City Of Porterville MSR Update

City of Porterville DRAFT Municipal Service Review Prepared By Tulare County Local Agency Formation Commission September 2014 Table of Contents 1 GROWTH AND POPULATION……………………………………………………………………..4 2 PRESENT AND PLANNED CAPACITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND ADEQUACY OF PUBLIC SERVICES, INCLUDING INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS & DEFICIENCIES……15 3 FINANCING OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS………………………………………….36 4 COST AVOIDANCE OPPORTUNITIES…………………………………………………………..40 5 OPPORTUNITIES FOR RATE RESTRUCTURING……………………………………………..42 6 ANY OTHER MATTER RELATED TO EFFECTIVE OR EFFICIENT SERVICE DELIVERY, AS REQUIRED BY COMMISSION POLICY……………………………………….45 7 GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE OPTIONS………………………………………………………(cid:17)(cid:17)(cid:17) (cid:26)(cid:22) 8 EVALUATION OF MANAGEMENT EFFICIENCIES…………………………………………….. (cid:26)(cid:24) 9 LOCAL ACCOUNTABILITY AND GOVERNANCE………………………………………………(cid:26)(cid:28) 10 OPPORTUNITIES FOR SHARED FACILITIES………………………………………………….. (cid:27)(cid:20) 1 INTRODUCTION This report provides information about the municipal services and Sphere of Influence (SOI) boundaries of the City of Porterville. It is for use by the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) in conducting a statutorily required review and update process. State law requires that the Commission conduct periodic reviews and updates of the Sphere of Influence of each city and district in Tulare County (Government Code section 56425(e)). A Sphere of Influence is the probable extent of the City’s boundary and service area. The Sphere is an important tool used by LAFCO to encourage the orderly formation and growth of local government agencies, preserve open space and agricultural lands, discourage urban sprawl, and encourage the efficient provision of services. The law also requires the Commission to update information about municipal services before adopting Sphere updates (Government Code section 56430). The analysis, conclusions, and recommendations in this report were prepared with information provided by, and in consultation with, the City of Porterville. Data sources including reference documents are available for review in the office of LAFCO. This report contains information about the municipal services provided by the City of Porterville. Information has been gathered about the capacity of services, the ability to provide services, the accountability for service needs, and the efficiency of service provision. The information is organized by six statutory determinations that need to be made by the Commission: (1) Growth and population projections for the affected area. (2) Present and planned capacity of public facilities and adequacy of public services, including infrastructure needs or deficiencies. (3) Financial ability to provide services (4) status of, and opportunities for, cost avoidance and shared facilities. (5) Accountability for community service needs, including governmental structure and operational efficiencies. (6) Any other matter related to effective or efficient service delivery, as required by commission policy. Chapter 6 includes recently required information and determinations related to disadvantaged unincorporated communities. The Executive Officer recommends that the Commission adopt the updated service review information for the City of Porterville. A draft Resolution will be prepared that supports this recommendation. ii 2 CITY OF PORTERVILLE Background The City of Porterville, founded in 1849 and incorporated in 1902, is located in the central southern area of Tulare County in the heart of the agriculturally rich San Joaquin Valley. The City of Porterville operates under the Council-Manager form of government, and became a Charter City in 1926. The City provides the following services that are subject to a municipal service review: public safety (police and fire protection), domestic water, sanitary sewer collection, treatment and disposal, transportation, and solid waste collection and disposal. Power generation and distribution is provided by privately owned utility companies. The Southern California Edison (SCE) Company serves most of the cities within Tulare County, including Porterville. Review of the services provided by privately owned and operated utility companies are excluded from this MSR. It should also be noted that due to the unique nature of healthcare, review of this service has been specifically excluded from this report. Porterville is located in the most diversified agricultural areas in the world. Agriculture is its number one industry, with light manufacturing industries compatible with agriculture adding balance to the economy. Industry has also become a significant factor in the development of the community. The Wal-Mart Distribution Center, Beckman Coulter Inc., and Royalty Carpeting are major industries located in the City. Continued industrial diversification is being encouraged. A combination of factors has created a City with a unique vitality. These include a quality of life valued by its residents, pursuit of industrial diversity for a sound economic base, active community support of youth, education form preschool through Community College levels, careful land use planning through a comprehensive General Plan, and consolidation of the urban area through annexation. In 1994, Porterville was selected for the prestigious All America City Award by the National Civic League. Porterville, situated along the foothills of the Sierras at an elevation of 455 feet, is located on State Highway 65, 165 miles north of Los Angeles, 171 miles east of the Pacific Coast. Porterville is California’s southern gateway for visitors to the Sequoia National Forest and Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks. The City has a strategic central location with access to major transportation routes, which helps maintain its competitiveness in the regional marketplace. State Highways 65 and 190 which intersect in Porterville provide access to other major routes in the region including State Routes 137 and 198 to the north and State Route 99 to the west. Incorporated cities surrounding Porterville include Lindsay and Exeter to the north, and Visalia and Tulare to the northeast. Smaller size communities surrounding Porterville include Springville to the east, Poplar and Woodville to the west, Terra Bella to the south, and Strathmore to the north. 3 3 1 GROWTH AND POPULATION The purpose of this section is to present historical and projected growth patterns and population projections to establish a baseline for the evaluation of service needs. The latest available information from the Department of Finance (DOF) estimates that the City has a population of 55,697 as of January, 20141. 1.1 Historic Growth Patterns The 2010 Census indicated that the City had an incorporated area of 17.61 square miles, 16,734 housing units and a population of 54,165. This is compared to 141,696 housing units and a population of 442,179 for the County as a whole in 2010. In 2010, the City’s population made up 12.3% of the County. The City’s population share has consistently increased from 9.5% in 1990 to10.7% in 2000 and 12.3% in 2010 with a slight decrease to 12.1% in 2014 [Table 1-1]. Table 1-1 Porterville Population Growth Comparisons: 1990-2014 Year Beginning: Average Annual Growth rate Population 1990 2000 2005 2010 2014 1990- 2000- 2005- 2010- 2010 2010 2010 2014 Porterville 29,563 39,615 44,758 54,165 55,697 3.0 2.45 3.9 .70 Tulare 311,921 368,021 404,148 441,245 459,446 1.52 1.67 2.4 1.07 County Porterville as a % of: 9.5% 10.7% 11.0% 12.3% 12.1% NA NA NA NA Tulare County Sources: US Census, California Department of Finance Notes: 1) 1990 & 2000 Population Data Based Upon U.S. Census Data 2)2005 Population Estimated by U.S. Census Data. Table 2: E-4 Population Estimates for Cities 3)2010 Projections for Tulare County Estimated by California DOF, January 2013 4) Table 1: E-5 City/County Population and Housing Estimates, 1/1/2013 Historically Porterville experienced an average growth rate of 3.0 percent between 1990 and 2010. The recession and weak housing market in recent years has caused the annual growth rate to slow in the last four years to 0.7 % between 2010 and 2014. Historical population data and future projections have been obtained from the U.S. Census Bureau, and the California Department of Finance. For analysis purposes, this data is compared to other source data relating to growth and population including the City’s General Plan. Extrapolating the historical 1 California