCD has committed to fund a portion of this
project.
Challenges
Challenges reported by the District include the increasing costs of drainage system
maintenance and increased permitting and regulation requirements, which also increase
the cost of providing services and expand the District’s customer base.
SERVICE ADEQUACY
California Conservation Partnership and California Department of Conservation
developed the Resource Conservation District Guidebook in 1999, which outlines best
management practices for RCDs. Many of these practices are difficult to assess for
adequacy, and almost all indicators of service levels are not easily quantifiable when
compared with a defined industry standard; consequently, a relatively subjective judgment
of adequacy is necessary. In order to evaluate the adequacy of DRCD’s services the
following criteria were considered: 1) long-‐range and strategic planning practices; 2)
project evaluation practices; and 3) ability to find a supplemental source of income.
A strategic plan provides a road map to agencies by setting priorities and identifying
means to meet those goals. Priority setting helps a district determine which needs deserve
attention first and enables it to focus its limited resources on addressing those needs.
District priority setting is accomplished through creating a mission statement, identifying
goals that support its mission, and then crafting objectives that help the District reach its
goals. Also, having a clear mission, goals, and objectives—a strategic plan—helps identify
shared interests an agency may have with other groups, agencies, or individuals and helps
avoid duplicating the work of other groups. Beyond these practical reasons for planning
strategically, long-‐range planning is one of the provisions outlined in Division 9 of the
Public Resources Code for the administration of a resource conservation district.
Additionally, districts wishing to take advantage of state grant programs through the
California Department of Conservation will only be able to do so if they maintain long-‐ and
short-‐range plans and publish annual progress reports. As identified in §9413 of Division 9,
long-‐range plans shall:
v Establish long-‐range goals,
v Be five-‐year plans,
DRCD Policy Consulting Associates, LLC 56
SOLANO LAFCO
RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
v Address the soil and related resource problems found to occur within the district,
v Identify resource issues within the district for local, state, and federal resource
conservation planning,
v Involve other agencies in the strategic planning process,
v Provide a framework for setting annual priorities,
v Create a basis for evaluating annual work plan achievements and allocating state
funds to the district, and
v Provide for disseminating information concerning district programs and goals to
local, state, and federal government agencies and the public.
The District’s long-‐range plan from 2012 to 2017 meets these requirements.
Additionally, §9413 of Division 9 also requires that in order to receive grant funding
through the Department of Conservation, RCDs must publish annual reports to summarize
the District’s progress toward meeting the goals and objectives outlined in the long-‐range
plan. Annual reports can be used to 1) provide a summary of the work accomplished over
the previous year and set priorities for the coming year, 2) provide a means to track district
activities from year to year, 3) offer a reference regarding project specifics in later years, 4)
inform long-‐range planning efforts, 5) provide a useful introduction to the District’s efforts
for new employees and stakeholders, and 6) supplement grant applications to provide
information on district programs and goals. DRCD produces annual reports in the form of
newsletters that are disseminated to the District’s constituents.
DRCD uses its own performance measures to evaluate its service adequacy. Both, fiscal
outcomes and maintenance measures are used. Each project is reviewed to determine its
fiscal performance, such as whether the project is covering the cost to provide adequate
level of service. Ditch maintenance review consists of the number of miles maintained and
cost of performing the service.
RCDs generally are limited or constrained by available funding sources and have to
heavily rely on supplemental source of income, such as grants. Tax revenue received by
DRCD constitutes only a small portion of its total budget. DRCD relies heavily on charges
for services for its supplemental income.
Determinations
v The District expects an increase in service demand due to further regulatory
compliance requirements for irrigated lands and increased industrial and
residential developments needing drainage services.
v The District reported that it presently had sufficient capacity to provide adequate
services to its existing service area; however, existing capacity would not be
sufficient to serve any future growth. Additional capacity, as related to drainage
facilities, will have to be constructed should growth occur.
v The District’s infrastructure needs generally consist of ditch and culvert repairs, as
well as extensions of the existing system.
DRCD Policy Consulting Associates, LLC 57
SOLANO LAFCO
RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
v The District’s services appear to be adequate based on DRCD’s strategic planning
practices, project evaluation practices and supplemental revenue source practices.
v District management methods appear to generally meet accepted best management
practices. The District prepares a budget before the beginning of the fiscal year,
conducts regular financial audits, maintains current transparent financial records,
tracks employee and district workload, and has an established process to address
complaints.
STATUS AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR SHARED FACILITIES
Shared Facilities and Regional Cooperation
Shared Facilities
The District leans heavily on sharing resources and responsibilities with its partners,
which benefits the District’s constituents as it increases DRCD efficiency.
DRCD shares the USDA Dixon Service Center with USDA NRCS, USDA Farm Services
Agency (FSA), and Solano Resource Conservation District. Besides sharing facility costs, the
tenants build greater cooperation and partnership.
Collaboration
DRCD takes an active part in three main types of partnerships, as previously discussed
in the Services Provided section:
v The District provides drainage services by maintaining and operating the Dixon Drain
system facilities, as well as participating in the operations of the regional drainage
facilities as part of the Dixon Regional Watershed JPA that consists of DRCD, RD 2068,
MPWD, and the City of Dixon.
v DRCD, along with SoRCD, is a member of the Dixon/Solano RCD Water Quality Coalition
that assists landowners in complying with the Regional Water Quality Control Board
regulations. The two districts are also signatories to the larger Sacramento Valley Water
Quality Coalition.
v Until recently DRCD managed the lease agreement for the Department of Fish and
Wildlife for the Yolo Bypass Wildlife Area. The District cooperated with the Department
and the tenants in producing different crops while creating valuable wildlife habitat.
DRCD also works with USDA’s NRCS assisting it in implementing the national
conservation goals. Some of the assistance provided includes planning on several Wetlands
Reserve Program (WRP) projects and Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP)
projects along with general information regarding drainage and water quality projects. For
local conservation projects, the District continues to partner with Solano RCD on many of
SoRCD grants to expand the area of coverage and to provide technical assistance as needed.
More details on the District’s collaborations and memberships are shown in Figures 4-‐
11 and 4-‐12.
DRCD Policy Consulting Associates, LLC 58
SOLANO LAFCO
RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
Figure 4-‐11: DRCD Memberships
Organization Purpose
Association of Resource Conservation Districts Education, training and advocacy
California Special Districts Association Education, training and advocacy
Yolo Basin Foundation Education, training and advocacy of youth and
interest in the Yolo Bypass
Joint Powers Authority Purpose
Special District Risk Management Authority Pooled insurance for liability and workers
compensation insurance and training
Dixon Regional Watershed Joint Powers Planning, financing, acquisition, ownership,
Authority construction, operation, and maintenance of
regional drainage facilities within the Dixon
Regional Watershed
Source: Dixon Resource Conservation District
Figure 4-‐12: DRCD Collaborations
Collaboration Purpose
U SDA Natural Resources Conservation To assist NRCS with outreach and
Services implementation of Federal Farm and
Conservation Policies; also covers shared office
space, vehicles and staffing
Reclamation District 2068 Agreement establishing operations and cost
share obligations between parties
M aine Prairie Water District Agreement establishing operations and cost
share obligations between parties
City of Dixon Agreement establishing operations and cost
share obligations between parties
S olano Irrigation District Agreement establishing operations and cost
share obligations between parties
Solano County Water Agency Provides for funding of regional drainage
improvements
Source: Dixon Resource Conservation District
DRCD Policy Consulting Associates, LLC 59
SOLANO LAFCO
RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
The District’s constituents directly benefit from the District’s collaboration practices.
DRCD makes available to its residents services provided by its partners, including:
v Technical and financial assistance for practices that benefit water quality, water
conservation, and fish and wildlife habitat provided by USDA NRCS;
v Grants for small flood control projects provided by Solano RCD;
v Assistance with developing a farm, ranch or rural property conservation plan provided
by Solano RCD;
v Expertise on how to successfully design, install and maintain vegetative practices
provided by Solano RCD; and
v Watershed education programs for local schools and volunteer clean up days arranged
by Solano RCD.
Management Efficiencies
While public sector management standards vary depending on the size and scope of the
organization, there are minimum standards. Well-‐managed organizations evaluate
employees annually, track employee and agency productivity, periodically review agency
performance, prepare a budget before the beginning of the fiscal year, conduct periodic
financial audits to safeguard the public trust, maintain relatively current financial records,
conduct advanced planning for future service needs, and plan and budget for capital needs.
DRCD employs five personnel or 3.5 full-‐time equivalent employees that include one
full-‐time district manager, one part-‐time project manager, one part-‐time project engineer,
one part-‐time water quality coalition membership coordinator, and one part-‐time office
manager. The district manager oversees the rest of the staff and is responsible for the day-‐
to-‐day operations of the District. Additionally, the district manager performs employee
evaluations.
The operations and productivity of DRCD are also routinely evaluated. The Board
reviews the District’s performance twice a year. In September, the Board reviews the
overall fiscal position of the District as a result of the prior year’s operations and directs
staff and committees (ditch maintenance, personnel, budget, and policy) to consider issues
in the winter. Items from the committees are brought to the Board for consideration in
spring during the budget planning cycle.
DRCD tracks the workload handled by its personnel. All employees track their work
hours by project in timesheets, and the cost of staffing is apportioned to each project.
The District’s financial planning efforts include an annually adopted budget and
biennially audited financial statements. Additionally, the District adopts a long-‐range plan,
which currently has a planning horizon through 2017 and an annual plan. The District’s
annual reports are presented in a form of annual newsletters released to the public (mailed
and posted on the website). DRCD establishes long-‐term objectives during the annual
budget cycle. The Board also reviews the prior long-‐range plan goals on a biennial basis.
The District’s Board of Directors has directed staff to update the long range plan and
review DRCD policy for needed updates during winter of 2014-‐2015.
DRCD Policy Consulting Associates, LLC 60
SOLANO LAFCO
RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
Dixon RCD's mission is to provide leadership and to make available technical, financial
and educational resources to local land users for drainage, water quality, and habitat
management through competent, cost effective services and partnerships.
The District reported that it had undertaken several efforts to increase its operational
efficiency in the last three years. The District is currently digitizing its critical records and
updating its ditch maintenance tracking practices to a GIS based system. In the last two
years, DRCD has digitized and made searchable all district minutes from 1952 to present.
The District has produced a GIS map of the District’s ditch facilities and recorded all known
easements, utilities and encroachments and will be digitizing all ditch designs, permits,
easements, encroachments and water agreements over the next 18 months. Additionally,
the District has had informal discussions about maintenance efficiency by sharing
resources.
All special districts are required to submit annual audits to the County within 12
months of the completion of the fiscal year, unless the Board of Supervisors has approved a
biennial or five-‐year schedule. 19 In the case of DRCD, the District must submit audits
biennially. The most recently performed audit for FY 12-‐13 had been submitted to the
County Auditor’s Office.
Government Code §53901 states that within 60 days after the beginning of the fiscal
year each local agency must submit its budget to the county auditor. These budgets are to
be filed and made available on request by the public at the county auditor’s office. DRCD
reportedly has submitted its budget for the most recent fiscal year to the County Auditor-‐
Controller’s Office.
Determinations
v Currently, the District’s main office in Dixon is shared by Solano Resource
Conservation District (SoRCD), USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service
(NRCS) and USDA Farm Services Agency (FSA). NRSC and FSA are expected to
relocate; Dixon RCD and Solano RCD will remain co-‐located.
v No additional opportunities for facility sharing were identified by DRCD.
v The District practices extensive collaboration with other agencies and organizations.
It is a member of multiple organizations and associations.
LAFCO POLICIES AFFECTING SERVICE DELIVERY
Solano LAFCO has adopted a policy that affects service delivery by resource
conservation districts in the County. Standard 9 in the LAFCO Standards and Procedures
manual requires urban growth to be guided away from prime agricultural land unless such
action would not promote planned, orderly and efficient development for the agency.
LAFCO encourages development of existing vacant or non-‐prime agricultural lands within
the agency limits first before any proposal is approved for urbanization outside of the
agency’s limits. One of the services provided by an RCD in Solano County is protection of
19 Government Code §26909.
DRCD Policy Consulting Associates, LLC 61
SOLANO LAFCO
RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
prime agricultural lands. When LAFCO approves applications that result in annexation of
these lands into cities and/or urbanization, it directly affects services provided by RCDs.
Similarly, Standard 8 in the LAFCO Standards and Procedures requires that prior to
approving an annexation, LAFCO has to make a determination that the proposed
conversion of open space lands to urban use is justified by probable urban growth within a
10 year-‐period of time. This means that RCDs engaged in protection of open space are
affected when LAFCO approves an annexation involving conversion of open space lands to
urban use.
Determinations
v Standards 8 and 9 of the LAFCO Standards and Procedures manual that control
urban growth and protect open space and prime agricultural land through approval
(or denial) of the annexation applications directly affect Solano County RCDs’
service provision since the districts engage in protection of agricultural and open
space lands as part of their main missions and strategic goals.
DRCD Policy Consulting Associates, LLC 62
SOLANO LAFCO
RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
DIXON RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT
DETERMINATIONS
Growth and Population Projections
v In 2010 Dixon Resource Conservation District (DRCD) had an estimated population
of 20,456.
v The District reported that minimal growth had occurred within the District over the
last five years. Demand for services has reportedly increased. The District generally
expects moderate growth in the next 10 years. Growth is concentrated in the City of
Dixon. There are four known planned development within DRCD boundaries, three
of which are anticipated to be served by the District.
v Based on the Department of Finance (DOF) population forecasts, the District’s
population is projected to increase from 20,456 in 2010 to approximately 22,092 in
2020.
v Because the territory within DRCD is primarily agricultural and open space, it is
anticipated that there will be minimal development or population growth within the
District, with the exception of the City of Dixon.
The Location and Characteristics of Disadvantaged
Unincorporated Communities Within or Contiguous to the
Agency’s SOI
v According to the Department of Water Resources, there are no communities that
meet the definition of a disadvantaged unincorporated community in Solano County.
As such, there are no disadvantaged unincorporated communities within or
adjacent to DRCD’s bounds and sphere of influence.
Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities and
Adequacy of Public Services, Including Infrastructure
Needs and Deficiencies
v The District expects an increase in service demand due to further regulatory
compliance requirements for irrigated lands and increased industrial and
residential developments needing drainage services.
v The District reported that it presently had sufficient capacity to provide adequate
services to its existing service area; however, existing capacity would not be
sufficient to serve any future growth. Additional capacity, as related to drainage
facilities, will have to be constructed should growth occur.
v The District’s infrastructure needs generally consist of ditch and culvert repairs, as
well as extensions of the existing system.
v The District’s services appear to be adequate based on DRCD’s strategic planning
practices, project evaluation practices and supplemental revenue source practices.
DRCD Policy Consulting Associates, LLC 63
SOLANO LAFCO
RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
v District management methods appear to generally meet accepted best management
practices. The District prepares a budget before the beginning of the fiscal year,
conducts regular financial audits, maintains current transparent financial records,
tracks employee and district workload, and has an established process to address
complaints.
Financial Ability of Agencies to Provide Services
v The District reported that its financing levels were marginally adequate to deliver
services. The main financial challenge is an increase in the regulatory compliance
cost for ditch maintenance.
v At the end of FY 13-‐14, the District revenues exceeded its expenditures by $14,192.