Department of Finance, Demographic Unit : Released May 1, 2014 4 4 1990-2010 growth rate of 3.0% would give the City a population of 97,828 or 15.5% of the county population in 2030. The Department of Finance (DOF) released finalized population projections at the county level on January 31, 2013 [Table 1-2]. The DOF estimates that there will be a population of 630,303 in Tulare County in 2030. If the City’s share of County population continues to grow at the same level as between 1990 and 2010 (1.4%), the City’s population share would be 15.1% of the County in 2030. At 15.1% of 630,303, the City’s population would be 95,176. This would be an annual increase of 2.9%. According to the 2008 Porterville General Plan Update2, the City of Porterville’s population has grown at an average annual rate of 3.7 percent over a 30 year period. Buildout of the General Plan will accommodate a population of approximately 107,300 in the Planning Area. At a 3.7% growth rate, the City would account for 17.2% of the County’s population. However, the City’s population growth slowed to an average annual rate of 2.8 percent from 1990 to 2005. As indicated by the City’s General Plan, and Water and Sewer Master Plans, a population of 55,408 was estimated by 2010, US Census data shows a 2010 population of 54,165. It is reasonable to assume that the City’s population will continue to grow at an average annual rate between 2.5% and 3%. Table 1-2 California Department of Finance Population Projections Estimate Projections 2000 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 California 34,000,835 37,309,832 38,801,063 40,643,643 42,451,76044,279,354 46,083,482 47,690,18649,108,689 50,365,074 Tulare 368,805 443,066 473,785 526,718 575,294 630,303 682,022 722,838 755,809 784,334 County Projections Prepared by Demographic Research Unit, California Department of Finance, January 2013 The 2007 MSR for the City of Porterville assumed a growth rate range between 2.5 and 3.0%. The historical growth rate of 3% between 1990 and 2010, and the growth rate of 2.89% using DOF projections in combination with the City’s share of County population all fall within the original range. The City’s General Plan Update estimated a growth rate of 3.7%. Historical trends indicate that this estimate may be a little on the high side [Table 1-3]. The historical growth rate of 3% includes the annexation of large residentially developed County islands. A continued 3% growth rate would include both continued annexation of developed County areas and natural growth. As indicated in Table 1-1, it is estimated that Porterville’s population will reach approximately 97,828 by year 2030, by applying an average annual growth rate of 3.0% (consistent with historical trends). Since incorporated cities typically experience higher growth rates than the unincorporated areas of Tulare County, it is anticipated that Porterville will make up approximately 15.1% of the overall County population by year 2030, compared to 12.3% in 2010. 2 Porterville General Plan, 2008. (http://www.ci.porterville.ca.us/depts/CommunityDevelopment/generalplan.cfm) 5 5 Table 1-3 Growth Rate Comparison 2007 Porterville DOF/County Historic Historic MSR General Plan 2008 Share* 2000-2010 1990-2010 % Annual 3.0% 3.7% 2.85% 2.5% 3.0% Growth 2030 93,164 107,300 95,175 88,755 97,828 Population *assumes 1.4% increase in City share of County population every 10 years. Based upon information obtained from the Tulare County LAFCO GIS database, the City Limits of Porterville incorporate approximately 10,848 acres of land, while the City’s SOI incorporates approximately 14,600 acres of land. Ongoing County island annexations have increased the amount of land within the City, and the City’s overall population. Recent annexation approvals by LAFCO (recorded as of April 2, 2014) have incorporated approximately 737 additional acres of land within the City’s SOI into the City Limits since April 2006. Table 1-4 - City Area Increase 1980 to 2013 1/1/1980 1/1/2014 Annexed 1/1/1980 1/1/2010 Annexed % Acres Acres Acres Sq. Sq. Sq. Increase Miles Miles Miles Porterville 6,429.9 10,848 4,418.1 10.0 16.95 6.95 68.7 The City of Porterville is primarily a mix of urban and rural areas, with a growing population. Over half of the land within the total land area was being used for agriculture and other rural uses (generally categorized as Agriculture/Rural/Conservation), 13 percent of the planning area is categorized as single family use, 10 percent was identified as vacant land. Other land uses such as commercial, retail, and industrial make up the balance. The City’s available residential, industrial and commercial land base is currently building out and may in the future require additional areas for growth. Single-family housing construction in Porterville is likely to continue its growth despite several significant economic hardship cycles. The City population has grown steadily in the last two decades but has seen a decline in the last five years. The housing stock has also increased in the last 10 years due to annexations of unincorporated islands. 1.2 Planning Documents The City of Porterville plans for future growth through the implementation of policies and standards set forth in General Plan Elements. The General Plan is a long-term, comprehensive framework to guide physical, social and economic development within a community’s planning area. It is a long-range guide for attaining the City’s goals within its ultimate service area and 6 6 accommodating its population growth to the year 2030. According to the California Planners’ Book of Lists 2011 (Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, June 2011)3, the seven mandated elements of a City’s General Plan are as follows:  Land Use  Circulation  Housing  Open Space  Conservation  Safety  Noise The City undertook a comprehensive update of the General Plan in 2008, updating all mandated elements except Housing, which is addressed below. In addition, the City of Porterville included optional elements for: Economic Development; Parks, Schools, and Community Facilities; and Public Utilities. The City’s General Plan prior to 2008 was last comprehensively updated in 1989. The City’s Housing Element, which is updated every five years, was last updated in 2009, and has a planning period between 2009 and 2014. For this reason, the City’s Housing Element is considered to be up to date, but is due to be updated in the near future. The City has initiated efforts to update the Housing Element and expects to adopt the update in 2015 per the schedule identified by the Tulare County Association of Governments, on behalf of the State. The City also plans for future growth through the preparation and implementation of specific plans and master plans. The following master plans have been provided for use in the preparation of this municipal service review; Porterville Municipal Airport Master Plan Report (Hodges & Shutt, April 1990), 1994 Update of City of Porterville Storm Drain Master Plan (Charles W. Roberts, Consulting Civil Engineer, Inc., October 1994), Sewer System Master Plan (Carollo Engineers, February 2001), Water System Master Plan (Carollo Engineers, February 2001). These infrastructure master plans are discussed further in subsequent sections of this report, as applicable. Porterville staff has indicated that Master Plans will be updated after the adoption of the Urban Development Boundary, anticipated in late 2014 or early 2015. The City should consult with LAFCO prior to adopting any new boundaries. 1.3 Planning Boundaries Land use within Porterville is guided through the implementation of goals and policies set forth in the Porterville General Plan Land Use Element. The Land Use Element is considered the most prominent of the seven mandatory elements of the General Plan, as it determines the general location of residential, commercial, industrial, public and open space uses in addition to disclosing building intensities and population densities for the planning area. The land use and circulation elements of the General Plan have been termed the “blueprints” for the development of a City. The goals, policies, and implementation measures of the elements are considered to be the “instructions for the blueprints”. 3 http://opr.ca.gov/docs/2011bol.pdf 7 7 Porterville’s Land Use Element designates the general distribution of land for residential, commercial, industrial, agricultural and governmental development. The plan includes land outside the City’s boundaries, providing a comprehensive growth and development plan. The City’s website contains extensive information with regard to economic development within Porterville. The economic development section on the City’s website includes information regarding available industrial sites, commercial sites, and downtown business opportunities, business incentives, and redevelopment. The Urban Development Boundary (UDB) protects the health, safety, welfare, and quality of life of the residents of Porterville by concentrating future residential, commercial, and industrial growth in areas already served by urban services or areas where such services are to be provided consistent with the General Plan. The UDB is an administrative boundary beyond which urban development is not allowed during the time period for which it is effective. The current UDB was most recently amended in 1993. The City of Porterville is currently in the process of updating its current UDB. The 2006 City of Porterville Municipal Services Review (MSR) recommended the City review land use demand and supply at least every five years. An excerpt from that report is below: The City should undertake a review of the land use demand and supply no less than once every five years to ensure that land zoned for General Plan development continues to meet the growth needs of the City. It is recommended that the City coordinate this process with the scheduled updates to Spheres of Influence and/or 20-year UDB’s. The City of Porterville 2008 General Plan Update includes Land Use Implementation Policy LU- I-3 which states that the City will amend the UDB in order to guide growth through annexation and development, and the efficient extension of public services to new areas. LU-I-3: The UDB will be periodically reviewed and updated to ensure that it provides for a 10-year supply of developable residential land and a 20- year supply of developable commercial and industrial land, consistent with the General Plan and LAFCO requirements. The UDB will be adopted separately by the City Council as a General Plan implementation policy. Porterville’s commercial development is centered in the downtown, and along the Olive Avenue corridor, which traverses the central portion of the City in an east-west direction. Additional commercial development is located along the Highway 65, specifically in the vicinity of Henderson Avenue, Morton Avenue, and Olive Avenue. The City’s industrial areas are located in the southwest quadrant of the City near the Porterville Municipal Airport, north and south of Highway 190, west of Plano Street, and northern part of the City along North Main Street. Schools and parks are scattered throughout the community, locating in neighborhoods that are experiencing a demand for these types of public facilities. 8 8 Figure 1-1a City of Porterville City Limits and Current Sphere of Influence 9 9 Figure 1-1b City of Porterville City Limits and Proposed Sphere of Influence 10 10 11 11 1.4 Annexations The City has continued to actively annex land included with its SOI and 20-year UDB into the City Limits in line with development interest consistent with City and County General Plan policies. Tulare County LAFCO has approved the annexation of several “County islands” in accordance with SB 1266 (Torlakson) which expanded the maximum area for island annexations from 75 to 150 acres as of January 1, 2005. The recorded island annexations incorporated just over 600 acres of land into the City. Recent annexation approvals by LAFCO (recorded as of April 2, 2014) have incorporated approximately 737 additional acres of land within the City’s SOI into the City Limits since April 2006. However, only 50 acres have been annexed in the past 5 years. With the passage and enrollment of AB 743 (Logue) last year, the sunset date for the expiration of the streamlined island annexation process was removed. In addition, the creation date for qualifying islands was moved from 1/1/2000 to 1/1/2014. The streamlined island annexation process exempts qualifying islands from protest and election procedures. Due to the change in creation date, several new County islands now qualify for these procedures. In Tulare County, Porterville has the only developed island (East Porterville) that is greater than 150 acres. However, there are islands within East Porterville that are substantially surrounded and can still qualify for the streamlined annexation process. As indicated on Figure 1-2, there are still some remaining “County islands” located within the outer boundary of the Porterville City Limits. These remaining “County islands” have a total land area of approximately 532 acres. It is recommended that the City continue to pursue the annexation of these remaining “County islands”, as administratively feasible, to establish a more definitive and organized City Limit Boundary. Local policy currently defines “substantially surrounded” as 65% surrounded by a city. For reference, listed in Figure 1-3 are all areas that are at least 50% surrounded by the City. 12 12 Figure 1-2 Porterville Unincorporated County Island Map 13 13 Map % Housing Road C/L Area Assessed ID Island Surr. Units People (Miles) (Acres) Parcels Value Figure 1-3 Porterville Unincorporated County Island Data 14 CUD Unincorporated County Islands 10 G‐Henderson 100% 3 9 0.00 2.3 3 $272,423 1 Newcomb‐Castle 100% 5 15 0.00 8.3 6 $844,089 11 Main 1 100% 0 0 0.00 0.1 1 $20,682 9 Mulberry‐Main 100% 159 506 2.52 115.0 169 $14,841,018 X 3 Cobb 100% 44 117 0.23 36.4 35 $3,931,314 16 Pettis‐SR190 98% 14 40 0.23 8.6 11 $829,719 X 5 North Main 88% 4 13 0.15 34.2 10 $2,939,583 22 Prospect‐Roby 87% 176 603 1.49 59.4 167 $11,566,815 X 14 Isham‐Leggett 87% 2 11 0.12 3.6 5 $317,448 X 20 Airport‐Newcomb 83% 2 5 0.00 4.8 1 $130,827 15 River‐Leggett 82% 208 844 1.78 116.9 157 $10,117,376 X 23 Newcomb‐Roby 79% 61 203 1.27 32.0 66 $5,081,660 X 8 Lime 78% 13 30 0.06 24.9 16 $2,369,587 13 Cemetery 78% 0 0 0.10 11.9 2 $155,597 6 Highland 1 76% 2 6 0.00 1.0 2 $60,435 4 Johns 73% 1 3 0.00 2.6 2 $283,572 12 Olive‐Conner 69% 13 48 0.24 22.8 14 $898,151 X 19 Gibbons‐Main 66% 4 10 0.20 9.6 6 $432,380 2 Maston‐Baker 66% 66 214 0.57 18.6 67 $4,709,113 X 17 Tract 44 65% 33 90 0.35 19.2 33 $2,306,996 X 2A Maston‐Baker Exp. 64% 20 102 0.08 8.2 20 $1,706,235 X 24 Olive‐Westwood 63% 232 750 1.68 85.7 188 $19,322,194 X 7 Highland 2 61% 1 3 0.00 1.7 2 $363,321 21 Tract 41 58% 61 241 0.93 32.9 52 $7,472,443 X 18 Gibbons‐Plano 50% 144 461 1.88 112.7 117 $7,883,992 X 14 2 PRESENT AND PLANNED CAPACITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND ADEQUACY OF PUBLIC SERVICES, INCLUDING INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS & DEFICIENCIES The purpose of this section is to evaluate the infrastructure needs and deficiencies of the City of Porterville in terms of availability of resources, capacity to deliver services, condition of facilities, service quality, and levels of service. An overview of services including water, storm drainage, wastewater collection and treatment, streets and roads, fire and police protection, and solid waste is provided focusing on past improvements and planned future improvements. LAFCO is responsible for determining that an agency requesting an SOI amendment is reasonably capable of providing needed resources and basic infrastructure to serve areas within the City and its SOI. It is important that these findings of infrastructure and resource availability are made when revisions to the SOI and annexations occur. LAFCO accomplishes this by evaluating the resources and services to be expanded in line with increasing demands. 