The District’s expenditures exceeded revenues in each of the last five fiscal years.
v A majority of the District’s revenue in FY 13-‐14 came from contract fees that
included ditch maintenance charges, coalition membership fees, and fees for lease
management of the Yolo Bypass Wildlife Area.20 Property tax revenue constituted
about 22 percent of the total revenue.
v Capital improvement needs and improvements are planned in partnership with
local agencies and recorded in the regional planning documents.
v The District’s long-‐term liability consists entirely of compensated absences.
v The District has been directed by the Board to maintain five financial reserves,
which include reserve accounts for imprest cash, general, future equipment
acquisition, future capital improvement acquisition district, and future capital
improvement acquisition regional.
v Based on the District’s income surplus for the last five fiscal years, adequate
financial reserves, and limited debt, as well as ability to receive substantial income
from fees for services, DRCD appears to be in adequate financial health.
Status of, and Opportunities for, Shared Facilities
v Currently, the District’s main office in Dixon is shared by Solano Resource
Conservation District (SoRCD), USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service
(NRCS) and USDA Farm Services Agency (FSA). NRSC and FSA are expected to
relocate; Dixon RCD and Solano RCD will remain co-‐located.
v No additional opportunities for facility sharing were identified by DRCD.
v The District practices extensive collaboration with other agencies and organizations.
It is a member of multiple organizations and associations.
20 The District’s lease agreement for the Yolo Bypass Wildlife Area has ended as of April 30, 2015.
DRCD Policy Consulting Associates, LLC 64
SOLANO LAFCO
RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
Accountability for Community Service Needs, Including
Governmental Structure and Operational Efficiencies
v DRCD is governed by the Board of Directors that consists of five landowners who
are appointed by the Board of Supervisors to four-‐year staggered terms. Directors
receive no compensation. There is currently one vacancy. The District also has two
associate directors.
v Dixon RCD holds Board meetings on the second Wednesday of each month at six in
the evening March through October and at noon November through February in the
conference room at the district office.
v The District demonstrated accountability and transparency with regard to its
governance by cooperating with the MSR process, adopting an annual budget prior
to the start of the fiscal year, publishing agendas for public meetings as legally
required, maintaining a website, and filing Forms 700 Statement of Economic
Interest.
v DRCD follows all the minimum requirements legally mandated by Public Resources
Code Division 9, including basic reporting and training requirements, quarterly and
monthly requirements, and policies and plans requirements.
v The District’s Board members receive ethics training as required; DRCD has
established a policy on expense reimbursements.
v There is one governance structure option for DRCD, which is consolidation with
Solano RCD. The two districts currently closely collaborate and share facilities.
However, DRCD and SoRCD serve different territories and demographic groups, in
addition to providing different services that do not overlap but complement each
other.
LAFCO Policies Affecting Service Delivery
v Standards 8 and 9 of the LAFCO Standards and Procedures manual that control
urban growth and protect open space and prime agricultural land through approval
(or denial) of the annexation applications directly affect Solano County RCDs’
service provision since the districts engage in protection of agricultural and open
space lands as part of their main missions and strategic goals.
DRCD Policy Consulting Associates, LLC 65
SOLANO LAFCO
RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
5. SOLAN O RESO URCE
CO N S ERVATI O N DI STRI CT
Solano Resource Conservation District (SoRCD) has the charge of conserving and
enhancing the living resources within the District. The District accomplishes its goals by
providing Solano County residents with information, technical assistance and on-‐site
support in habitat conservation matters, as well as assisting with soil conservation, water
quality protection, and flood reduction issues. SoRCD works collaboratively with other
local agencies and organizations to meet the environmental and conservation needs of
Solano County’s residents and to preserve the region’s valuable natural resources and
assets.
The most recent MSR for the District was completed in 2006.
AGENCY OVERVIEW
Background
SoRCD was originally created in 1956 as Ulatis RCD to provide flood protection and
drain the land in the Ulatis Creek Watershed. Currently, the District works closely with the
National Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) and a wide variety of other partners
throughout the County on the scale of the watershed. In 2000, the District changed its name
to Solano RCD to reflect this broader mission.
The principal act that governs the District is Division 9 of the California Public
Resources Code.21 The principal act empowers resource conservation districts to control
runoff, prevent and control soil erosion, protect water quality, develop and distribute
water, improve land capabilities, and facilitate coordinated resource management efforts
for watershed restoration and enhancement.22 Districts must apply and obtain LAFCO
approval to exercise services authorized by the principal act but not already provided.23
Boundaries
SoRCD is located entirely within Solano County in the northwest, as shown in Figure 5-‐
1. The District borders Dixon Resource Conservation District to the east. In the north and
west, it is adjacent to Yolo and Napa Counties, respectively; to the south there is Solano
County territory without a designated resource conservation service provider. The
boundaries of the District are the Vaca Mountains west of Vacaville to Cache Slough,
approximately 15 miles southeast of Vacaville. SoRCD partially includes the cities of
Vacaville, Dixon and Fairfield. The present bounds of the District encompass approximately
206 square miles.
21 Public Resources Code §9001 et seq.
22 Public Resources Code §9001.
23 Government Code §56824.10.
SOLANO RCD Policy Consulting Associates, LLC 66
SOLANO LAFCO
RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
Sphere of Influence
The sphere of influence (SOI) for Ulatis RCD (now SoRCD) was first established in 1984
as coterminous with the District’s boundaries. The SOI was then updated in 2006, at which
time it was reaffirmed to be conterminous with the SoRCD boundaries.
SOLANO RCD Policy Consulting Associates, LLC 67
·|}þ
128
Tremont Rd
Sievers Rd
Dixon Ave
Midway Rd
·|}þ
Vaca Valley
Pky
113
Marshall Rd
Alamo Dr
W
ooden
Valley
Rd
Waterman Blvd Air Base Pky
R kvilleRd
dR
yelkluB
Figure 5-1 Solano Resource Conservation District
·|}þ
113
Yolo County
Putah
Creek Rd Putah Creek
§¨¦
505 Dixon
Yolo County
Cantelow Rd
Rd
wis
Le
§¨¦
Napa County
80 Channel
Pleasants
Valley
Rd
Vacaville Hawkins Rd Swan Rd
Deep
Water
Shipping
d
R
Peabody
0 1 2
evA
reyR
Miles
Major Roads
Solano County Boundary
Fairfield Solano RCD
Parcel Lines
City Boundaries
Travis Blvd Water
Created by Neuvert GIS Services, LLC - April 6, 2015 - V2 Data sources: Solano County; Esri; USGS; CaSIL
SOLANO LAFCO
RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
Type and Extent of Services
Services Provided
SoRCD provides natural resource management advice, ecosystem restoration and
enhancement project design and implementation, watershed-‐based environmental
education programs for school children and adults, semi-‐annual California native plant and
watershed-‐friendly plant sales, workshops and hands-‐on training events, invasive weed
control and eradication support, project permitting assistance, agricultural water quality
support, flood control coordination, Solano County Water Agency (SCWA) small grant
program support, conservation planning for rural and agricultural properties, and
watershed coordination for private and public stakeholders.
Figure 5-‐2 details the services provided by SoRCD. If a service is not provided by
SoRCD, but is offered by another agency, it is indicated in the figure.
SOLANO RCD Policy Consulting Associates, LLC 69
SOLANO LAFCO
RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
Figure 5-‐2: SoRCD Services
Service Agency Details
Erosion control conservation planning
and active planting on private and
Soil conservation Yes public lands for erosion control
Conservation planning and watershed
Watershed plans have been and will continue to be
conservation/management Yes created when appropriate
Water quality monitoring and
education for multiple agencies in the
Water quality conservation Yes County
Conservation planning with
Woodlands conservation Yes landowners and on public lands
Conservation planning and habitat
Wildlife conservation Yes restoration and creation projects
Designing and planting of filter strips
and native perennial grasses; erosion
Runoff control Yes control planting projects and planning
Education and outreach on recycling,
oil use and disposal and clean water
Pollution control Yes programs
Erosion control conservation planning
and active planting on private and
Prevent and control soil erosion Yes public lands for erosion control
Water quality monitoring and
Protect water quality Yes education for multiple agencies
Solano County Water
Agency and Solano
Develop and distribute water Irrigation District
Natural Resources
Improve land capabilities Conservation Service
Many of the projects are shared with
Facilitate coordinated resource multiple partners and involve multi-‐
management efforts Yes agency conservation plans.
Over half of projects are related to
watershed restoration and
Watershed restoration and enhancement work throughout the
enhancement Yes County.
Conservation planning and habitat
restoration and creation projects and
Farm and range land on farm BMP installation and
conservation/management Yes management.
Solano County and
Solano Land Trust
Open space conservation
SOLANO RCD Policy Consulting Associates, LLC 70
SOLANO LAFCO
RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
Service Agency Details
Management of weeds in waterways
and promotion of native species of
Waterway protection and plants for erosion control, reduced
restoration Yes herbicide use habitat.
SoRCD does not use easements but it
works with people to educate them on
the importance of native vegetation
Vegetation/habitat preservation Yes and the habitat.
Erosion control planting projects and
Erosion prevention Yes planning.
Lead on Solano County Weed
Management Area and invasive weed
Invasive species control Yes control occurs at most sites.
A multitude of workshops and field
days with students and the general
Educational workshops Yes public throughout the year.
Informational fliers, brochures, Two newsletters per year and website
and white papers Yes with projects listed.
Scientific studies UC Davis
Solano County Water
Flood plain management Agency
SoRCD contracts to the County to run
the Coastal Cleanup Day for Solano
Creek/waterway cleanups Yes County.
The District does vegetative field
surveys at all sites before
implementing weed control or
Documentation of native species Yes restoration.
Advising and assisting Site visits to private and public lands
individuals and public agencies Yes and conservation planning.
The District links grants and
government cost share programs to
Conduit for grants and other landowners to build successful
financing Yes projects.
Source: Policy Consulting Associates research, Solano Resource Conservation District
On an annual basis, Solano RCD implements multiple programs and projects throughout
Solano County. The District also implements two plant sales per year, produces two
newsletters per year and updates its website quarterly. The projects for FY 14-‐15 include:
v Spring and fall annual plant sales: Through plant sales the District practices
outreach to its constituents, sells native plants at fair prices and holds workshops
that assist landowners with resource conservation. The plant sales include training
opportunities, as well as wildlife shows where various birds, reptiles and mammals
are displayed. Cost of the plant sale is between $1,200 and $2,500 per sale.
SOLANO RCD Policy Consulting Associates, LLC 71
SOLANO LAFCO
RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
v Delta Arundo Control and Habitat Restoration Project: Department of Water
Resources (DWR) provided San Joaquin Delta Conservancy (SJDC) with $387,015 to
coordinate and contract with SoRCD and Sonoma Ecology Center (SEC) to map
Arundo infestations in the legal Delta, develop a prioritization model for future
work and to begin Arundo control and re-‐vegetation on levees in the Cache Slough
Complex.
v Centennial Park Riparian Forest Restoration and Loop Trail Project: This
project, in the amount of $680,286 funded by the California Resource Agency,
restores natural systems on undeveloped Vacaville park acreage. It will create a new
recreational riparian trail system, use native plants to restore two tributaries of
Horse Creek in Centennial Park, and control various invasive weeds.
v Solano County Delta Habitat Restoration Partnership: DWR provided $453,700
to the partnership between Reclamation District 2068, Dixon RCD and Solano RCD,
with the purpose of implementing two large habitat restoration projects and one
noxious weed control and survey project. SoRCD will implement the projects, which
include planting trees, shrubs, grasses, hedges, and rushes.
v Centennial Park Bike Trail Tree Planting: Cal Fire provided $60,398 to the
partnership of the City of Vacaville and SoRCD to shade a 4,500 foot stretch of the
Centennial Park bike path by planting 354 native trees along the path.
v Working Waterways: This project, funded by the Department of Fish and Wildlife
($64,550), is a partner effort with Yolo RCD, Audubon California, and Solano Land
Trust to establish riparian habitat, conduct extensive outreach, and to research the
future efficacy and opportunity of restoring riparian habitat in Yolo and Solano
counties.
v Alamo Creek Restoration Project: The funding for this project is derived from the
Easterly Wastewater Treatment Plant (City of Vacaville). The focus of the work is on
Alamo Creek to keep the passage of effluent water from the plant free by removing
vegetation and fallen debris. SoRCD also installs and maintains riparian habitat
projects along the creek and engages the local community of Elmira in restoration
activities.
v Alamo Creek Community Based Restoration Project: Strategic Growth Council’s
Urban Greening Program awarded $522,000 to the District, which will work with
local agencies and community organizations to install a diverse native riparian plant
community on a series of interconnected projects sites along Alamo Creek where it
runs through the City of Vacaville.
v City of Winters Tree of Heaven Control Project: The project, funded by the City of
Winters ($18,000), is a subcontract from the Putah Creek Streamkeeper via the City
of Winters to control the invasive Tree of Heaven on Dry Creek near the City of
Winters.
v Migratory Bird Initiative: This project costs $109,179 and was funded by NRCS.
It is a partnership between Dixon RCD, Solano RCD, and NRCS that focuses on
working with landowners in pre-‐determined focus areas throughout Solano County
to engage groups of landowners to create conservation plans.
SOLANO RCD Policy Consulting Associates, LLC 72
SOLANO LAFCO
RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
v Blue Rock Spring’s Creek Corridor Restoration Project: This SoRCD led project,
which costs $291,870 and is funded by Coastal Conservancy, is a partnership with
Greater Vallejo Recreation District, Vallejo Watershed Alliance, CA Conservation
Corp, the City of Vallejo, and local Vallejo schools. The focus is to enhance and
restore 53 acres and 3,798 feet of riparian and associated upland habitat by
controlling weeds and planting native plants.
v Flood Awareness Program: This program is funded by Solano County Water
Agency ($29,070) and focuses on facilitating the Small Grants Flood Program and on
producing Flood Awareness manuals.
v CalTrans Mitigation Program: This program is funded by CalTrans in the amount
of $2,532,000 and focuses on implementation of restoration projects with a focus on
tree and shrub planting in order to mitigate for a loss of habitat on a CalTrans road
project.
v Irrigated Lands Program: The program costs $120,000 and is paid for by the State
Water Board. It is a Dixon and Solano RCD partnership program that aims to
implement an economical and scientifically valid water monitoring program for area
rivers and agricultural drains.
v Monitoring and Reporting Program (MRP) Water Quality Monitoring Project:
The project was awarded $70,076 by Fairfield Suisun Sewer District and Vallejo
Sanitation and Flood District. SoRCD has contracted with FSSD and VSFD to carry
out the urban run-‐off monitoring program.
v Lake Solano Partnership Program: This program costs $5,000 and is funded by
Solano County. It is a partnership between Solano County, Putah Creek Council and
SoRCD. The project focuses on treatment and removal of invasive weeds, restoration
of diverse plant communities and creation of an outreach and environmental
education program.
v SCWA Pleasants Creek Project: The project was awarded $64,769 by Solano
County Water Agency. The SoRCD focus on this project is to establish sites for
habitat restoration and erosion control on Pleasants Creek and to control tree of
heaven in specific stretches of Pleasants Creek.