2.1 Capital Improvement Plan (2013-2023) The City prepares, and updates annually, a comprehensive ten-year plan or Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) to identify capital improvement needs and funding for capital infrastructure projects related to transportation, storm drain, domestic water, sanitary sewer, community development, and parks and leisure. For fiscal year 2013-2014, the City’s CIP identified over $35 million in capital projects4. The preparation of the City’s ten-year CIP involves several months of planning and development by key management team members who evaluate the City’s capital improvement needs to accommodate the community both now and in the future. The ten-year CIP reflects the City Council goals and targets for capital improvements that implement General Plan strategies. The City Council includes funded projects for the current fiscal year portion of the CIP in the City’s corresponding annual budgets and adopts the CIP as a component of the annual budget. The City’s CIP is a systematic program of planning in advance for capital improvements to the community. The CIP includes projects that help achieve the following:  Acquire lands for community projects such as streets, utilities, drainage basins and park expansions;  Repair, reconstruct or rehabilitate public facilities to extend their useful life, preserve the community’s investment in these facilities and maintain the quality of life in the community;  Expand or extend public facilities consistent with the General Plan and Infrastructure Master Plans;  Facilitate the development and redevelopment of the community’s commercial and industrial base. The CIP is designed as a planning tool to assist the community in its orderly development in the acquisition of municipal facilities and to assure that service needs for the future are met. The CIP ties the City’s physical development to goals and decisions expressed through hearings, citizen advisory groups, the City staff, and documents including the City’s General Plan and infrastructure master plans. The CIP identifies projects which meet City Council goals and it 4 www.ci.porterville.ca.us/depts/Finance/ : Annual budget Reports 2013-2014 res. 39-2013 15 15 also matches projects with available funds that may range from various City reserve funds, user fees, impact fees, state and federal grants, bonds, and loans. CIP projects are generally consistent with 1) the City’s General Plan; 2) Master Plans and related documents; 3) the City Council’s goals; and 4) mandates from state or federal regulatory agencies. The City’s CIP is reviewed with the City Council on an annual basis during budget development to reaffirm current priorities to meet the General Plan requirements for growth. The CIP undergoes annual reviews by the CIP review committee, comprised of department heads and the City Manager. The CIP typically does not change significantly from year to year, but rather new items are generally added to the end of the report, and other projects are moved forward. The City’s CIP identifies over twenty-five revenue sources from which CIP projects are funded. The CIP provides a comprehensive description of each revenue source, and how the resources are allocated. Projects for which funding is currently not available, but which are considered important in carrying out the goals of the City Council, are included in a separate section of the City’s CIP for future planning efforts. 2.2 Domestic Water Sources relied upon to complete this section include the 2030 Porterville General Plan and Program EIR, the 2006 Storm Water Management Program for the City of Porterville and the Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin (Basin Plan), California’s Groundwater Bulletin 118, correspondence with city staff and Resolution 10-2014. The City of Porterville continues to rely solely on groundwater for supplying municipal water to its residents. A series of groundwater wells generally scattered west of Plano Avenue and south of Westfield Avenue extract water from the aquifers underlying the City which are recharged from rainfall and runoff of the western Sierra Nevada. The primary water system contributing to recharge of the Tule Basin Aquifer underlying Porterville is the Tule River. In addition to groundwater, the City has purchased water rights for about 900 acre-feet annually from the Pioneer Ditch Company and Porter Slough Ditch Company. Some of this water is used for a small pond at Murry Park in Porterville, but historically most of this water has not been used by the City5. The San Joaquin Valley Groundwater Basin lies within the San Joaquin River and Tulare Lake Hydrologic Regions. The southern portion of the basin lies in the Tulare Lake Hydrologic Region and consists of seven groundwater sub-basins. These sub-basins are the Kings, Westside, Kaweah, Tulare Lake, Pleasant Valley, Tule, and Kern [Figure 2-1]. The Tulare Lake HR portion of the basin covers approximately 5.15 million acres. Groundwater is extensively used in the San Joaquin Valley Groundwater Basin by agricultural and urban entities and accounts for approximately 48% of the groundwater used in the State (DWR 2003).6 The Tulare Lake Hydraulic Region is in an area significantly affected by overdraft. The Department of Water Resources (DWR) has estimated the groundwater by hydrologic region and for the Tulare Lake Basin; the total overdraft is estimated at 820,000 acre-feet per year, the 5 City of Porterville Water System Master Plan 2001 6 California’s Groundwater Bulletin 118, 1/20/06 16 16 greatest overdraft projected in the state, and 54 percent of the statewide total overdraft.7 Figure 2.1 Tulare Lake Hydraulic Region The Tule Sub-basin is within the Tulare Lake Hydrologic Region and comprises an area of approximately 467,000 acres (733 mi2) in Tulare County. The sub-basin is generally bordered on the north by the Kaweah Sub-basin, on the south by the Kern Sub-basin, on the west by the 7 Public Update for Drought Response Groundwater Basins with Potential Water Shortages and Gaps in Groundwater Monitoring 17 17 Tulare Lake Sub-basin, and on the east by crystalline bedrock of the Sierra Nevada foothills.8 Groundwater recharge is primarily from stream recharge and from deep percolation of applied irrigation water.9 The Tule Groundwater Sub-basin is generally bounded on the west by the Tulare County line, excluding those portions of the Tulare Lake Sub-basin Water Storage District and Sections 29 and 30 of Township 23 South, Range 23 East, that area west of the Homeland Canal. This boundary is shared with the Tulare Lake Groundwater Sub-basin. The northern boundary of the sub-basin follows the northern boundaries of Lower Tule Irrigation District and Porterville Irrigation District and is shared with the Kaweah Groundwater Sub-basin. The eastern boundary is at the edge of the alluvium and crystalline bedrock of the Sierra Nevada foothills, and the southern boundary is the Tulare-Kern County line and is shared with the Kern County Groundwater Basin.10 West-flowing Tule River, Deer Creek and the White River are the major drainages in the sub- basin which empty into the Tulare lakebed. Annual average precipitation is seven to 11 inches, increasing eastward. 2.2.1 Capacity There are 35 active wells serving the Planning Area. The City has approximately 14,000 metered connections, of which 13,000 are residential meters. A telemetry system controls the operation of 22 of the City's 35 active well pumps to maintain system pressure under varying loads. The water levels in the reservoirs are also monitored and controlled by the computerized telemetry control system. According to the 2009 Groundwater Conditions Report the City’s water distribution system consists of various groundwater wells, a network of approximately 200 miles of water pipes ranging in size from 2 to 16 inches in diameter, booster pump stations, storage tanks, and pressure reducing valves maintained and operated by the Public Works Department. The City’s municipal wells are generally scattered west of Plano Avenue and south of Westfield Avenue [Figure 2-2]. The area east of Plano Avenue is considered water deficient and water is pumped from the wells located in western and central Porterville. The City currently operates and maintains six hillside reservoirs: four with a capacity of 3,000,000 gallons, one with a capacity of 550,000 gallons, and one with a capacity of 300,000 gallons. The City’s wells have a total maximum production efficiency of approximately 14,000-15,000 gallons per minute (GPM). Most of the City’s wells are gravel packed and range from 230 feet to 700 feet in depth. Some City wells have seen severe yield declines in the last ten years, for example, from 1,500 gallons per minute (gpm) to 500 or 600 gpm. However, well rehabilitation may be able to restore these wells to their previous performance levels, since some of the declines are caused by encrustation. New wells typically have capacities of 500 gpm or less. 8 California’s Groundwater Bulletin 118, 1/20/06 9 Hilton and others 1963; DWR 1995 10 California’s Groundwater San Joaquin Valley Groundwater Basin Bulletin 118 18 18 Figure 2-2 Well Locations serving the City of Porterville http://www.ci.porterville.ca.us/depts/CommunityDevelopment/generalplan.cfm 19 19 The City has a groundwater management policy which does not discourage additional reliance on the groundwater aquifers as the source for future water supply. At the January 21, 2014, City Council meeting, Council approved Resolution 10-2014, a resolution of support of Governor Brown's declaration of a state of emergency due to drought conditions. Rainfall totals throughout the State are at record lows and the city of Porterville is now entering its third year of significantly reduced rainfall, with Lake Success storage levels remaining low and little snow pack currently in the Southern Sierra Nevada Mountains. The City also has 10 million gallons of storage tank capacity, which helps with summer peaking demands. The water level in the City’s 35 wells has dropped an average of 22 feet from the summer of 2012 to the summer of 2013. If the drought continues and water levels continue to drop, the City may experience pumping problems in the next few years. However, the drop in water level noted herein is not dissimilar in magnitude from what the city has experienced in past very dry periods. The city's aquifers have proven to be quite resilient and time and again have recovered satisfactorily during the wet years. The City of Porterville is currently in Phase II of the City's Water Conservation Plan. Phase II applies during periods when there is a water supply shortage.11 The City Council has indicated that such drought conditions will have devastating impacts on the agricultural industry, which will have widespread adverse environmental, economic and social impacts on the people of California and the city of Porterville. Figure 2-3 Current and Planned Water Supply 2.2.2 Surface Water The Tule River, which flows through the central portion of the City’s planning area, is one of the principal watercourses in Tulare County. Under normal conditions discharge in this river is regulated by Success Dam, located approximately 5 miles upstream of Porterville. Porter Slough is a natural distributary of the Tule River and flows through the center of Porterville. It originates from the Tule River approximately four miles upstream from the City, and returns to the river approximately 17 miles below its point of origin. Both San Joaquin and Tule River waters originate primarily from rain and snowmelt in the Sierra Nevada and have good to excellent water quality12. Tule River water is delivered from Lake 11 12 Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin 20 20 Success. According to the Lower Tule River Irrigation District, the lake periodically experiences turnover episodes in the spring and fall which have caused hydrogen sulfide problems. In the summer and fall, the lake experiences algae growth problems. These problems can be remedied with water treatment. During periods of wet weather, rain carries pollutants and sediments from all parts of a watershed into surface water bodies such as storm drains, streams, rivers, reservoirs, or marshes. In an urban setting, natural drainage patterns have been altered and storm water runoff, as well as non-storm discharge (irrigation water, accidental spills, wash-down water, etc.), picks up sediments and contaminants from land surfaces, and transports these pollutants into surface and ground water. The diffused sources of pollutants range from: parking lots, bare earth at construction sites, agricultural sites, and a host of many other sources. Therefore, storm water discharged to surface waters may carry pollution from “nonpoint” sources. The total amount of pollutants entering aquatic systems from these diffused, non-point sources is now generally considered to be greater than that from any other source, such as pipe discharges (point source). 2.2.3 Regional Regulations The Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) regulates all municipal wastewater discharges to protect the quality and beneficial uses of ground water and surface water resources, to maximize reclamation and reuse, and to eliminate waste associated health hazards. In the currently unincorporated areas of the Planning Area, Tulare County Flood Control and Water Conservation District is responsible for storm drain maintenance. Porterville has adopted Tulare County’s well standards. The County Environmental Health Department issues permits, collects fees and enforces standards within the City limits. The City is able to remotely monitor and control the operations of the water system through the use of a Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition System (SCADA). Although the SCADA system is capable of operating and monitoring most of the water system, some wells and tanks are still operated with local pressure switches with on/off set points. The City’s SCADA system allows staff to monitor the system operations, and respond to any problems that may occur in a timely manner. The City’s water system is 99% metered, which promotes water conservation. The City of Porterville has been proactive in water conservation and education. Less than normal rainfall and runoff makes efforts to promote water conservation a high priority. In addition to the benefits of conserving water as a limited natural resource, additional benefits accrue to the community in the form of a reduced impact on the Wastewater Treatment Facility and a reduction in energy costs when water supplies are conserved.13 In the 1990s, the City successfully implemented a comprehensive phased water conservation plan, and has continued to follow the water conservation plan through the years. The City’s water conservation plan was updated in August 2014 to align with recently approved regulations from the State Water Resources Control Board. The most significant change to the City’s water conservation plan was the stricter definition and enforcement measures associated with conservation needs. In 13City of Porterville Water Conservation Plan , version 3.0 August 19, 2014 http://www.ci.porterville.ca.us/documents/WaterConservationPlanv3.0FINAL.pdf 21 21 addition to public education efforts, such as those identified below, mandatory watering schedules are now identified and enforced. Public Education Efforts:  Letter mailings to restaurants  Letter mailing to large apartment complexes  Utility bill inserts with water conservation tips  Promoting May as water conservation awareness month  Handed out water saving kits and information at the Porterville Fair  Media campaign involving newspaper, radio, website, and City newsletters Drought Response Efforts:  Enforcement of mandatory watering schedule  Considering rate increases to encourage conservation during times of severe supply shortage  Adoption of a “water waster” citation fine The City’s website contains numerous flyers, presentations, and newsletters informing the public on easy ways to save water, leak detection, and landscape watering. The City’s efforts in promoting water conservation significantly improve the City’s ability to continue to provide quality water service to its customers. The City’s water supply and distribution system was studied as a part of the Water System Master Plan (Carollo Engineers, February 2001). The City’s Water System Master Plan is designed to accommodate a population of 65,807, which would accommodate growth through year 2015. The planning area for the master plan coincides with the City’s UDB. As previously noted, the City in 2009 prepared a comprehensive update to their General Plan, and will update their UDB following Commission adoption of the SOI update. For this reason, the next update to the City’s Water System Master Plan (estimated to be completed soon after the updated UDB) should include a planning area consistent with the City’s updated UDB and/or SOI. The Urban Water Management Planning Act requires the Department of Water Resources to evaluate Urban Water Management Plans adopted by urban water suppliers pursuant to Section 10610.4 (c) and submitted to the Department no later than 30 days after adoption and updating once every five years, on or before December 31 in years ending in five and zero. It is recommended that the City of Porterville continue to comply with the requirements of the Urban Water Management Planning Act. Non-compliant urban water suppliers are ineligible to receive funding pursuant to Division 24 (commencing with section 78500) or Division 26 (commencing with section 79000), or receive drought assistance from the State until the UWMP is submitted pursuant to the Urban Water Management Planning Act. State funding for urban water improvements are often necessary to aid agencies in providing quality water service, especially during drought periods. An UWMP has many uses including the following: 1. Long range planning document for water supply; 2. Source document for cities and counties as they prepare their General Plans; 3. Foundation document and source of information for a Water Supply Assessment and a Written Verification of Water Supply; and 22 22 4. Key component to an Integrated Regional Water Management Plan. According to the Department of Water Resources, some changes have been made since the of the Urban Water Management Planning (UWMP) Act (Division 6 Part 2.6 of the Water Code §10610 - 10656) was enacted in 2005. Recent Law Changes In addition to some changes in the Urban Water Management Planning Act since the last UWMPs were submitted in 2005, Governor Schwarzenegger in his 20x2020 Plan determined that for California to continue to have enough water support its growing population, it needs to reduce the amount of water each person uses per day (Per Capita Daily Consumption, which is measured in gallons per capita per day). This reduction of 20 percent per capita use by the year 2020 is supported by legislation passed in November 2009 SB X7-7 (Steinberg). Water conservation. SB X7-7 has amended and repealed some sections of the Water Code and may affect reporting requirements under the Urban Water Management Planning Act and other government codes. 