Education Programs
v Welcome to the Watershed Program: Solano RCD’s is funded by SCWA ($17,186)
and focuses on outreach to landowners in Solano County about relevant
conservation issues.
v Lake Berryessa Boater Outreach Program and Rio Vista Boater Outreach
Program: These programs cost $53,335 and are funded by SCWA and State Oil
Funds. These programs are person to person outreach programs about individual
water quality protection actions, water conservation, and invasive species
protection and management.
v Watershed Explorers Program: Funding in the amount of $77,794 was provided
by multiple agencies and organizations for the program, which utilizes science and
place-‐based learning to build awareness and understanding of how storm water
SOLANO RCD Policy Consulting Associates, LLC 73
SOLANO LAFCO
RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
affects the unique ecosystems of local creeks and watersheds and how people’s
behavior plays an important role in watershed health.
v Suisun Marsh Program: SCWA and Fairfield Suisun Sewer District provided
$62,210 so the County’s sixth and seventh graders can take part in the Suisun Marsh
Education Program, which is a full-‐day trip at Solano Land Trust’s Rush Ranch
Nature Center.
v Vallejo/Solano Bio-‐monitoring Program: The program was funded by Vallejo
Sanitation and Flood District ($42,426) and offers students an opportunity to
investigate their watershed and assess the health of local creeks utilizing citizen
monitoring techniques.
v Coastal Clean-‐up Program: The program costs $5,465 and is funded by Solano
County and Anheuser Busch/River Network. It focuses on the annual Cleanup Day,
which will take place at more than 800 locations around the State on the third
Saturday of September.
v World Environment Day: This one day project is paid for by the Anheuser
Busch/River Network ($2,000) and is a day to build global awareness of the
environment, encourage political attention, and support individual and community
projects. Locally, volunteers pick up trash after the Memorial Day weekend.
v Keep America Beautiful: This project, with a cost of $4,696 funded by Solano,
County, is a partnership between Solano County and SoRCD to organize a day of
service for volunteers to pick up trash and learn more about recycling, clean water,
and the environment in general.
v Used Oil Grant: This grant, in the amount of $72,691, was given by the Integrated
Waste Management Board for used oil recycling education and used oil bilge pad
tracking at Lake Berryessa and Sandy Beach Park.
Service Area
SoRCD provides extensive services outside of its boundary area, including several cities,
landowners in the County, Solano County itself, and other agencies outside of the District.
The District has service contracts to work with agencies on education, conservation
planning and restoration throughout the County. The District is able to provide these out-‐
of-‐boundary services through grants or on a fee-‐for-‐service basis, as allowed in State law.
SoRCD does not spend any district tax-‐based funds outside of its boundaries.
SoRCD reports that there is a significant need for resource conservation and education
services throughout the County. The District has been serving almost every corner of
Solano County for the last 10 years. SoRCD expressed a desire to annex unincorporated
areas in Solano County that are currently outside of the boundaries of any RCD. Extension
of the District’s boundaries to include these properties would be subject to the
establishment of a tax sharing agreement with the County. The District is reportedly
currently working with Solano County LAFCO and the Department of Conservation to
annex these areas, and attempting to conduct an analysis on whether the District would
also need to annex incorporated areas. The first step in this process would be to extend the
District’s SOI to include the territory to be annexed when the Commission updates the
Spheres of Influence for the RCDs after the adoption of this MSR.
SOLANO RCD Policy Consulting Associates, LLC 74
SOLANO LAFCO
RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
Services to Other Agencies
Figure 5-‐3 lists and provides details on the contract services provided by SoRCD to
other agencies.
Figure 5-‐3: SoRCD Contract Services
Agency Type of Service Compensation Areas Serviced
City of Vacaville Habitat restoration Grant $400,000 for 4 In SoRCD, City of
years Vacaville
Solano County Water Flood awareness $29,000 per year Countywide
Agency
Solano County Education $50,000 per year Countywide
Fairfield Suisun Sewer Water quality, $65,000 per year Western Solano
District education County
Vallejo Sanitation and Education $25,000 per year Western Solano
Flood Control District County
Source: Solano Resource Conservation District
Contracts for Services
The District reportedly receives budget and financial services from Solano County
through a contract. SoRCD pays the County $25,000 per year.
Overlapping Service Providers
As reported by SoRCD, Solano County Water Agency provides similar services in the
form of restoration on Putah Creek.
GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE AND ACCOUNTABILITY
Accountability of a governing body is signified by a combination of several indicators.
The indicators chosen here are limited to 1) agency efforts to engage and educate
constituents through outreach activities, in addition to legally required activities such as
agenda posting and public meetings, 2) a defined complaint process designed to handle all
issues to resolution, and 3) transparency of the agency as indicated by cooperation with the
MSR process and information disclosure.
According to the Division 9 of the Public Resources Code, the Board of Directors of an
RCD must consist of five, seven or nine directors serving four-‐year terms. Directors can
either be elected in a general election or appointed by the County Board of Supervisors.
The directors receive no compensation for their services as such, but each is allowed
reasonable and necessary expenses incurred in attendance at meetings of the Board or
when otherwise engaged in the work of the district at the direction of the Board of
Directors. To be eligible to serve on the Board directors must be registered voters in the
State, “reside within the district and either own real property in the district or alternatively
have served, pursuant to the district’s rules, for two years or more as an associate director
SOLANO RCD Policy Consulting Associates, LLC 75
SOLANO LAFCO
RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
providing advisory or other assistance to the Board of Directors, or be a designated agent
of a resident landowner within the district.”24
Associate director positions were established to allow members of the community
opportunities to participate in RCD activities without being on the Board or give those who
did not meet the qualifications of a director a chance to take an active role in the district.
Associates often are chosen for their special expertise in an area of one of the functions of
the district. Associate directors do not have the right to vote on Board matters. However,
they can attend meetings and provide the district with extra expertise. Frequently associate
directors also contribute by serving on various district committees.25
Solano RCD is governed by a seven-‐person Board of Directors appointed by the Solano
County Board of Supervisors to serve four-‐year terms. Currently, there are no vacancies.
There are presently two additional associate directors serving on the Board. Board
members take an oath of office. If a position opens up mid-‐term, the rules of Division 9 of
the State Resources Code are followed, and the new open position is posted in public
locations. The new position is filled by the Board of Supervisors unless an election is
necessary.
The Board of Directors meets on the third Wednesday of every month at the conference
room at the district office in Dixon. Information about board meetings is shown in Figure 5-‐
4.
Figure 5-‐4: Solano Resource Conservation District Governing Body
Solano Resource Conservation District
Governing Body and Board Meetings
Manner of Selection Appointed by Board of Supervisors
Length of Term Four years
On the third Wednesday of every month at 6 pm in the conference room at
Meetings
the district office.
Agenda Distribution Agendas are posted online.
Minutes Distribution Minutes are available online and upon request.
Contact
Contact Christopher Rose, Executive Director
Mailing Address 1170 N Lincoln St., Suite 110, Dixon, CA.
Phone 707-‐678-‐1655 ext. 119
Fax 707-‐679-‐5000
Email/Website Chris.rose@solanorcd.org/www.solanorcd.org
Source: Solano Resource Conservation District
Board meeting agendas and minutes are posted online; however, that particular
webpage is currently unavailable. Agendas are also posted in the front window of the
24 Public Resources Code §9352 (a), (b).
25 California Conservation Partnership and California Department of Conservation, The Resource Conservation District
Guidebook: A Guide to District Operations and Management, 1999, pp. 1-‐8, 1-‐9.
SOLANO RCD Policy Consulting Associates, LLC 76
SOLANO LAFCO
RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
District’s office. In addition to the required agendas and minutes, the District tries to reach
its constituents through two plant sales per year, newsletters produced twice a year and
updating its website with relevant volunteer activities, job openings and project updates.
The District’s website additionally contains information on how to contact the District, the
Board of Directors, and SoRCD history.
SoRCD board members receive no compensation; however, they do get reimbursed for
some expenses. Government Code §53235 requires that if a district provides compensation
or reimbursement of expenses to its board members, the board members must receive two
hours of training in ethics at least once every two years and the district must establish a
written policy on reimbursements. It was reported that the District’s board members
receive ethics training every other year. The District has established a policy on expense
reimbursements.
If a customer is dissatisfied with the District’s services, complaints may be submitted by
coming into the office, attending a public board meeting or speaking directly to a board
member or an associate director. The executive director of the District is responsible for
handling complaints to resolution. SoRCD reported that the District had not had any
complaints; however, if there were questions from the public, which are generally
regarding plants, they can be answered by staff.
SoRCD has adopted a set of bylaws that guides and directs the District’s governance and
administration, including policies related to fees for services, investments and reserves,
public record requests, vehicle use, volunteers, and nondiscrimination. The District does
not have an associate director policy. Similarly, SoRCD does not have a bidding policy,
although the District reportedly follows the rules and regulations for bidding in each
contract awarded through state and federal grants. The District has established its
personnel policies and provides its employees with sexual harassment literature. SoRCD
reports that its operating procedures and guidelines, as well as governing body policies and
procedures follow the requirements in Public Resources Code Division 9. As required by
Government Code §53065.5, the District filed an annual report to the State Controller with
a government compensation report for 2013.
The Political Reform Act (Government Code §81000, et seq.) requires state and local
government agencies to adopt and promulgate conflict of interest codes. The Fair Political
Practices Commission has adopted a regulation (California Code of Regulations §18730),
which contains the terms of a standard conflict of interest code, which can be incorporated
by reference in an agency’s code. The District provided its conflict of interest code.
Government Code §87203 requires persons who hold office to disclose their
investments, interests in real property and incomes by filing appropriate forms with the
appropriate filing agency (i.e., the County or the Fair Political Practices Commission) each
year. In addition, the conflict of interest code of each district determines who among the
officers and directors files the Forms 700 with the County’s Registrar of Voters. The District
reported that all of the Board directors had filed Forms 700 with the Fair Political Practices
Commission for 2013. The District’s conflict of interest code requires the SoRCD manager
and consultants to file their Forms 700 with the District, which then makes these forms
available for public inspection and reproduction.
SOLANO RCD Policy Consulting Associates, LLC 77
SOLANO LAFCO
RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
During the course of this MSR process SoRCD demonstrated full accountability in its
disclosure of information and cooperation with Solano LAFCO. The District responded to
the questionnaires and cooperated with document requests.
Determinations
v SoRCD is governed by a seven-‐person Board of Directors appointed by the Board of
Supervisors to serve four-‐year terms. Directors receive no compensation. Currently,
there are no Board vacancies. There are presently two additional associate directors
serving on the Board. The District should adopt an associate director policy.
v Solano RCD holds Board meetings on the third Wednesday of every month at six in
the evening at the conference room at the district office in Dixon.
v The District demonstrated accountability and transparency with regard to its
governance by cooperating with the MSR process, adopting an annual budget prior
to the start of the fiscal year, publishing agendas for public meetings as legally
required, maintaining a website, and filing Form 700 Statement of Economic
Interest.
v SoRCD follows all the minimum requirements legally mandated by Public Resources
Code Division 9, including basic reporting and training requirements, quarterly and
monthly requirements, and policies and plans requirements.
v The District’s Board members receive ethics training every two years as required;
SoRCD has established a policy on expense reimbursements.
v Governance structure options for SoRCD include annexation of unincorporated
areas of the County that are presently not within the bounds of an RCD. Additionally,
another option is to include incorporated areas as well.
GROWTH AND POPULATION PROJECTIONS
This section discusses the factors affecting service demand, such as land uses, and
historical and anticipated population growth.
Land Use
Land uses within the District mainly consist of agriculture and watershed. The District’s
bounds encompass approximately 206 square miles.
Population
There are about 63,972 residents within the District, based on Solano County GIS
analysis of 2010 Census population information.26 The population density within the
District is about 311 people per square mile.
26 This population figure may be slightly inflated based on comparison of known populations in other areas with those
generated through the GIS analysis.
SOLANO RCD Policy Consulting Associates, LLC 78
SOLANO LAFCO
RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
Projected Growth and Development
The District reported that normal growth had occurred within the District over the last
five years. The demand for services has reportedly increased. According to SoRCD,
population growth has affected service demand only minimally; a majority of the increase
in service demand was attributed to the outreach and education of constituents.
The District generally expects moderate growth in the next 10 years. Growth is
concentrated in and around the City of Vacaville (within the District’s boundaries) where
the land used to be rural but has become developed overtime. SoRCD is aware of one
proposed development within its boundaries. The approved Brighton Landing Vacaville
LLC development consists of 218 acres of land, 4.8 acres of which will be commercial and
the rest is residential, parks and schools. The approved development, which will be served
by SoRCD, is located in southeast Vacaville north of Elmira Road adjacent to Leisure Town
Road. Additionally, Solano LAFCO is aware of developments that are resulting from recent
annexations to cities. The City of Vacaville is planning on having 939 new residential units
in Vanden Meadows and 767 residences in Brighton Landing. Southtown Development and
North Village also in Vacaville are still under construction. The City of Fairfield portion
within the District includes a part of the train station annexations that are planned to be
developed.
The California Department of Finance (DOF) projects that the population of Solano
County will grow by eight percent from 2010 to 2020. Thus, the average annual population
growth in the County is anticipated to be approximately 0.8 percent. Based on these
projections, the District’s population would increase from 63,972 in 2010 to approximately
69,090 in 2020. It is anticipated that demand for service within the District will increase
minimally, based on the DOF population growth projections through 2020.
Growth Strategies
The District is not a land use authority, and does not hold primary responsibility for
implementing growth strategies. The land use authority for unincorporated areas is the
County. SoRCD does not execute development land use planning, but provides information
on conservation of resources on private and public lands through conservation plans.
The District usually receives a public notification of any new developments constructed
in the County. These notifications are reviewed at Board meetings and help the District
plan for future service needs.
As previously mentioned, a majority of the lands within the District are designated in
the County’s General Plan as agricultural and watershed, with much of the territory
covered by the resource conservation overlay. Because the territory within SoRCD is
mostly farmland and agricultural open space, it is anticipated that there will be minimal
development or population growth within the District. A majority of growth in the District
occurs in and around the City of Vacaville. The County has historically required that
developments requiring water and sewer service be incorporated within one of the
County’s cities. Based on this policy, most residential, commercial and industrial
development in the County has been in incorporated areas.
SOLANO RCD Policy Consulting Associates, LLC 79
SOLANO LAFCO
RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
Although some of the District’s territory is within the cities of Vacaville, Fairfield and
Dixon SOIs, meaning that it is anticipated that the areas will eventually be annexed by these
respective cities, SoRCD will be minimally affected. These areas will not be detached from
the District since the cities do not provide resource conservation services and some of the
city territory is already included in the District. Annexation would affect SoRCD by
transferring land use authority from the County to the respective cities and through the
potential urbanization of these annexed areas, which would change the type of services
provided by the District in these areas to focus on urban and suburban environment.
Determinations
v In 2010, SoRCD had an estimated population of 63,972.
v The District reported that normal growth had occurred within the District over the
last five years. Demand for services has reportedly increased. The District generally
expects moderate growth in the next 10 years. Growth is concentrated in and
around the City of Vacaville.
v Based on the Department of Finance (DOF) population forecasts, the District’s
population is projected to increase from 63,972 in 2010 to approximately 69,090 in
2020.
v Because the territory within SoRCD is primarily agricultural and watershed, it is
anticipated that there will be minimal development or population growth within the
District, with the exception of the Vacaville area.
DISADVANTAGED UNINCORPORATED COMMUNITIES
LAFCO is required to evaluate disadvantaged unincorporated communities as part of
this service review, including the location and characteristics of any such communities. A
disadvantaged unincorporated community is defined as any area with 12 or more
registered voters, or as determined by commission policy, where the median household
income is less than 80 percent of the statewide annual median.27
The California Department of Water Resources (DWR) has developed a mapping tool to
assist in determining which communities meet the disadvantaged communities median
household income definition.28 According to DWR, there are no communities that meet the
definition of a disadvantaged unincorporated community in Solano County. As such, there
are no disadvantaged unincorporated communities within or adjacent to SoRCD’s bounds
and sphere of influence.
Determination
v According to the Department of Water Resources, there are no communities that
meet the definition of a disadvantaged unincorporated community in Solano County.
27 Government Code §56033.5.
28 Based on census data, the median household income in the State of California in 2010 was $57,708, 80 percent of which
is $46,166.
SOLANO RCD Policy Consulting Associates, LLC 80
SOLANO LAFCO
RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
As such, there are no disadvantaged unincorporated communities within or
adjacent to SoRCD’s bounds and sphere of influence.
FINANCIAL ABILITY TO PROVIDE SERVICES
The financial ability of agencies to provide services is affected by available financing
sources and financing constraints. This section discusses the major financing constraints
faced by the District and identifies revenue sources currently available to the District.
The District reported that its financing levels were inadequate to deliver services.
SoRCD has a limited tax base, but also provides services outside of its boundaries. Since the
District may not use district tax revenue to serve areas outside of the District, SoRCD
applies for grants and contracts with other agencies to fund programs for services. The
District is currently pursuing expansion of its boundaries to receive tax revenue from areas
where it is already providing services.
In the last several years the District has implemented some cost-‐containment strategies.
Specifically, by updating its billable rates and overhead schedule to match actual expenses,
the District has been able to clarify actual costs associated with each project and pay for
these costs with the associated billable rate for services and grants.
Revenues and Expenses
The District’s revenue in FY 13-‐14 totaled $1.1 million, of which 13 percent was
received from property taxes, 13 percent from intergovernmental revenue (homeowners
property tax relief and grant revenue) and 74 percent from contract charges for services.
Other minor revenue sources included interest income and miscellaneous revenue.
A majority of the District’s revenue in FY 13-‐14 came from fees for services. SoRCD
reported that it had not adopted a set rate schedule for its services. The District’s personnel
have billable rates that change every year after the adoption of the annual budget. During
the budget process the District calculates its staff costs and overhead for its actual cost for
implementing grant projects and/or providing education services to partners. In 2006, the
Board of Directors adopted a fee-‐for-‐service policy, according to which services provided
by SoRCD to Solano County landowners outside of the district boundaries are provided at a
minimum of $35 per hour per contracted employee with a minimum charge of $140 per
project. These fees are subject to change depending on the size and scope of the project.
The District should consider conducting a rate study to determine a more accurate fee
schedule and potentially increase its revenue.
Additionally, a significant portion of the District’s revenues every year is received from
state and federal grants (approximately 10 to 30 percent).
The District’s expenditures amounted to $921,117 in FY 13-‐14—67 percent was spent
on salaries and benefits, 31 percent on services and supplies, and two percent on fixed
assets.
In FY 13-‐14, the District’s revenues exceeded expenditures by $186,088. As shown in
Figure 5-‐5, SoRCD’s revenues exceeded expenditures in four out of the last five years. In FY
10-‐11, the District expected to receive twice as much revenue from charges for services as
it had actually received.
SOLANO RCD Policy Consulting Associates, LLC 81
SOLANO LAFCO
RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
Figure 5-‐5: SoRCD revenue and expenditures, FYs 09-‐10 through FY 13-‐14
Year FY 09-‐10 FY 10-‐11 FY 11-‐12 FY 12-‐13 FY 13-‐14
Revenues $777,459 $603,374 $1,040,358 $883,500 $1,107,205
Expenditures $667,497 $930,768 $724,199 $791,021 $921,117
Balance $109,962 -‐$327,394 $316,159 $92,479 $186,088
Source: Audited Financial Statements FYs 09-‐10, 10-‐11, 11-‐12. Unaudited Financial Statements FYs 12-‐13 and
13-‐14.
Capital Improvements
The District does not adopt a capital improvement plan; however, it does conduct
ongoing capital improvement planning. Capital improvement needs and improvements are
discussed at board meetings and recorded in the minutes. Planned capital improvements
are also listed as part of the district annual budget and approved by the Board. Typical
capital improvements include structural improvements to the District’s equipment facility
and purchasing of small tools and equipment.
SoRCD spent $21,408 on capital improvements in FY 13-‐14, which included
improvements on vehicles and equipment and computer equipment. The well project
planned for FY 14-‐15 is expected to cost $10,000.
Outstanding Debt
The District’s long-‐term liability consists entirely of compensated absences. The balance
at the end of FY 11-‐12 was $46,780. There are no outstanding debts.
Reserves
The District has adopted a policy to keep four financial reserves. At the end of FY 14,
there was $2,000 in cash reserve, $22,000 in general reserve, $60,000 in equipment and
infrastructure reserve, $11,112 in vehicle maintenance and purchase reserve, and
$150,000 in staff reserve.
The staff reserve fund was established in order to maintain staff continuity and
continued conservation services. The staff reserve could pay for staff expenses should there
be a pause or delay in government grant funding. The staff reserve may also be utilized to
fund staff during short-‐term funding shortages for a defined period of time.
The general reserve has been established to allow for funds to be used for
miscellaneous expenses above those designated for operation costs.
The equipment reserve was established to allocate funds for program equipment needs
and facility maintenance and improvement at the Conservation Education Center (CEC).
SOLANO RCD Policy Consulting Associates, LLC 82
SOLANO LAFCO
RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
After the final reconciliation for the fiscal year that takes place in September, the Board
decides where income over expenses would be allocated according to the District’s reserve
policy.
At the end of FY 13-‐14, the District had $645,112 available in cash. SoRCD estimates
that cash flow needed for operation (based on past cash need) is about $400,000.
Determinations
v Despite some financing challenges reported by SoRCD, the District appears to be
financially healthy based on its income surplus in the last four out of five fiscal
years, adequate financial reserves, and limited debt, as well as success in grant
writing and multitude of fee-‐based contracts.
v A majority of the District’s revenue comes from grants and contract fees. Fees vary
from project to project. Property tax revenue constitutes about 13 percent of the
total revenue.
v Capital improvement needs and improvements are discussed at Board meetings and
recorded in the minutes. Planned capital improvements are also listed as part of the
District’s annual budget and approved by the Board.
v The District’s long-‐term liability consists entirely of compensated absences.
v The District has adopted a policy to maintain four financial reserves, which include
cash, general, equipment, and staff reserves.
SOLANO RCD Policy Consulting Associates, LLC 83
SOLANO LAFCO
RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
PRESENT AND PLANNED CAPACITY
The District reported that it presently had sufficient capacity to provide adequate
services to its existing service area and future growth area. Potential new contracts and
partnerships may provide additional opportunities to deliver services more effectively.
Existing Demand
The District reported that its service needs were forecasted by attending meetings
throughout the District’s service area and staying involved in the community. According to
SoRCD, the recent increase in service demand was caused by community outreach and
education on the part of the District.
Landowners within SoRCD’s boundaries are considered customers of the District. The
issues of primary concern to the District include the changing ratios of rural, suburban,
urban and agricultural landowners, and the increase in the number of new landowners
within the District’s service area. As more landowners move to rural areas from more
urban locations, the District expands its outreach activities in an effort to educate new
residents about local flood prevention, wildlife habitat, soil conservation, and water quality
protection issues.
Service needs are established based on parameters that are regularly discussed and
established at monthly Board meetings. Parameters include observations of demographic
changes, observations of government program changes, concerns voiced by district
landowners, and discussions with other service agencies in the region.
The District has developed the 2013-‐2018 Long Range Plan, which contains short-‐ and
long-‐term goals directed at planning for future service needs. These goals include
partnering with other agencies and groups, improvement, enhancement and preservation
of wildlife habitat, control of invasive species, citizen-‐based land stewardship within the
watershed, conservation education and outreach, water quality protection and flood
damage reduction, and sustainable agriculture.
Facilities
The District owns a 1.5-‐acre parcel with an office, barn and nursery facility located in
the City of Vacaville. The facility is known as the Conservation Education Center (CEC). The
District uses this site to raise and sell native plants, and has a demonstration garden on the
property. The equipment yard houses the District’s vehicles and equipment. The facilities
on the site were reported to be in fair condition.
The District’s main office is located in the USDA-‐leased Dixon Service Center, which is
provided by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). In the late summer of
2015 USDA Service Center will be relocating. Dixon RCD and Solano RCD have determined
that the most cost-‐effective option is to stay in the current location. The two districts will
jointly lease office space that they are currently occupying at 1170 N Lincoln St, Suite 110
in Dixon.
The main watershed in the District is the Ulatis Creek System. It is composed of many
smaller creeks, including Barker Slough, Alamo, Ulatis, Horse, Gibson Canyon, Sweeney, and
SOLANO RCD Policy Consulting Associates, LLC 84
SOLANO LAFCO
RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
McCune Creeks. A second watershed located to the north, is Putah Creek, which includes
Pleasants Creek, Miller Creek, Pleasants Valley Creek and Putah Creek. The Suisun Marsh
watershed is located in Southern Solano County and includes many waterways such as
Green Valley, Suisun, Dan Wilson, Laurel, American Canyon, Ledgewood, McCoy, and
Denverton Creeks.
It appears that currently the capacity of the District’s facilities to provide adequate
services is constrained by the fair condition of these facilities.
Infrastructure Needs
As previously mentioned, the CEC is currently in fair condition and requires
appropriate upgrades to improve its condition.
Additionally, the District reported that it had a planned project to fix a well head in its
well. The anticipated completion time is January 2015. The well project is anticipated to
cost $10,000 and be financed from the District’s financial reserves.
SoRCD is not planning to acquire new lands, easements or other property.
Challenges
The District has a relatively small tax base compared to the vastness of the territory
served; therefore, it has to supplement its funding with grant funds and fees for services.
The District believes that having a stronger tax base to serve a larger part of the County
would have a stabilizing effect on SoRCD and result in improved services.
SERVICE ADEQUACY
California Conservation Partnership and California Department of Conservation
developed the Resource Conservation District Guidebook in 1999, which outlines best
management practices for RCDs. Many of these practices are difficult to assess for
adequacy, and almost all indicators of service levels are not easily quantifiable when
compared with a defined industry standard; consequently, a relatively subjective judgment
of adequacy is necessary. In order to evaluate the adequacy of SoRCD the following criteria
were considered: 1) long-‐range and strategic planning practices; 2) project evaluation
practices; and 3) grant writing success.
A strategic plan provides a road map to agencies by setting priorities and identifying
means to meet those goals. Priority setting helps a district determine which needs deserve
attention first and enables it to focus its limited resources on addressing those needs.
District priority setting is accomplished through creating a mission statement, identifying
goals that support its mission, and then crafting objectives that help the District reach its
goals. Also, having a clear mission, goals, and objectives—a strategic plan—helps identify
shared interests an agency may have with other groups, agencies, or individuals and helps
avoid duplicating the work of other groups. Beyond these practical reasons for planning
strategically, long-‐range planning is one of the provisions outlined in Division 9 of the
Public Resources Code for the administration of a resource conservation district.
Additionally, districts wishing to take advantage of state grant programs through the
California Department of Conservation will only be able to do so if they maintain long-‐ and
SOLANO RCD Policy Consulting Associates, LLC 85
SOLANO LAFCO
RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
short-‐range plans and publish annual progress reports. As identified in §9413 of Division 9,
long-‐range plans shall:
v Establish long-‐range goals,
v Be five-‐year plans,
v Address the soil and related resource problems found to occur within the district,
v Identify resource issues within the district for local, state, and federal resource
conservation planning,
v Involve other agencies in the strategic planning process,
v Provide a framework for setting annual priorities,
v Create a basis for evaluating annual work plan achievements and allocating state
funds to the district, and
v Provide for disseminating information concerning district programs and goals to
local, state, and federal government agencies and the public.
The District’s long-‐range plan from 2013 to 2018 meets these requirements.
Additionally, §9413 of Division 9 also requires that in order to receive grant funding
through the Department of Conservation, RCDs must publish annual reports to summarize
the District’s progress toward meeting the goals and objectives outlined in the long-‐range
plan. Annual reports can be used to 1) provide a summary of the work accomplished over
the previous year and set priorities for the coming year, 2) provide a means to track district
activities from year to year, 3) offer a reference regarding project specifics in later years, 4)
inform long-‐range planning efforts, 5) provide a useful introduction to the District’s efforts
for new employees and stakeholders, and 6) supplement grant applications to provide
information on district programs and goals. SoRCD produces and presents a verbal annual
report each year to the Board of Directors. The District could make improvements by
starting to produce written annual reports that can also be incorporated in the long-‐range
planning.
SoRCD uses its own performance measures to evaluate its service adequacy. All of the
District’s projects have a scope of work, timeline and budget to which they strive to adhere.
If all the requirements of the projects are not met by the District, SoRCD does not receive
compensation for its services. Additionally, contracts would reportedly not be renewed if
services are not performed at a high level.
RCDs generally are limited or constrained by available funding sources. Tax revenue
received by the District constitutes only a small portion of its total budget. SoRCD relies
heavily on grants and fees for services. The District has had particular success in receiving
grant funds through its grant writing.
Determinations
v SoRCD anticipates additional growth in service demand resulting from the District’s
extensive outreach activities and public education.
SOLANO RCD Policy Consulting Associates, LLC 86
SOLANO LAFCO
RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
v The District is reporting that it presently has sufficient capacity to provide adequate
services to its existing and future growth areas; however, capacity is constrained by
the fair condition of district facilities.
v Planned capital improvements include a well head project that will be completed in
January 2015 and is anticipated to cost $10,000. Additionally, SoRCD needs to
conduct necessary repairs to improve the condition of its facilities.
v The District’s services appear to be adequate based on SoRCD’s strategic planning
practices, project evaluation practices and grant writing success. The District could
improve its service adequacy by starting to produce written annual reports.
v District management methods appear to generally meet accepted best management
practices. The District prepares a budget before the beginning of the fiscal year,
conducts regular financial audits, maintains current transparent financial records,
tracks employee and district workload, and has an established process to address
complaints.
STATUS AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR SHARED FACILITIES
Shared Facilities and Regional Cooperation
Shared Facilities
The District reported that it allowed the University of California cooperative extension’s
Master Gardeners to utilize the CEC once a year for fundraiser activities. Solano County
Water Agency currently stores habitat restoration supplies at the CEC.
The District’s main office in Dixon is shared by Dixon Resource Conservation District
(DRCD). This allows the two Districts to not only save costs on facilities, but to build
greater cooperation and coordination.
No additional opportunities for facility sharing were identified by SoRCD.
Collaboration
SoRCD partners with private citizens, local, regional, state and federal government
agencies, research institutions, nonprofits and private sector organizations to design and
implement large and small ecosystem restoration programs, habitat enhancement projects
and watershed-‐based environmental education for kids and adults.
SOLANO RCD Policy Consulting Associates, LLC 87
SOLANO LAFCO
RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
Figure 5-‐6: SoRCD Memberships
Organization Purpose
California Association of RCDs The purpose of the organization is to support
RCDs and their work throughout the
State. SoRCD participates to keep abreast of new
legislation and partnerships.
California Special District Association The District is involved with this group to
receive group benefits and support.
Special Districts Risk Management Authority The organization provides insurance and safety
training.
California Society of Ecological Restoration This group is a resource for on-‐point restoration
information, workshops and conferences.
California Invasive Plant Council CalIPC is a resource for up-‐to-‐date information
on invasive weeds as well as workshops.
California Native Grasslands Association CNGA is a resource for information on grassland
management and the use of native grasses.
Source: Solano Resource Conservation District
The District provides direct assistance to Solano County farmers and landowners, who
work with SoRCD voluntarily to protect their soil, water, and natural habitats. The District
also partners with agricultural and natural resource protection organizations and agencies
throughout the County and region to implement watershed programs with local and
regional benefits. A detailed list of the organizations and associations that the District is a
member of is shown in Figure 5-‐6. Additionally, Figure 5-‐7 depicts organizations that
SoRCD collaborates with through formal agreements.