2010 Urban Water Management Plans The 2010 UWMPs must be adopted by July 1, 2011 and submitted to DWR by August 1, 2011. Usually, UWMPs are due on December 31 of years ending in 0 and 5, but a 6- month extension has been granted for submittal of the 2010 UWMPs to provide additional time for water suppliers to address the SB X7-7 requirements. The 2010 UWMP Guidebook to support water suppliers in UWMP preparation is available on the Guidebook and Files site. The Urban Water Management Plan for the City of Porterville was recently updated and was adopted by the City Council in August 2014. This plan evaluates the City’s water resources over a 21-year planning horizon from 2014 to 2035. This UWMP focuses on the City, but still addresses some areas outside of the City that are within the Planning Area as defined in the General Plan update. The Planning Area covers about 56.8 square miles. In 2005, approximately 27,800 acres (43.5 square miles) or about 75 percent of the Planning Area lied outside of the existing city limits within unincorporated Tulare County. The Planning Area encompasses land that is of interest for long-term planning, including hillsides and surrounding agricultural land. However, being included within the Planning Area does not necessarily mean that the City is considering annexation. The UWMP discusses the reliability of water supplies and their vulnerability to seasonal and climatic shortages. Seasonal deficiencies are based on precipitation patterns of individual watersheds. The City’s design will take into account adverse impacts from climate change. 23 23 2.3 Wastewater Collection, Treatment, and Disposal The City provides sanitary sewer collection, treatment, and disposal services to residents in the City of Porterville and the nearby community of East Porterville. The City’s sewer collection system consists of approximately 150 miles of 6-inch through 36-inch diameter pipes, and also includes approximately 21 sewage lift stations and associated force mains. The sanitary sewer collection system consists of gravity collection pipes, manholes, service laterals, pump stations, and trunk sewer mains. The Wastewater Treatment Facility (WWTF) is an activated sludge plant consisting of headworks, lift station, bucket and bar screens, aerated grit chamber, primary and secondary clarifiers, sludge thickeners, primary and secondary sludge digesters, sludge drying beds, a septage receiving station, a chlorine contact tank, and an emergency storage pond. A percolation disposal field of approximately 52 acres just south of the reclamation site is used for percolation during periods of low irrigation demand.14 Digested sludge is pumped from the WWTF through a 6-inch diameter pipeline to sludge drying beds lined with soil cement located on City property southwest of the airport. It should be noted that the sewer flows tributary to the WWTF include flows from the Porter Vista Public Utility District (PVPUD), serving the unincorporated community of East Porterville, a Census Designated Place. Approximately 80 percent of the flows from the PVPUD are pumped from a lift station located on the east side of Park Street, and approximately 450 feet north of the intersection with Date Avenue. The remaining 20 percent of the flows from the PVPUD are routed via a 12-inch gravity pipe to the lift station at Jaye Street, south of the Tule River, and then to the City’s 18-inch Jaye Street trunk line. Sewer flows from the PVPUD are not currently metered, making it difficult for the City to regulate the amount of flows contributed from the PVPUD. In the previous MSR Tulare County LAFCO suggested the City consider metering flows from the PVPUD in order to ensure that the PVPUD is paying its fair share of costs based upon the amount flow they are contributing. The City has not yet begun metering flows, but staff is looking into technologies and options to assist in such an effort, and hope to request approval of metering from the City Council within the near future, possibly associated with considerate of the pending updates to the Sewer Master Plan. Table 2-1 Historic Wastewater Influent Flows Year Average Flow (mgd) 2007 4.7 2008 4.7 2009 4.6 2010 4.7 2011 4.8 2012 4.8 2013 4.6 In 2006, the WWTF average influent was 5.1 mgd or approximately 117 gallons per capita. Table 2-1 shows the historic influent flows at the WWTF since the year 2007, per data compiled by the WWTF Superintendent. The facility includes percolation ponds which allow reclaimed 14 www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/board_decisions/tentative_orders/0803/cityofporterville/porterville_info.pdf 24 24 water to recharge the aquifer. The WWTF manages more than 750 acres, mostly southwest of the Porterville Municipal Airport, for reclamation purposes; however, only up to 500 acres currently receive WWTF effluent. Up to 25 percent of the WWTF water is used to irrigate reclamation land. According to the Standard Provisions and Reporting Requirements for Waste Discharges, the City should initiate planning and engineering for additional WWTF capacity when the volume of influent at existing facility has reached 80 percent of the plant capacity. Accordingly, when the influent flow reaches 6.4 mgd, the City will need to begin designing for additional plant capacity. The volume of influent at the WWTF, based on historic growth trends in influent flows, has decreased slightly since 2007, but has held relatively steady through the last seven years. However, with planned housing and economic development, growth under the general plan may increase the yearly average. Using the general plan’s future population and an average per capita flow (117 gallons), the average influent flow that the City should plan for is 12.5 mgd in 2030. If the general plan’s goal of 10 percent water conservation is met, then the average influent flow would be reduced proportionally to approximately 11.3 mgd. In both cases, this future treatment need exceeds the existing WWTF capacity, so the City would need to increase the treatment plant capacity by 3.5–4.5 mgd before 2030.15 The City’s current Sewer System Master Plan addresses the following issues with regard to the continuous development and improvement of the City’s water supply and distribution system. Planning Area Characteristics  Planning Area  Land Use  Population & Staged Growth Planning and Design Criteria  Design Capacities (Pipe Capacities, Pump Stations/Force Mains)  Design Flows (WWTF Flows, Flow Monitoring Program) Existing System & Hydraulic Model  Existing Sewer System  Future Hydraulic Model Sewer System Evaluation and Proposed Facilities Improvements  Existing Collection System Deficiencies  Expansion Improvements Capital Improvement Program  Cost Estimates  CIP Development  Sewer Connection Fees Analysis/Recommendations The City should continue to identify capital sewer system improvements in its comprehensive ten year CIP, consistent with the recommendations contained within the Sewer System Master 15 Riverwalk Marketplace II Revised Draft EIR February 2011 25 25 Plan. Provided the City continues to implement improvements recommended in its Sewer System Master Plan, the City will be in a position to support future development within its UDB and SOI. Sewer collection system improvements are funded through the City’s sewer revolving fund and development impact fees. While the City’s Sewer System Master Plan addresses the sanitary sewer collection system, future expansions to the WWTF are not addressed. Several years ago, a study was completed to determine the feasibility of relocating the WWTF from its current location near the center of town. At that time, it was determined to be infeasible or not cost effective to relocate the facility. It is recommended that the City complete a master plan for the WWTF to address future capacity expansion abilities at its current location, or the possibility of constructing a WWTF at a new location. 