SOLANO RCD Policy Consulting Associates, LLC 88
SOLANO LAFCO
RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
Figure 5-‐7: SoRCD Collaborations
Collaboration Purpose
City of Vacaville Grant project partnership to restore two
ephemeral creeks and interpretive signage in a
park in Vacaville and for demonstration gardens
and weed control along Alamo Creek in
Vacaville.
Solano County Water Agency The District provides education outreach and
technical assistance to landowners.
Vallejo Sanitation and Flood Control District The District provides outdoor experience
education and water quality sampling for VSFD.
Fairfield Suisun Sewer District SoRCD provides water quality sampling and
education outreach for FSSD.
Greater Vallejo Recreation District The District partners with GVRD on restoration
and education project in Vallejo.
Solano County SoRCD works with Solano County on several
projects in Solano County from education to
Coastal Cleanup.
Reclamation District 2068 The District is implementing a weed control and
habitat restoration project with RD 2068.
The Delta Conservancy SoRCD signed a contract with the Delta
Conservancy to work with landowners in the
North Delta to implement habitat restoration
and conservation projects.
Natural Resources Conservation Service SoRCD works collaboratively with NRCS ona
number of joint projects and provide technical
assistance on habitat restoration projects
through contracts with NRCS.
Solano Land Trust SoRCD has provided technical and fiduciary
assistance to SLT.
Source: Solano Resource Conservation District
The District has been the chair of the Solano County Weed Management Area for over
six years and participates in the County Habitat Conservation Plan.
Additionally, the District partners with Dixon RCD, Lower Putah Creek Coordinating
Committee, Putah Creek Council, Solano Irrigation District, Audubon California, Yolo RCD,
cities of Dixon, Vallejo, Fairfield, and Suisun City, Vallejo Watershed Alliance, Mare island
Shoreline Heritage Preserve, Cooperative Extension, Center for Landbased Learning, Suisun
SOLANO RCD Policy Consulting Associates, LLC 89
SOLANO LAFCO
RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
RCD, Collinsville Levee District, CalTrans, Department of Conservation, Department of Fish
and Game, Department of Water Resources, California Department of Food and Agriculture,
Coastal Conservancy, United States Fish and Wildlife, Potrero Hills Landfill, Valero Refinery,
and Anheuser Busch.
As demonstrated, the District engages in extensive collaboration with other agencies
and organizations. SoRCD believes that there are some additional opportunities for
partnerships. The District has started to use inmates for many implementation projects,
which fulfills the need for the prison community service and work release programs, and at
the same time provides labor to the District.
Management Efficiencies
While public sector management standards vary depending on the size and scope of the
organization, there are minimum standards. Well-‐managed organizations evaluate
employees annually, track employee and agency productivity, periodically review agency
performance, prepare a budget before the beginning of the fiscal year, conduct periodic
financial audits to safeguard the public trust, maintain relatively current financial records,
conduct advanced planning for future service needs, and plan and budget for capital needs.
SoRCD employs 16 personnel, including one full-‐time executive director, one full-‐time
assistant executive director, two full-‐time and two part-‐time project managers, one full-‐
time education program manager, one part-‐time education program coordinator, one part-‐
time office manager, one part-‐time restoration field technician, and six part-‐time extra help
staff. Additionally, there is an environmental education and conservation consultant, who is
a contractor. The assistant executive director, the consultant and all managers report to the
executive director. The education program coordinator and five extra help employees are
managed by the environmental education program manager. A field technician and one
extra help employee are subordinate to the rest of the managers.
The District’s executive director is responsible for the day-‐to-‐day operations of SoRCD.
Employee evaluations, performed by the executive director, are conducted once a year.
Additionally, the District evaluates its own performance through financial audits and by
assessing efficacy of deliverables in each project. Many projects withhold 10 percent until
the end of the project to verify that tasks are completed to a satisfactory level. All of the
District’s grant and fee-‐for-‐service projects have a scope of work, timeline and budget that
must be adhered to. District staff receive input on performance from the Board of Directors
throughout the year.
SoRCD tracks the workload handled by its staff. The District creates its annual budget
using hours of work, which are attributed to each project based on the funds available to
complete the deliverable. SoRCD tracks every hour worked through timesheets for each
project or cost category. Projects are invoiced for hours worked and for materials based on
“hours per job” sheet, which are the detailed hours by project. All vendor claims,
reimbursements and timesheets are submitted to the County of Solano that acts as the
District’s bank.
The District’s financial planning efforts include an annually adopted budget and
biennially audited financial statements. Additionally, the District adopts a long-‐range plan,
which currently has a planning horizon through 2018. SoRCD uses its annual budget and
SOLANO RCD Policy Consulting Associates, LLC 90
SOLANO LAFCO
RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
project list as its annual plan. The annual report is given verbally, with the annual budget
reconciliation and staff presentations on project progress. District staff establishes long-‐
term objectives through strategic planning sessions with the Board.
The mission of the District is to protect, promote and enhance the soil, water, wildlife,
plant-‐life and air quality resources within Solano County.
The District reported that it managed to increase its operational efficiency in the last
three years. A certified public accountant (CPA) assists the District with reconciliation of its
books on a quarterly basis; a different accountant assesses SoRCD’s budget procedures.
Additionally, employee evaluations started focusing on the time budgeting, invoicing and
efficiency.
All special districts are required to submit annual audits to the County within 12
months of the completion of the fiscal year, unless the Board of Supervisors has approved a
biennial or five-‐year schedule. 29 In the case of SoRCD, the District must submit audits
biennially. The District reported that it had not submitted its audit for the most recently
completed fiscal year to the County Auditor’s Office, as the audit for FY 13-‐14 has not yet
been performed. The audit for FY 11-‐12 had been submitted to the County.
Government Code §53901 states that within 60 days after the beginning of the fiscal
year each local agency must submit its budget to the county auditor. These budgets are to
be filed and made available on request by the public at the County Auditor’s Office. SoRCD
reportedly has submitted its budget for the most recent fiscal year to the County Auditor-‐
Controller’s Office.
Determinations
v The District shares CEC with the Solano County Water Agency Master Gardeners
program.
v The District’s main office in Dixon is shared by Dixon Resource Conservation District
(DRCD).
v No additional opportunities for facility sharing were identified by SoRCD.
v The District practices extensive collaboration with other agencies and organizations
and participates in the regional plans. It is a member of multiple organizations and
associations.
LAFCO POLICIES AFFECTING SERVICE DELIVERY
Solano LAFCO has adopted a policy that affects service delivery by resource
conservation districts in the County. Standard 9 in the LAFCO Standards and Procedures
manual requires urban growth to be guided away from prime agricultural land unless such
action would not promote planned, orderly and efficient development for the agency.
LAFCO encourages development of existing vacant or non-‐prime agricultural lands within
the agency limits first before any proposal is approved for urbanization outside of the
29 Government Code §26909.
SOLANO RCD Policy Consulting Associates, LLC 91
SOLANO LAFCO
RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
agency’s limits. One of the services provided by an RCD in Solano County is protection of
prime agricultural lands. When LAFCO approves applications that result in annexation of
these lands into cities and/or urbanization, it directly affects services provided by RCDs.
Similarly, Standard 8 in the LAFCO Standards and Procedures requires that prior to
approving an annexation, LAFCO has to make a determination that the proposed
conversion of open space lands to urban use is justified by probable urban growth within a
10 year-‐period of time. This means that RCDs engaged in protection of open space are
affected when LAFCO approves an annexation involving conversion of open space lands to
urban use.
Determinations
v Standards 8 and 9 of the LAFCO Standards and Procedures manual that control
urban growth and protect open space and prime agricultural land through approval
(or denial) of the annexation applications directly affect Solano County RCDs’
service provision since the districts engage in protection of agricultural and open
space lands as part of their main missions and strategic goals.
SOLANO RCD Policy Consulting Associates, LLC 92
SOLANO LAFCO
RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
SOLANO RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT
DETERMINATIONS
Growth and Population Projections
v In 2010 SoRCD had an estimated population of 63,972.
v The District reported that normal growth had occurred within the District over the
last five years. The demand for services has reportedly increased. The District
generally expects moderate growth in the next 10 years. The growth is concentrated
in and around the City of Vacaville.
v Based on the Department of Finance (DOF) population forecasts, the District’s
population is projected to increase from 63,972 in 2010 to approximately 69,090 in
2020.
v Because the territory within SoRCD is mostly agricultural and watershed, it is
anticipated that there will be minimal development or population growth within the
District, with the exception of the Vacaville area.
The Location and Characteristics of Disadvantaged
Unincorporated Communities Within or Contiguous to the
Agency’s SOI
v According to the Department of Water Resources, there are no communities that
meet the definition of a disadvantaged unincorporated community in Solano County.
As such, there are no disadvantaged unincorporated communities within or
adjacent to SoRCD’s bounds and sphere of influence.
Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities and
Adequacy of Public Services, Including Infrastructure
Needs and Deficiencies
v SoRCD anticipates additional growth in service demand resulting from the District’s
extensive outreach activities and public education.
v The District is reporting that it presently has sufficient capacity to provide adequate
services to its existing and future growth areas; however, capacity is constrained by
the fair condition of district facilities.
v Planned capital improvements include a well head project that will be completed in
January 2015 and is anticipated to cost $10,000. Additionally, SoRCD needs to
conduct necessary repairs to improve the condition of its facilities.
v The District’s services appear to be adequate based on SoRCD’s strategic planning
practices, project evaluation practices and grant writing success. The District could
improve its service adequacy by starting to produce written annual reports.
v District management methods appear to generally meet accepted best management
practices. The District prepares a budget before the beginning of the fiscal year,
SOLANO RCD Policy Consulting Associates, LLC 93
SOLANO LAFCO
RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
conducts regular financial audits, maintains current transparent financial records,
tracks employee and district workload, and has an established process to address
complaints.
Financial Ability of Agencies to Provide Services
v Despite some financing challenges reported by SoRCD, the District appears to be
financially healthy based on its income surplus in the last four out of five fiscal
years, adequate financial reserves, and limited debt, as well as success in grant
writing and multitude of fee-‐based contracts.
v A majority of the District’s revenue comes from grants and contract fees. Fees vary
from project to project. Property tax revenue constitutes about 13 percent of the
total revenue.
v Capital improvement needs and improvements are discussed at Board meetings and
recorded in the minutes. Planned capital improvements are also listed as part of the
District’s annual budget and approved by the Board.
v The District’s long-‐term liability consists entirely of compensated absences.
v The District has adopted a policy to maintain four financial reserves, which include
cash, general, equipment, and staff reserves.
Status of, and Opportunities for, Shared Facilities
v The District shares CEC with the Solano County Water Agency Master Gardeners
program.
v The District’s main office in Dixon is shared by Dixon Resource Conservation District
(DRCD).
v No additional opportunities for facility sharing were identified by SoRCD.
Accountability for Community Service Needs, Including
Governmental Structure and Operational Efficiencies
v SoRCD is governed by a seven-‐person Board of Directors appointed by the Board of
Supervisors to serve four-‐year terms. Directors receive no compensation. Currently,
there are no Board vacancies. There are presently two additional associate directors
serving on the Board. The District should adopt an associate director policy.
v Solano RCD holds Board meetings on the third Wednesday of every month at six in
the evening at the conference room at the district office in Dixon.
v The District demonstrated accountability and transparency with regard to its
governance by cooperating with the MSR process, adopting an annual budget prior
to the start of the fiscal year, publishing agendas for public meetings as legally
required, maintaining a website, and filing Form 700 Statement of Economic
Interest.
SOLANO RCD Policy Consulting Associates, LLC 94
SOLANO LAFCO
RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
v SoRCD follows all the minimum requirements legally mandated by Public Resources
Code Division 9, including basic reporting and training requirements, quarterly and
monthly requirements, and policies and plans requirements.
v The District’s Board members receive ethics training every two years as required;
SoRCD has established a policy on expense reimbursements.
v Governance structure options for SoRCD include annexation of unincorporated
areas of the County that are presently not within the bounds of an RCD. Additionally,
another option is to include incorporated areas as well.
LAFCO Policies Affecting Service Delivery
v Standards 8 and 9 of the LAFCO Standards and Procedures manual that control
urban growth and protect open space and prime agricultural land through approval
(or denial) of the annexation applications directly affect Solano County RCDs’
service provision since the districts engage in protection of agricultural and open
space lands as part of their missions and strategic goals.
SOLANO RCD Policy Consulting Associates, LLC 95
SOLANO LAFCO
RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
6. SUISUN RESO URCE
CO N S ERVATI O N DI STRI CT
Suisun Resource Conservation District (SuRCD) represents and works with private
landowners on a variety of issues related to quality of water supply and habitat
management. The District’s services are specific and unique to the Suisun Marsh as
designated in the 1977 Suisun Marsh Preservation Act.
The most recent MSR for the District was completed in 2006.
AGENCY OVERVIEW
Background
SuRCD was formed on June 6, 1963 as an independent special district for the purpose of
regulating and improving water management practices related to the wetlands and wildlife
habitat in the Suisun Marsh. Today, the District provides the landowners with technical
assistance in permitting, water control, and habitat management to ensure the wetland and
wildlife values of the Suisun Marsh are sustained and enhanced.30
The principal act that governs the District is Division 9 of the California Public
Resources Code.31 The principal act empowers resource conservation districts to control
runoff, prevent and control soil erosion, protect water quality, develop and distribute
water, improve land capabilities, and facilitate coordinated resource management efforts
for watershed restoration and enhancement.32 In addition to the provisions relevant to all
RCDs, SuRCD is governed by The 1977 Suisun Marsh Preservation Act.33 The Act empowers
SuRCD to promote wetland conservation of the Suisun Marsh through improvements in
water management practices on private lands within the primary management area of the
Suisun Marsh.34 RCDs must apply and obtain LAFCO approval to exercise services
authorized by the principal act but not already provided.35
Boundaries
SuRCD is entirely within Solano County in the southcentral portion, as shown in Figure
6-‐1. The District’s western boundary follows SR 680, veering due north, northeast toward
the cities of Suisun City and Farfield. The District’s northern boundary follows SR 12 for
approximately seven miles and then continues directly south toward just east of Honker
30 http://www.suisunrcd.org/
31 Public Resources Code §9001 et seq.
32 Public Resources Code §9001.
33 Public Resources Code §§9960-‐9965.
34 Public Resources Code §9962.
35 Government Code §56824.10.
SURCD Policy Consulting Associates, LLC 96
SOLANO LAFCO
RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
Bay. This eastern boundary overlaps a portion of the Sacramento-‐San Joaquin Delta. The
southern boundary follows the Contra Costa County line from just east of Honkers Bay to
the City of Benicia. SuRCD does not directly border any other resource conservation
districts in Solano County. The present bounds encompass approximately 180 square
miles. Limited areas of the cities of Suisun, Fairfield and Benicia are included in SuRCD
boundaries.