2.4 Streets and Roads The City constructs transportation improvements through the implementation of goals and policies set forth in the City’s General Plan Circulation Element, and other plans, including the Tulare County Regional Transportation Plan, which is updated every three years. The City’s budget identifies several funds which are set up primarily for the implementation of transportation improvements, including but not limited to the following.  Special Gas Tax Fund – The special gas tax fund is a restricted fund required by the State to account for monies received from gasoline taxes. The majority of this money must be expended for constructing or improving major City streets.  Local Transportation Fund – This fund is used to account for monies received from the County of Tulare for public transportation purposes. Revenues to each County’s local transportation fund are derived from one-quarter cent of the sales tax collected in that County.  Traffic Safety Fund – This fund was established based on Section 1463 of the Penal Code which states that all fines and forfeitures collected from any person charged with a misdemeanor under this code shall be deposited into a special fund known as the “Traffic Safety Fund.” These funds are to be used exclusively for official traffic control devices and the maintenance thereof, equipment and supplies for traffic law enforcement and traffic accident prevention, and for the maintenance, improvement, or construction of public streets, bridges, and culverts within the City, but not for the compensation of traffic or other police officers.  Transit Fund – The transit fund was established in fiscal year 1982-83 to account for the income and expenses of the Demand Response program which is operated by a private contractor. Revenue sources include fare box revenues and federal grants, however, the primary source, state gasoline taxes designated specifically for public transit operations, pays the major portion of operating costs. The Demand Response system operates six days a week (excluding Sunday), and was expanded to six routes as of January 2, 2003. The Demand Response system continues to exceed ridership expectations.  Transportation Development Fund– This fund accounts for the collection and distribution of the newly adopted Traffic Impact Fee, which is assessed on new developments. These funds are used for the implementation of the Circulation 26 26 Element. The City implements street improvements through annual street programs, and its 10-year CIP, which plans for the funding of future transportation improvement projects. The City continually maintains and improves its street system through implementation of the following annual street programs:  Miscellaneous alley projects  Curb, gutter & sidewalk program  Overlay program  Chip seal program  Signal upgrades  Street sign upgrades The City also budgeted over $7 million in funding for twenty two street related capital improvement projects during fiscal year 2014-201516. The City should continue to identify capital transportation related improvements in its comprehensive ten year CIP, consistent with the implementation of the City’s General Plan Circulation Element. The City will need to continue to implement its General Plan Circulation Element goals and policies to meet the future needs of the community. It is recommended that the City take the lead in planning for transportation and circulation improvements within the boundaries of its 20-year UDB and SOI. Streets within this area should be constructed to City standards, since it is likely that the area will ultimately be incorporated into and become a part of the City of Porterville. 2.5 Solid Waste Collection and Disposal The City of Porterville Field Services Division is responsible for the removal of solid waste within the incorporated City Limits. There are three residential collections per household each week, while commercial collections occur six times weekly. Waste is conveyed to a sanitary landfill site located approximately seven miles southwest of the City at Avenue 128 and Road 208 and serves the City and surrounding area. The site is operated by Tulare County and has an estimated remaining life of seven to eight years. Unincorporated portions of the planning area are provided solid waste removal services by private contractors, which are licensed with Tulare County. Residential pickup in these areas occurs twice per week. The City of Porterville’s Public Works Department provides commercial, residential, an industrial refuse collection to all locations within the City of Porterville. Private companies offer solid waste collection services in other unincorporated areas. Porterville has various programs to encourage recycling and waste reduction, such as curbside collection of residential and yard recyclables (green can), a recycling drop-off center, a commercial and industrial recycling program, school recycling programs, bi-annual special collection events, and public education/outreach activities. Disposal services in Porterville are provided by the Tulare County Resource Management Agency (RMA). Porterville’s solid waste is currently disposed at Teapot Dome landfill, located approximately five miles southwest of the city limits. Teapot Dome is a County operated Class III landfill permitted to discharge up to 600 tons a day. As of 2004, the landfill was at 84.7 16 City of Porterville Preliminary Annual Budget 2014‐2015 27 27 percent capacity with a remaining capacity of 998,468 cubic yards (cy) and an anticipated closure date of 2012. In 2012, Teapot Dome reduced the number of days per week it was open, and a greater amount of waste was being sent to Woodville. More recently, Teapot Dome has resumed the original schedule, but it is anticipated that the Consolidated Waste Management Authority (CWMA) will close the landfill sometime in the next five years. At that time, Teapot Dome may become a transfer facility. The Tulare County Recycling Complex currently accepts all the recyclables for RMA. This processing and transfer facility is about 20 miles from the city limits. It is permitted for 1,200 tons per day. Most household hazardous wastes, including e- waste, must be taken to various sites in Visalia, except on the biannual clean-up days when Tulare County Environmental Health Division sets up a drop-off site in Porterville. Beyond Teapot Dome landfill’s closure, the County anticipates setting up a transfer facility to divert waste to either the Woodville or Visalia landfills. The Woodville Disposal Site, a County- operated Class III landfill permitted for 1,078 tpd, is located approximately 15 miles northwest of the City limits. As of 2008, the landfill was at 41.5 percent capacity with a remaining capacity of 4,928,139 cy and an anticipated closure data of 2026. The County plans to expand the Woodville landfill and is in the process of obtaining the necessary permits. The Visalia Disposal Site, located approximately 35 miles northwest of the City limits, is a County-operated Class III landfill permitted to discharge up to 2,000 tpd. This site was recently expanded. As of 2006, the landfill was at 13.3 percent capacity with a remaining capacity of 16,145,600 cy; its anticipated closure date is 2024.17 The statewide mandated waste diversion goal was 50 percent by the year 2000; which was met by the Consolidated Waste Management Authority. In 2013, the CWMA exceeded that goal with 69.5% pounds per person per day recycled. It is anticipated that recycling and diversion efforts will continue to succeed above the 50% required by the State.18 The City of Porterville has developed various programs to encourage recycling and waste reduction and to help the City meet its AB939 goals, including: Curbside Collection of Residential Recyclables: Blue Can – Recyclables Green Can - Yard waste Recycling Drop-Off Center: The City's Recycling Drop-Off Center is available 24 hours per day and is centrally located at the City Corporation Yard, 555 N. Prospect. This facility accepts the same materials as the curbside recycling program. In July 2006, the City implemented residential recycling curbside collection to enhance its recycling program. The City has provided residential green waste curbside collection since the early 1990s. The current system provides three different containers for the collection of refuse, green waste and all household recyclable products. Service providers in the unincorporated area currently only provide refuse and green waste collection. 