SURCD Policy Consulting Associates, LLC 97
Fairfield
Waterman Blvd Air Base Pky
Travis Blvd
Rockville Rd Suisun City
Jameson
Canyon
Rd
·|}þ
12
Birds
Landing
Rd
Vallejo
Benicia
Contra Costa County
dR
holihS
Suisun Resource Conservation District
Figure 6-1
·|}þ
113
Cordelia Rd
N
apa
V allejo
H
w
y
§¨¦
80
§¨¦
680
Grizzly Bay
§¨¦
780
Carquinez Strait 0 1 2
Suisun Bay
Miles
Suisun RCD
Crockett
Port Chicago Hwy Solano County Boundary
Martinez
Waterfront Rd
City Boundaries
Bay Point
Rodeo
Vine Hill
Concord
Willow Pass
P
Rd
ittsburg Railroad
Ave P
M
W
a
a
a
r
j
t
c
o
e
e
r
r
l
R
L
o
in
a
e
d
s
s
Hercules
Created by Neuvert GIS Services, LLC - April 6, 2015 Data sources: Solano County; Esri; USGS; CaSIL
SOLANO LAFCO
RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
Sphere of Influence
The sphere of influence (SOI) for the District was first established in 1984 as
coterminous with the District’s boundaries. The SOI was then updated in 2006, at which
time it was reaffirmed to be conterminous with SuRCD’s boundaries.
Type and Extent of Services
Services Provided
SuRCD provides landowners technical assistance in permitting, water control, and
habitat management to ensure the wetland and wildlife values of the Suisun Marsh are
sustained and enhanced.
The District provides technical and support services to Reclamation Districts (RDs) in
SuRCD through individual landowners within the RDs. The RDs’ responsibilities vary based
on their articles of formation, taxing powers and responsibilities. Through assisting
landowners with technical support, habitat management advice and environmental
permitting, SuRCD thus indirectly assists RDs with implementation of their duties.
Figure 6-‐2 details the services provided by SuRCD. If a service is not provided by
SuRCD, but is offered by another agency, it is indicated in the figure.
SURCD Policy Consulting Associates, LLC 99
SOLANO LAFCO
RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
Figure 6-‐2: SuRCD Services
Service Agency Details
Soil salinity and habitat management,
and conservation planning on private
Soil conservation Yes and public lands in the Suisun Marsh.
Conservation and watershed planning
Watershed Solano Resource in the Bay Delta Region and Solano
conservation/management Conservation District County.
Water management, water quality
Water quality conservation Yes monitoring and education.
Solano Resource Conservation planning with
Woodlands conservation Conservation District landowners and on public lands.
Wildlife and wetland habitat
management, enhancement and
Wildlife conservation Yes restoration.
Water Quality Control
Runoff control Board
Regional Water
Pollution control Quality Control Board
Prevent and control soil erosion No
Water management, water quality
Protect water quality Yes monitoring and education.
Department Water
Develop and distribute water Resources
Improve land capabilities No
Implementation of the 2013 Suisun
Marsh Habitat Management,
Preservation, and Restoration Plan in
Facilitate coordinated resource partnership with private landowners
management efforts Yes and State and Federal Agencies
Conservation and watershed planning
of environmental restoration and
Watershed restoration and Solano Resource enhancement work throughout the
enhancement Conservation District County and Bay Delta Region.
Conservation planning and habitat
restoration and creation projects and
Farm and range land Solano Resource on-‐farm best management practices
conservation/management Conservation District installation and management
Open space conservation Solano Land Trust
Implementation of the 2013 Suisun
Marsh Habitat Management,
Preservation, and Restoration Plan and
planning for managed wetland habitat
Waterway protection and enhancement and tidal restoration
restoration Yes projects.
SURCD Policy Consulting Associates, LLC 100
SOLANO LAFCO
RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
Service Agency Details
Assisting landowners in implementing
existing individual ownership
management plans for 150 privately
owner managed wetlands in the Suisun
Vegetation/habitat preservation Yes Marsh.
Erosion prevention No
Implement annual invasive species
control programs with private and
Invasive species control Yes public partners in the Marsh.
Workshops and field days with
students and the general public
Educational workshops Yes throughout the year.
Three newsletters per year, website
Informational fliers, brochures, with projects listed, annual landowner
and white papers Yes workshop and mailings.
In partnership with DFW, DWR, UC
Davis and U.S. Geological Survey
Scientific studies Yes (USGS).
Department Water
Flood plain management Resources (DWR)
Creek/waterway cleanups Delta Conservancy
Department of Fish &
Documentation of native species Wildlife (DFW)
Site visits to private and public lands
Advising and assisting for conservation planning, habitat
individuals and public agencies Yes management and enhancements.
The District applies for and
administers cost share grant programs
to landowners to implement successful
Conduit for grants and other wetland enhancement and restoration
financing Yes projects.
Source: Policy Consulting Associates research, Suisun Resource Conservation District
Suisun RCD implements a number of programs and projects in Suisun Marsh. The
projects currently listed on the District’s website include:
v Permit Administration: SuRCD administers the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regional General Permit #3 (Permit Number; 2012-‐00258N) for DWR, DFW, U.S.
Bureau of Reclamation and Suisun Marsh private landowners to maintain and
operate managed wetlands within the Suisun Marsh.
v Permit Administration: Administers the U.S. Army Corps of Engineer Letter of
Permission for the annual Suisun Marsh Dredging Program.
v Fall Flood-‐Up Program: Joint facilitated program between Solano County Mosquito
Abatement District (SCMAD) and SuRCD. The goal is to reduce the production of
mosquito populations during flooding periods of the managed wetlands. SCMAD will
SURCD Policy Consulting Associates, LLC 101
SOLANO LAFCO
RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
spray any properties that produce large quantities of mosquitoes. Cost-‐sharing is
provided when available.
v Pest Weed Control Program: The primary goal of pest weed control is to control
invasive weeds in the Suisun Marsh. SuRCD offers various options for chemicals to
purchase, application practices (by hand or with a helicopter), and provides cost-‐
sharing when available.
v Portable Pump Program: Under SuRCD direction, two types of portable pumps are
available to the landowners (at some cost) to aid and enhance marsh habitat. Water
managers will oversee operation, maintenance, and distribution of pumps. The
pumps are available for draining operations (leach cycles) on private properties and
state-‐owned lands.
v Water Manager Program: The water manager program is fully funded by the
Department of Water Resources (DWR) and the United States Bureau of
Reclamation (USBR) through the Suisun Marsh Preservation Agreement (SMPA)
Amendment Three, Article VIII. The main program goals are:
v To ensure proper water management and to maximize the potential of an
individual parcel,
v Provide cooperative service between SuRCD and Suisun Marsh private
landowners,
v Provide technical support to private land owners of the marsh,
v Answer questions and to educate landowners on beneficial management
techniques,
v Promote effective and efficient use of channel water,
v Avoid potential impacts to fisheries resources and protect sensitive species
within managed wetlands,
v Administer the portable pump program,
v Monitor the operation of the fish screen facilities and perform routine
maintenance, and
v Assist landowners in avoidance of vector production.
v Wildlife Habitat Improvement Program (WHIP): Provision of a seed mix that
includes a blend of perennials and annuals that are known (through studies in the
Marsh and on-‐the-‐ground experience) to provide optimal structure and cover to the
upland habitats. SuRCD provides cost-‐sharing when available.
Service Area
The District reported that it did not provide any services outside of its boundary area.
There are no areas within SuRCD that are currently unserved by the District.
SuRCD, however, participates in numerous regional planning forums including a liaison
advisor seat on the Delta Conservancy Board.
SURCD Policy Consulting Associates, LLC 102
SOLANO LAFCO
RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
Services to Other Agencies
Figure 6-‐3 lists and provides details on the contract services provided by SuRCD to
other agencies.
Figure 6-‐3: SuRCD Contract Services
Agency Type of Service Compensation Areas Serviced
Department of Fish Wetland conservation; $250,473 for 3 years Suisun Marsh
and Wildlife administering and
amending the
enforceable standards
contained in the
SuRCD Local
Protection Plan
Department of Water Wetland conservation; $35,650 for 3 years Suisun Marsh on
Resources provide assistance to Montezuma Slough
landowners for the
operations and
maitenance of
fourteen conical fish
screens
Department of Water Wetland conservation; $300,686 for 3 years Suisun Marsh
Resources technical support on
activities related to the
implementation of the
Suisun Marsh Habitat
Management,
Preservation and
Restoration Plan
Source: Suisun Resource Conservation District
Contracts for Services
The District receives management and administrative services from other agencies and
organizations provided through contracts. The District reportedly receives payroll, audit
and legal services from Solano County, as well as legal services from Somach Simmons &
Dunn.
Overlapping Service Providers
In partnership with SuRCD, Solano RCD occasionally provides services within the
SuRCD boundaries, including watershed conservation and management, woodlands
conservation, watershed restoration and enhancement, farm and range land conservation
and management, and public education and outreach based on contracts, partnerships and
agreements with other government agencies and landowners.
SURCD Policy Consulting Associates, LLC 103
SOLANO LAFCO
RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE AND ACCOUNTABILITY
Accountability of a governing body is signified by a combination of several indicators.
The indicators chosen here are limited to 1) agency efforts to engage and educate
constituents through outreach activities, in addition to legally required activities such as
agenda posting and public meetings, 2) a defined complaint process designed to handle all
issues to resolution, and 3) transparency of the agency as indicated by cooperation with the
MSR process and information disclosure.
According to the Division 9 of the Public Resources Code, the Board of Directors of an
RCD must consist of five, seven or nine directors serving four-‐year terms. Directors can
either be elected in a general election or appointed by the County Board of Supervisors.
The directors receive no compensation for their services as such, but each is allowed
reasonable and necessary expenses incurred in attendance at meetings of the Board or
when otherwise engaged in the work of the district at the direction of the Board of
Directors. To be eligible to serve on the Board directors must be registered voters in the
State, “reside within the district and either own real property in the district or alternatively
have served, pursuant to the district’s rules, for two years or more as an associate director
providing advisory or other assistance to the Board of Directors, or be a designated agent
of a resident landowner within the district.”36
Legislature, however, caveated the director eligibility rule with a provision specific to
Suisun Resource Conservation District, according to which the primary function of SuRCD
in maintaining wildlife and wetland habitats will be impaired unless there is adequate
opportunity for participation by landowners on the Board of Directors. Because of the
natural conditions prevailing in the territory of SuRCD, the majority of privately owned
lands therein are owned by persons residing outside of the District. Therefore, owners of
land within Suisun RCD, or their agents, may serve on the SuRCD Board of Directors
regardless of whether they are residents of the District.37
Associate director positions were established to allow members of the community
opportunities to participate in RCD activities without being on the Board or give those who
did not meet the qualifications of a director a chance to take an active role in the district.
Associates often are chosen for their special expertise in an area of one of the functions of
the district. Associate directors do not have the right to vote on Board matters. However,
they can attend meetings and provide the district with extra expertise. Frequently associate
directors also contribute by serving on various district committees.38
Suisun RCD is governed by a five-‐person Board of Directors appointed by the Solano
County Board of Supervisors to serve four-‐year terms. Currently, there are no vacancies. If
a position opens up mid-‐term the new open position is posted in public locations and filled
by the Board of Supervisors. The District currently has four associate directors.
36 Public Resources Code §9352 (a), (b).
37 Public Resources Code §9352 (d).
38 California Conservation Partnership and California Department of Conservation, The Resource Conservation District
Guidebook: A Guide to District Operations and Management, 1999, pp. 1-‐8, 1-‐9.
SURCD Policy Consulting Associates, LLC 104
SOLANO LAFCO
RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
The Board of Directors meets on the second Wednesday of every month at 2:00 pm at
the Solano County Board of Supervisors Chambers in Fairfield, CA. Information about board
meetings is shown in Figure 6-‐4.
Figure 6-‐4: Suisun Resource Conservation District Governing Body
Suisun Resource Conservation District
Governing Body and Board Meetings
Manner of Selection Appointed by Board of Supervisors
Length of Term Four years
Meetings On the second Wednesday of every month at 2 pm in Fairfield, CA.
Agenda Distribution County Clerk’s Office, 675 Texas Street, Fairfield, CA
Minutes Distribution Upon request
Contact
Contact Steven Chappell, Executive Director
Mailing Address 2544 Grizzly Island Road, Suisun City, CA 94585
Phone 707.425.9302
Fax 707.425.4402
Email/Website www.suisunrcd.org/schappell@suisunrcd.org
Source: Suisun Resource Conservation District
Board meeting agendas are posted at the County Clerk’s office in Fairfield, CA. Both the
meeting agendas as well as the meeting minutes are not available on the District’s website.
The District tries to reach its constituents through its website, a tri annual newsletter, the
annual Landowner Workshop, and various other mailings. The District’s website
additionally contains information on how to contact the District, the Board of Directors,
district staff, the mission statement, links to resources and articles of interest, and photos
and information about the District’s programs.
SuRCD board members receive no compensation. Government Code §53235 requires
that if a district provides compensation or reimbursement of expenses to its board
members, the board members must receive two hours of training in ethics at least once
every two years and the district must establish a written policy on reimbursements. It was
reported that all SuRCD directors were current with required ethics training. SuRCD
reports that the District does not have a policy on expense reimbursements, as its directors
do not receive reimbursements.
If a customer is dissatisfied with the District’s services, complaints may be submitted to
the executive director or by attending a Board meeting. The executive director or the
Boards president is responsible for handling complaints to resolution; however, there is no
formal mechanism tracks such complaints to completion. SuRCD reported that it had not
had any complaints in 2013 or 2014.
SuRCD has adopted a set of policies that guides and directs the District’s governance
and administration, including policies related to fees for services and purchasing policies
and procedures. The District has not adopted policies on investments and reserves, public
record requests, volunteers, and associate directors. SuRCD did not report whether it had a
bidding policy, although it is assumed the District follows the rules and regulations for
SURCD Policy Consulting Associates, LLC 105
SOLANO LAFCO
RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
bidding in each contract awarded through state and federal grants. The District has
established a conflict of interest code, as well as extensive personnel policies that include
policies on nondiscrimination and vehicle use. SuRCD provides its employees with sexual
harassment literature. As required by Government Code §53065.5, the District filed an
annual report to the State Controller with a government compensation report for 2013.
The Political Reform Act (Government Code §81000, et seq.) requires state and local
government agencies to adopt and promulgate conflict of interest codes. The Fair Political
Practices Commission has adopted a regulation (California Code of Regulations §18730),
which contains the terms of a standard conflict of interest code, which can be incorporated
by reference in an agency’s code. The District provided its conflict of interest code.
Government Code §87203 requires persons who hold office to disclose their
investments, interests in real property and incomes by filing appropriate forms with the
appropriate filing agency (i.e., the County or the Fair Political Practices Commission) each
year. In addition, the conflict of interest code of each district determines who among the
officers and directors files the Forms 700 with the County’s Registrar of Voters. The District
reported that all of the Board directors had filed Forms 700 for 2013. According to the
District’s conflict of interest code, SuRCD’s executive director also files Form 700.
During the course of this MSR process, SuRCD demonstrated full accountability in its
disclosure of information and cooperation with Solano LAFCO. The District responded to
the questionnaires and cooperated with interview and document requests.
Determinations
v SuRCD is governed by a five-‐person Board of Directors appointed by the Board of
Supervisors to serve four-‐year terms. Directors receive no compensation. Currently,
there are no Board vacancies. There are presently four additional associate
directors serving on the Board. The District should establish an associate director
policy.
v The District could additionally make improvements by establishing policies on
investments and reserves and public record requests.
v Suisun RCD holds Board meetings on the second Wednesday of every month at two
in the afternoon at the Solano County Supervisors Chambers in Fairfield.
v The District generally demonstrated accountability and transparency with regard to
governance by cooperating with the MSR process, adopting an annual budget prior
to the start of the fiscal year, maintaining a website, and filing of Forms 700
Statement of Economic Interest. SuRCD could improve its accountability practices
by posting its Board meeting agendas and minutes on its website.
v SuRCD follows some of the minimum requirements legally mandated by Public
Resources Code Division 9, including basic reporting and training requirements,
quarterly and monthly requirements, and select policies and plans requirements.
v There are no identified alternative governance structure options for SuRCD. No
annexations or consolidations are being considered at this time.
SURCD Policy Consulting Associates, LLC 106
SOLANO LAFCO
RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
GROWTH AND POPULATION PROJECTIONS
This section discusses the factors affecting service demand, such as land uses, and
historical and anticipated population growth.
Land Use
Land uses within the District mainly consist of agriculture and wetland wildlife habitat.
The District’s bounds encompass approximately 180 square miles.
SuRCD’s territory encompasses 52,000 acres of managed wetlands, 6,300 acres of
unmanaged tidal wetlands, 30,000 acres of bays and sloughs, and 27,000 acres of upland
grasslands.
Population
There are about 15,192 residents within the District, based on GIS analysis of 2010
Census population information.39 The population density within the District is about 84
people per square mile.
Projected Growth and Development
SuRCD reported that minimal growth had occurred within the District in the last five
years. The District noted that within its bounds SuRCD is populated primarily by acreage of
wetlands and wildlife habitat, not people. Accordingly, the District anticipates no to
minimal growth in the next decade. The Suisun Marsh is protected from development
under the Suisun Marsh Preservation Act, the San Francisco Bay Conservation and
Development Commissions (BCDC), and Solano County policies and regulations.
The California Department of Finance (DOF) projects that the population of Solano
County will grow by eight percent from 2010 to 2020. Thus, the average annual population
growth in the County is anticipated to be approximately 0.8 percent. Based on these
projections, the District’s population would increase from 15,192 in 2010 to approximately
16,407 in 2020. It is anticipated that demand for services within the District will increase
minimally, based on the DOF population growth projections through 2020.
Growth Strategies
The District is not a land use authority, and does not hold primary responsibility for
implementing growth strategies. The land use authority for unincorporated areas is the
County. SuRCD provides information on conservation of resources on private and public
lands through conservation plans.
As previously mentioned, the Suisun Marsh is fully protected from future development.
The regulations and policies are in place to preserve and enhance the quality and diversity
of the Suisun Marsh aquatic and wildlife habitats. Therefore, the existing land use of
managed wetlands for waterfowl hunting clubs, tidal wetlands, agricultural practices, and
39 This population figure is approximate; it is the sum of Census Tract 2527.02, (1/4 of) 2521.02, 2524.02 and 2523.05.
SURCD Policy Consulting Associates, LLC 107
SOLANO LAFCO
RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
open spaces are the only significant future uses of the Suisun Marsh.40 It is reasonable to
assume that any growth that may take place in the District will be in the cities.
SuRCD may be impacted in the future by development and growth occurring outside
district bounds. This growth may impact SuRCD service provision as it faces the challenge
of mitigating possible side effects from smoke from wildlife burns and human disturbance
of wildlife and pollution.41
Determinations
v In 2010, SuRCD had an estimated population of 15,192.
v SuRCD reported that limited growth had occurred within the District in the last five
years. Similarly, the District anticipates minimal growth in the next decade given the
County’s policy of directing a majority of development to areas within cities, as well
as the protections placed specifically on Suisun Marsh.
v Based on the California Department of Finance population forecasts, the District’s
population is projected to increase from 15,192 in 2010 to approximately 16,407 in
2020.
v Because a majority of the land in SuRCD is protected, it is anticipated that there will
be minimal residential development or population growth within the District.
SuRCD, however, could be impacted by growth and development outside of the
District’s bounds.
DISADVANTAGED UNINCORPORATED COMMUNITIES
LAFCO is required to evaluate disadvantaged unincorporated communities as part of
this service review, including the location and characteristics of any such communities. A
disadvantaged unincorporated community is defined as any area with 12 or more
registered voters, or as determined by commission policy, where the median household
income is less than 80 percent of the statewide annual median.42
The California Department of Water Resources (DWR) has developed a mapping tool to
assist in determining which communities meet the disadvantaged communities median
household income definition.43 According to DWR, there are no communities that meet the
definition of a disadvantaged unincorporated community in Solano County. As such, there
are no disadvantaged unincorporated communities within or adjacent to SuRCD’s bounds
and sphere of influence.
40 2006 SuRCD MSR.
41 Ibid.
42 Government Code §56033.5.
43 Based on census data, the median household income in the State of California in 2010 was $57,708, 80 percent of which
is $46,166.
SURCD Policy Consulting Associates, LLC 108
SOLANO LAFCO
RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
Determination
v According to the Department of Water Resources, there are no communities that
meet the definition of a disadvantaged unincorporated community in Solano County.
As such, there are no disadvantaged unincorporated communities within or
adjacent to SuRCD’s bounds and sphere of influence.
FINANCIAL ABILITY TO PROVIDE SERVICES
The financial ability of agencies to provide services is affected by available financing
sources and financing constraints. This section discusses the major financing constraints
faced by the District and identifies revenue sources currently available to the District.
The District reported that its financing levels were marginally adequate to deliver
services. SuRCD has virtually no tax base, and relies heavily on contracts from other
government agencies, charges for services, donations, and licenses and permits.
The District reported it has had to “do more with less” with respect to budget
constraints.
Revenues and Expenses
As the District had not yet completed a financial audit for FY 13-‐14, an unaudited
financial statement for FY 13-‐14 was used to garner the revenue and expenditure
information reported here.
The District’s revenue in FY 13-‐14 totaled $1,002,654, of which 48 percent was received
from intergovernmental revenue (grants), 20 percent from charges for services, 15 percent
from licenses and permits, and 16 percent from miscellaneous revenue. Property tax
income constitutes less than one percent of the District’s total revenue. The District also
received a minimal amount of interest income.
The fees charged by the District for services are based on the actual cost to SuRCD,
including employee hourly rate of pay, benefits and operating cost for each project. The
District’s Board of Directors established certain fees for equipment rental. The permit and
program fees to participating landowners are based on wetland acreage at $4 per acre. Fish
screen maintenance charges are based on a prorated cost share of landowners involved
and the actual costs of labor, equipment used, and equipment and supplies purchased for
repairs to be made. Administrative costs are charged based on a pre-‐arranged written
agreement between parties involved.
The District’s expenditures amounted to $1,032,574 in FY 13-‐14, of which 55 percent
was spent on salaries and benefits, 35 percent was spent on services and supplies, 10
percent was spent on other charges, and the remaining amount on fixed assets.
In FY 13-‐14, the District’s expenditures exceeded revenues by $29,920.
According to the District’s audited financial statements for FY 12-‐13, SuRCD received
$1,005,725 in revenues, including 48 percent from intergovernmental revenue, 22 percent
from charges for services, 11 percent from donations and contributions, and 15 percent
from licenses and permits. Property taxes, revenue from use of money and property and
miscellaneous income constituted the rest of the revenues.
SURCD Policy Consulting Associates, LLC 109
SOLANO LAFCO
RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
In FY 12-‐13, SuRCD’s expenditures were $1,022,780, 57 percent out of which were
spent on salaries and benefits, 14 percent on professional and specialized services, 10
percent on administrative overhead, six percent on maintenance, three percent on
transportation and travel, and three percent on insurance. The rest was spent on supplies,
utilities, communication, rents and leases, education and training, capital outlay and
miscellaneous.
At the end of FY 12-‐13, the District’s expenditures exceeded revenues by $17,055. In
fact, as shown in Figure 6-‐5, during the last three out of five fiscal years, the SuRCD’s
expenditure exceeded revenues. The loss in revenue is due in part to lost grant and
donation funding caused by economic downturn. DRCD also experienced an increase in
administrative overhead expenditures. The District currently has sufficient reserves for
one year of operations and can cover the deficit. In FY 14-‐15, there is a projected surplus of
approximately $19,000.
Figure 6-‐5: SuRCD revenue and expenditures, FYs 09-‐10 through FY 13-‐14
Year FY 09-‐10 FY 10-‐11 FY 11-‐12 FY 12-‐13 FY 13-‐14
Revenues $1,102,090 $1,008,304 $1,065,306 $1,005,725 $1,002,654
Expenditures $1,067,656 $977,581 $1,076,375 $1,022,780 $1,032,574
Balance $34,434 $30,723 -‐$11,069 -‐$17,055 -‐$29,920
Source: Audited Financial Statements FYs 09-‐10, 10-‐11, 11-‐12, 12-‐13. Unaudited Financial Statements FY 13-‐
14.
Capital Improvements
The District does not adopt a capital improvement plan. The District did not report how
or when capital improvement needs and improvements are discussed. Planned capital
improvements can be found in the District’s annual budget, which is approved by the
Board. Typical capital improvements include structural improvements to the District’s
facilities and purchasing of small tools and equipment.
SuRCD spent $13,649 on capital improvements in FY 12-‐13, but did not specify exactly
what this was spent on. The District’s FY 13-‐14 financial statement did not clearly identify
expenses that were dedicated to capital improvements. The District budgeted $19,300 for
improvements to the building on Lower Joice Island for FY 14-‐15.
Outstanding Debt
Based on the District’s audited financial statement the District had $16,621 in long-‐term
debt at the end of FY 12-‐13, which was composed of entirely compensated absences.
Reserves
The District does not have a formal policy on financial reserves and reserve goal
amounts each fiscal year. The Board is responsible for establishing or changing assigned
SURCD Policy Consulting Associates, LLC 110
SOLANO LAFCO
RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
fund balance policies. At the end of FY 12-‐13, the District maintained $400,668 in
unrestricted net assets. Additionally, the District maintains four restricted funds each of
which maintained the following fund balances at the end of FY 12-‐13: special projects
($451,33), general ($89,416), imprest cash ($5,700), and long term assets ($0).
Determinations
v The District reported that its financing levels were marginally adequate to deliver
services.
v A majority of the District’s revenues are received from contracts with other
government agencies and charges for services. SuRCD does not receive any
revenues from special taxes or benefit assessments.
v The District does not have a formal reserve policy. At the end of FY 12-‐13, the
District maintained $400,668 in unrestricted net assets. Additionally, the District
maintains four restricted funds, including special projects, general, imprest cash,
and long-‐term assets.
v While the District’s financial statements for the last three fiscal years exhibited
income deficit, the District reports it is able to deliver services. The District
currently has sufficient reserves for one year of operations and can cover the deficit.
In FY 14-‐15, there is a projected surplus of approximately $19,000.
PRESENT AND PLANNED CAPACITY
The District reported that it presently had sufficient capacity to provide adequate
services to its existing service area. However, limited staffing resources constrains that
capacity.
Existing Demand
The District reported that it did not engage in any planning or activities to forecast
service needs. However, SuRCD observed an increase in service demand over the last five
years due to the drought causing higher salinities. The District established a Portable Pump
Program to address the problem.
Landowners within SuRCD’s boundaries are considered to be the customers of the
District. The District provides the landowners technical assistance in permitting, water
control, and habitat management to ensure the wetland and wildlife values of the Suisun
Marsh are sustained and enhanced. The Suisun Marsh Preservation Act precludes growth
and development in the area.
Facilities
The District operates out of three facilities and properties—the SuRCD office, the water
manager’s office and Lower Joice Island (1,300 acres). While the SuRCD office is owned by
the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, the other two facilities are owned by SuRCD.
SuRCD office and the water manager’s office are open from 8:00 a.m. till 4:30 p.m. Lower
Joice Island is a wetland conservation area, which was purchased with grant money and
donations from previous landowners; it is not open to the public. All operating costs
SURCD Policy Consulting Associates, LLC 111
SOLANO LAFCO
RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
associated with this property are funded by an endowment and managed by the Suisun
Conservation Fund.44 All of the facilities were reported to be in fair condition by the District.
It appears that currently the capacity of the District’s facilities to provide adequate
services is constrained by the fair condition of these facilities.
Infrastructure Needs
The District did not report any infrastructure needs or deficiencies associated with its
facilities and properties, although all three are considered to be only in fair condition,
which means that upgrades and repairs are needed to improve the condition of the
facilities.
The District has planned infrastructure on Lower Joice Island in the amount of
approximately $19,000 in FY 14-‐15.
Challenges
The District reported that it was a challenge to effectively deal with environmental
permit conditions, new regulatory requirements and reporting responsibilities, which limit
staff availability to spend time in the field. Limited staffing resources also hamper the
ability of the District to provide landowners with outreach and support.
SERVICE ADEQUACY
California Conservation Partnership and California Department of Conservation
developed the Resource Conservation District Guidebook in 1999, which outlines best
management practices for RCDs. Many of these practices are difficult to assess for
adequacy, and almost all indicators of service levels are not easily quantifiable when
compared with a defined industry standard; consequently, a relatively subjective judgment
of adequacy is necessary. In order to evaluate the adequacy of SuRCD the following criteria
were considered: 1) long-‐range and strategic planning practices; 2) project evaluation
practices; and 3) ability to find a supplemental source of income.
A strategic plan provides a road map to agencies by setting priorities and identifying
means to meet those goals. Priority setting helps a district determine which needs deserve
attention first and enables it to focus its limited resources on addressing those needs.
District priority setting is accomplished through creating a mission statement, identifying
goals that support its mission, and then crafting objectives that help the District reach its
goals. Also, having a clear mission, goals, and objectives—a strategic plan—helps identify
shared interests an agency may have with other groups, agencies, or individuals and helps
avoid duplicating the work of other groups. Beyond these practical reasons for planning
strategically, long-‐range planning is one of the provisions outlined in Division 9 of the
Public Resources Code for the administration of a resource conservation district.
Additionally, districts wishing to take advantage of state grant programs through the
California Department of Conservation will only be able to do so if they maintain long-‐ and
44 According to the 2006 SURCD MSR.
SURCD Policy Consulting Associates, LLC 112
SOLANO LAFCO
RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
short-‐range plans and publish annual progress reports. As identified in §9413 of Division 9,
long-‐range plans shall:
v Establish long-‐range goals,
v Be five-‐year plans,
v Address the soil and related resource problems found to occur within the district,
v Identify resource issues within the district for local, state, and federal resource
conservation planning,
v Involve other agencies in the strategic planning process,
v Provide a framework for setting annual priorities,
v Create a basis for evaluating annual work plan achievements and allocating state
funds to the district, and
v Provide for disseminating information concerning district programs and goals to
local, state, and federal government agencies and the public.
The District does not have a long-‐range plan of its own. SuRCD, however, participated in
the completion the 2013 Suisun Marsh Habitat Management, Preservation and Restoration
Plan, which is a 30-‐year regional plan for providing environmental permitting, recovery of
endangered species, and maintenance and protection of the wetland and wildlife resources
of the Suisun Marsh. SuRCD has developed this regional plan along with other agencies that
have primary responsibility for Suisun Marsh management, including U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, California Department of
Water Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service, and CALFED Bay-‐Delta Program.
It would, nonetheless, be beneficial for the District to establish its own long-‐ and short-‐
range plans that would describe various ways and milestones of the District’s management
program to preserve, protect and enhance the plant and wildlife communities within
Suisun Marsh. The authors of Division 9 have specifically stated that long-‐ and short-‐range
plans would be an integral part of district functioning.
It is a best management practice among RCDs to publish annual reports to summarize
the district’s progress toward meeting the goals and objectives outlined in the long-‐range
plan. Annual reports can be used to 1) provide a summary of the work accomplished over
the previous year and set priorities for the coming year, 2) provide a means to track district
activities from year to year, 3) offer a reference regarding project specifics in later years, 4)
inform long-‐range planning efforts, 5) provide a useful introduction to the District’s efforts
for new employees and stakeholders, and 6) supplement grant applications to provide
information on district programs and goals. SuRCD does not produce a verbal or written
annual report each year.
SuRCD reported that it evaluated its own performance based on the effective delivery of
programs. However, it did not report any qualitative or quantitative measurements used to
determine effectiveness of delivery. Although the District does not have formal metrics, it is
currently engaged in three large government service contracts, as well as receiving a large
portion of revenue from fees for services. District’s services are thus evaluated by its clients
SURCD Policy Consulting Associates, LLC 113
SOLANO LAFCO
RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
through assessment of the fulfilled contractual obligations. District’s services appear to be
adequate based on renewal of contracts, as well as new contracts received.
RCDs generally are limited or constrained by available funding sources and have to
heavily rely on supplemental source of income, such as grants. SuRCD receives almost no
revenue from property taxes and relies heavily on grants and charges for services for its
supplemental income. Ability to regularly receive grants is also an indicator of the District’s
adequate performance and ability to provide services in accordance with the Suisun Marsh
Preservation Act.
Determinations
v SuRCD has experienced increase in service demand; however not due to population
increase.
v The District reported that it presently has sufficient capacity to provide adequate
services to its existing and future growth areas; however, capacity is constrained by
limited staffing resources and fair condition of the District’s facilities.
v Planned capital improvements include improvements on Lower Joice Island in the
amount of approximately $19,000.
v The District’s services appear to be adequate based on SuRCD’s ability to secure
long-‐term government service contracts as well as the revenue received from fees
for services and grants. However, the District could improve upon its services by
producing a long-‐ and short-‐range plans and annual reports.
v District management methods appear to generally meet accepted best management
practices. The District prepares a budget before the beginning of the fiscal year,
conducts regular financial audits, maintains current transparent financial records,
and tracks employee and district workload.
STATUS AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR SHARED FACILITIES
Shared Facilities and Regional Cooperation
Shared Facilities
The District’s office is located at the Department of Fish and Wildlife (DFW) Grizzly
Island Wildlife Area and is provided rent-‐free as a condition of the DFW contract services,
under the 1977 Suisun Marsh Preservation Act.
No additional opportunities for facility sharing were identified by SuRCD.
Collaboration
SuRCD partners with private citizens, local, regional, state and federal government
agencies, research institutions, nonprofits and private sector organizations on various
projects.
The District provides direct assistance to landowners, who work with SuRCD
voluntarily to protect their soil, water, and natural habitats. The District also partners with
SURCD Policy Consulting Associates, LLC 114
SOLANO LAFCO
RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
agricultural and natural resource protection organizations and agencies throughout the
County and region to implement watershed programs with local and regional benefits.
SuRCD works with Solano County Mosquito Abatement District (SCMAD), the
Department of Water Resources (DWR), the United States Bureau of Reclamation (USBR),
Bay Conservation and Development Commission, Solano County, Regional Water Quality
Control Board, Solano Resource Conservation District, Solano Land Trust, and Delta
Conservancy and Department of Fish & Wildlife.
Additionally, the District participates in regional plans, including Suisun Marsh Habitat
Management, Preservation and Restoration Plan, and Suisun Marsh Protection Plan.
The District reported that increased partnerships with other wetland conservation
organizations may bring additional funding to implement the ground habitat
improvements.
Management Efficiencies
While public sector management standards vary depending on the size and scope of the
organization, there are minimum standards. Well-‐managed organizations evaluate
employees annually, track employee and agency productivity, periodically review agency
performance, prepare a budget before the beginning of the fiscal year, conduct periodic
financial audits to safeguard the public trust, maintain relatively current financial records,
conduct advanced planning for future service needs, and plan and budget for capital needs.
SuRCD employs seven full-‐time personnel and one part-‐time employee. Full-‐time staff
includes one executive director, one operations manager, an office supervisor, three water
managers, and a resident manager. A part-‐time person is called in when extra help is
needed.
The District’s executive director is responsible for the day-‐to-‐day operations of SuRCD.
Employee evaluations, performed by the executive director, are conducted quarterly and
annually. The District evaluates its own performance through the effective delivery of
programs.
SuRCD tracks the workload handled by its staff. Staff prepares weekly work logs, attend
weekly staff meetings, and use coded time sheets.
The District’s financial planning efforts include an annually adopted budget and
annually audited financial statements. The District’s long-‐term objectives and goals are
mandated by the 1977 Suisun Marsh Preservation Act and implemented through the
District’s management program to preserve, protect and enhance the plant and wildlife
communities within the primary management area of the Suisun Marsh. The District does
not adopt a long-‐range plan, an annual plan or an annual report.
The mission of the District is to continue to represent the private landowners on a
variety of matters at the Federal, State, and local levels. Its historic goal is to achieve a
water supply of adequate quality so that preferred wetland habitat values will be retained
through appropriate management practices. Through cooperation with the landowners and
various agencies, the District seeks to develop new programs aimed at protecting and
improving the Marsh for future generations.
SURCD Policy Consulting Associates, LLC 115
SOLANO LAFCO
RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
All special districts are required to submit annual audits to the County within 12
months of the completion of the fiscal year, unless the Board of Supervisors has approved a
biennial or five-‐year schedule. 45 The District is required to submit audits annually. The
District reported that it had submitted its FY 12-‐13 audit to the County Auditor’s Office.
Government Code §53901 states that within 60 days after the beginning of the fiscal
year each local agency must submit its budget to the county auditor. These budgets are to
be filed and made available on request by the public at the county auditor’s office. SuRCD
reportedly has submitted its budget for the most recent fiscal year to the County Auditor-‐
Controller’s Office.
Determinations
v The District shares office space with the Department of Fish and Wildlife.
v No additional opportunities for facility sharing were identified by SuRCD.
v The District practices extensive collaboration with other agencies and organizations
and participates in the regional plans. It is a member of multiple organizations and
associations.
v Partnerships with other wetland conservation organizations may bring additional
funding to implement the ground habitat improvements.
LAFCO POLICIES AFFECTING SERVICE DELIVERY
Solano LAFCO has adopted a policy that affects service delivery by resource
conservation districts in the County. Standard 9 in the LAFCO Standards and Procedures
manual requires urban growth to be guided away from prime agricultural land unless such
action would not promote planned, orderly and efficient development for the agency.
LAFCO encourages development of existing vacant or non-‐prime agricultural lands within
the agency limits first before any proposal is approved for urbanization outside of the
agency’s limits. One of the services provided by an RCD in Solano County is protection of
prime agricultural lands. When LAFCO approves applications that result in annexation of
these lands into cities and/or urbanization, it directly affects services provided by RCDs.
Similarly, Standard 8 in the LAFCO Standards and Procedures requires that prior to
approving an annexation, LAFCO has to make a determination that the proposed
conversion of open space lands to urban use is justified by probable urban growth within a
10 year-‐period of time. This means that RCDs engaged in protection of open space are
affected when LAFCO approves an annexation involving conversion of open space lands to
urban use.
Determinations
v Standards 8 and 9 of the LAFCO Standards and Procedures manual that control
urban growth and protect open space and prime agricultural land through approval
(or denial) of the annexation applications directly affect Solano County RCDs’
45 Government Code §26909.
SURCD Policy Consulting Associates, LLC 116
SOLANO LAFCO
RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
service provision since the districts engage in protection of agricultural and open
space lands as part of their main missions and strategic goals.
SURCD Policy Consulting Associates, LLC 117
SOLANO LAFCO
RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
SUISUN RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT
DETERMINATIONS
Growth and Population Projections
v In 2010, SuRCD had an estimated population of 15,192.
v SuRCD reported that limited growth had occurred within the District in the last five
years. Similarly, the District anticipates minimal growth in the next decade given the
County’s policy of directing a majority of development to areas within cities, as well
as the protections placed specifically on Suisun Marsh.
v Based on the California Department of Finance population forecasts, the District’s
population is projected to increase from 15,192 in 2010 to approximately 16,407 in
2020.
v Because a majority of the land in SuRCD is protected, it is anticipated that there will
be minimal residential development or population growth within the District.
SuRCD, however, could be impacted by growth and development outside of the
District’s bounds.
The Location and Characteristics of Disadvantaged
Unincorporated Communities Within or Contiguous to the
Agency’s SOI
v According to the Department of Water Resources, there are no communities that
meet the definition of a disadvantaged unincorporated community in Solano County.
As such, there are no disadvantaged unincorporated communities within or
adjacent to SuRCD’s bounds and sphere of influence.
Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities and
Adequacy of Public Services, Including Infrastructure
Needs and Deficiencies
v SuRCD has experienced increase in service demand; however not due to population
increase.
v The District reported that it presently has sufficient capacity to provide adequate
services to its existing and future growth areas; however, capacity is constrained by
limited staffing resources and fair condition of the District’s facilities.
v Planned capital improvements include improvements on Lower Joice Island in the
amount of approximately $19,000.
v The District’s services appear to be adequate based on SuRCD’s ability to secure
long-‐term government service contracts as well as the revenue received from fees
for services and grants. However, the District could improve upon its services by
producing a long-‐ and short-‐range plans and annual reports.
SURCD Policy Consulting Associates, LLC 118
SOLANO LAFCO
RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
v District management methods appear to generally meet accepted best management
practices. The District prepares a budget before the beginning of the fiscal year,
conducts regular financial audits, maintains current transparent financial records,
and tracks employee and district workload.
Financial Ability of Agencies to Provide Services
v The District reported that its financing levels were marginally adequate to deliver
services.
v A majority of the District’s revenues are received from contracts with other
government agencies and charges for services. SuRCD does not receive any
revenues from special taxes or benefit assessments.
v The District does not have a formal reserve policy. At the end of FY 12-‐13, the
District maintained $400,668 in unrestricted net assets. Additionally, the District
maintains four restricted funds, including special projects, general, imprest cash,
and long-‐term assets.
v While the District’s financial statements for the last three fiscal years exhibited
income deficit, the District reports it is able to deliver services. The District
currently has sufficient reserves for one year of operations and can cover the deficit.
In FY 14-‐15, there is a projected surplus of approximately $19,000.
Status of, and Opportunities for, Shared Facilities
v The District shares office space with the Department of Fish and Wildlife.
v No additional opportunities for facility sharing were identified by SuRCD.
v The District practices extensive collaboration with other agencies and organizations
and participates in the regional plans. It is a member of multiple organizations and
associations.
v Partnerships with other wetland conservation organizations may bring additional
funding to implement the ground habitat improvements.
Accountability for Community Service Needs, Including
Governmental Structure and Operational Efficiencies
v SuRCD is governed by a five-‐person Board of Directors appointed by the Board of
Supervisors to serve four-‐year terms. Directors receive no compensation. Currently,
there are no Board vacancies. There are presently four additional associate
directors serving on the Board. The District should establish an associate director
policy.
v The District could additionally make improvements by establishing policies on
investments and reserves and public record requests.
v Suisun RCD holds Board meetings on the second Wednesday of every month at two
in the afternoon at the Solano County Supervisors Chambers in Fairfield.
SURCD Policy Consulting Associates, LLC 119
SOLANO LAFCO
RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
v The District generally demonstrated accountability and transparency with regard to
governance by cooperating with the MSR process, adopting an annual budget prior
to the start of the fiscal year, maintaining a website, and filing of Forms 700
Statement of Economic Interest. SuRCD could improve its accountability practices
by posting its Board meeting agendas and minutes on its website.
v SuRCD follows some of the minimum requirements legally mandated by Public
Resources Code Division 9, including basic reporting and training requirements,
quarterly and monthly requirements, and select policies and plans requirements.
v There are no identified alternative governance structure options for SuRCD. No
annexations or consolidations are being considered at this time.
LAFCO Policies Affecting Service Delivery
v Standards 8 and 9 of the LAFCO Standards and Procedures manual that control
urban growth and protect open space and prime agricultural land through approval
(or denial) of the annexation applications directly affect Solano County RCDs’
service provision since the districts engage in protection of agricultural and open
space lands as part of their missions and strategic goals.
SURCD Policy Consulting Associates, LLC 120
SOLANO LAFCO
RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
REFERENCES
California Conservation Partnership and California Department of Conservation, The
Resource Conservation District Guidebook: A Guide to District Operations and
Management, 1999.
California Department of Conservation, Minimum Requirements CA Resource
Conservation Districts, Retrieved from
http://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/RCD/Pages/Index.aspx
California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection, RCD
Assistance Program, California Resource Conservation District Director’s
Handbook, Retrieved from
http://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/RCD/publications/Documents/RCD%
20Directors%20handbook%202013.pdf
California Department of Finance. Estimates and Projections. Retrieved from
http://www.dof.ca.gov/research/demographic/reports/view.php
California Department of Transportation, Solano County Economic Forecast,
Retrieved from
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tpp/offices/eab/socio_economic_files/2013/Sola
no.pdf
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Public Resources Code Section 21000
et seq. (1970).
Commission on Local Governance for the 21st Century. (2000). Growth within
bounds. Sacramento, CA.
REFERENCES Policy Consulting Associates, LLC 121
SOLANO LAFCO
RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
Cortese-‐ Knox-‐Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000,
Government Code §§ 56000 et seq. (2000).
County of Solano, Department of Human Resources. (2012). Personnel and salary
resolution. Solano, CA. Retrieved from
http://www.co.solano.ca.us/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?blobid=2936.
Cullinan Ranch Tidal Restoration Project. Retrieved from
http://www.restorecullinan.info/home.htm.
Department of Conservation. Minimum CA RCD Requirements Checklist. Retrieved
from http://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/RCD/Pages/Index.aspx.
Department of Water Resources. Retrieved from
http://www.water.ca.gov/irwm/grants/resourceslinks.cfm.
Dixon Resource Conservation District. Retrieved from www.dixonrcd.org.
Government Code, §30055(b), §56033.5, §56824.10.
Government Code §56824.10.
Health and Safety Code, §13800-‐13970, §13862.
Napa County Resource Conservation District. Retrieved from naparcd.org.
Public Resources Code Division 9 Section 9001-‐9978.
Solano County (2008). General Plan: Agriculture.
Solano County (2008). General Plan: Resources.
Solano Resource Conservation District. Retrieved from solanorcd.org.
Solano Local Agency Formation Commission. (1999). Standards and procedures,
glossary of terms, fees and forms, meeting schedule, and map and description
requirements. Solano, CA. Retrieved from
REFERENCES Policy Consulting Associates, LLC 122
SOLANO LAFCO
RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
http://www.solanolafco.com/documents/Standards%20and%20Procedures
%20April%202013.pdf.
Solano Local Agency Formation Commission (2006). Resource Conservation Districts
Municipal Service Review. Davis, CA.
Napa Local Agency Formation Commission (2006). Comprehensive Study of the Napa
County Resource Conservation District.
Suisun Resource Conservation District. Retrieved from www.suisunrcd.org.
U. S. Census Bureau. (2010). State and County Quickfacts. Washington, D.C. Retrieved
from http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06000.html.
REFERENCES Policy Consulting Associates, LLC 123
SOLANO LAFCO
RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
CO N TR I B U TO RS
Agency Name and Title
Dixon Resource Conservation District John Currey, District Manager
Solano Resource Conservation District Chris Rose, Executive Director
Suisun Resource Conservation District Steven Chappell, Executive Director
Suisun Resource Conservation District Kelli Perez, Office Supervisor
Solano County GIS Doina Brownell, GIS Analyst
Solano County GIS Jorge Goicochea, GIS Analyst
INTERVIEWS Policy Consulting Associates, LLC 124