17 Riverwalk Marketplace II Revised Draft EIR 2011 18 California Integrated Waste Management Board. 28 28 The City’s budget identifies two primary funds which are used for the City’s solid waste and related operations. The following descriptions were taken from the City’s fiscal year 2014-15 adopted budget: “This fund was establish to account for revenues and expenditures incurred in the collection and disposal of solid waste, street sweeping, graffiti removal, household hazardous waste and recycling. This fund is a self-supporting enterprise fund, wherein revenues should be sufficient to cover all cost.” There is no evidence suggesting that the City will not be capable of providing solid waste collection and disposal services to areas within its SOI and/or UDB, consistent with fees paid by current customers within the City Limits. The City’s ability to provide solid waste collection and disposal services at lower rates compared to other providers in Tulare County is an indication of the service efficiency. National statistical data indicates higher recycling rates for municipal collection versus private collection. The ongoing annexation of County islands could possibly improve the service efficiencies related to solid waste collection and disposal within these areas. 2.6 Power Generation and Distribution Power generation and distribution is provided by a privately owned utility company. The Southern California Edison (SCE) Company serves most of the Cities within Tulare County, including Porterville. Since privately owned utility companies are not subject to Sphere of Influence (SOI) determinations, services provided by privately owned and operated utility companies are not subject to the MSR requirement. 2.7 Fire and Police Protection Services 2.7.1 Fire The primary mission of the Porterville Fire Department is to provide a range of programs designed to protect the lives and property of the inhabitants of the City of Porterville from the adverse effects of fires, sudden medical emergencies or exposure to dangerous conditions created by either man or nature. The Porterville Fire Department’s organizational structure includes Administration, the Operations Division, and the Prevention Division. The Operations Division is organized into three shifts, each on a rotating 24-hour schedule and includes the Training/Public Education Unit. The Prevention Division includes the Battalion Chief/Fire Marshal, Captain/Deputy Fire Marshal, Arson Investigation Captain and the Code Enforcement Officer. Municipal fire protection is provided from two City fire stations, one located near Hockett Street between Harrison Avenue and Cleveland Avenue, and a second fire station located on the east side of Newcomb Street between Henderson and Morton Avenues. Operations Division The division currently staffs two fire stations; however, construction should be well underway for Fire Station 3 prior to the end of 2014. Station 3 is to be located on Jaye Street, south of State Route 190 and will greatly reduce response times to a large portion of the city. 29 29 The division is comprised of 32 full-time personnel who are augmented by 30 reserve firefighters. The division is organized into three 10-person shifts (A, B & C) that each consist of 1 captain, 1 lieutenant, 3 engineers and 5 firefighters. The reserve firefighters provide additional staffing for emergency response and contribute numerous hours each month toward the achievement of department goals and objectives. The Training Unit within the Operations Division includes 1 captain who manages the department’s annual training program and coordinates emergency management response and preparedness activities with city staff. Services provided by the Operations Division:  Fire suppression  Emergency medical response  Technical rescue  Wild-land interface firefighting  Emergency preparedness planning and coordination  Hazardous Materials response  Mutual aid response to neighboring jurisdictions  Public education  Fire prevention  NIMS, EOC training and preparedness Area Served:  Population Protected: 55,490  Population Density: 3102 per square mile  Land Area: 17.679 square miles  Firefighters per 1000: .66  ISO PPC Rating: Class 3 Operations Division Personnel  Uniformed Personnel: 32  Reserve Firefighters: 30 Apparatus Profile  Engines: 6  Ladder Trucks: 1  Patrols: 2  Rescue: 1  Mobile Command: 1 Fire Stations:  Station 1, 40 W. Cleveland  Station 2, 500 N. Newcomb The City of Porterville Fire Department has an insurance service office (ISO) rating of three (3). The ISO rates fire departments on a scale of one (best) to ten (unprotected), taking into consideration receiving and handling of fire alarms, fire department operations, water supply, 30 30 and other factors. The ISO grading schedule is an insurance industry rating system that measures a City’s ability to provide fire protection, and is primarily directed towards minimizing property loss. The rating system favors fire suppression rather than fire prevention. According to the Porterville Fire Department Annual Report, response performance is a measure of how effectively and efficiently a fire department is able to respond to, and arrive at, emergency incidents. Short response times significantly improve incident outcomes. The Porterville Fire Department response standard specifies criteria to effectively and efficiently deliver fire suppression and emergency medical services. These standards protect the citizens of Porterville and the occupational safety and health of Porterville Fire Department employees. Response time starts with receipt of dispatch at the fire station and ends with arrival of the first engine company at scene. The department response standard for the first arriving engine to a fire is five (5) minutes and thirty (30) seconds, 90 % of the time. The 2013 response time performance to fires was 78.29%. The response time standard for the arrival of the first emergency medical unit with two emergency medical technicians is five (5) minutes 90% of the time. EMS response performance for 2013 was 78.30%. Response performance standards are set high as a challenging yet achievable goal. Improvements in response performance over the past several years are attributed to the dedication and commitment of the department’s firefighters to deliver the highest level of service to their community. The department continues to identify and implement operational efficiencies to improve response times and is currently collaborating with the Public Works Department and Transit Division on deployment of traffic preemption systems. Additionally, the department looks forward to response time improvements made possible by completion of the planned Public Safety Facility. The City of Porterville General Fund total expenditures for FY 2014-15 budget is $23,636,493. Of this, over $3,773,801, or 16% is allocated for fire protection services. Figure XXX City of Porterville FY 2014-2015 General Fund Expenses shows the FY 2014-2015 total expenses by department. 31 31 2.7.2 Police Much of the information regarding the City’s Police Department operations has been obtained from the City’s website, www.ci.porterville.ca.us. Law enforcement services in Porterville are provided by the City of Porterville Police Department with headquarters located at 350 N “D” Street. The Department currently has 57 sworn peace officers and 22 civilian staff members, therefore operating at a ratio of almost 1.3 officer per 1,000 residents. Every sworn officer is provided with the safety gear essential to their specific assignment including firearms, protective vests, and uniforms. Each officer is assigned a vehicle, either a marked police car, a marked police motorcycle, or an unmarked police car. Additionally, the Police Department has a SWAT specific vehicle, a DUI/Mobile Substation Trailer, and a Radar Display trailer. The Tulare County Sheriff’s Office has a Porterville substation at 379 N Third Street. This substation has ten patrols for the currently unincorporated areas of the County. The police department operations account for approximately $8,856,918 or 37% of the City’s general fund expenditures in the 2014-2015 budget. The police department is segregated into several divisions/units, identified below.  Animal Control – The City of Porterville is contracted with the City of Lindsay for animal control services. Animal control services include removal of dead animals, pick up of stray animals, barking dog complaints, and animal bite problems.  Crime prevention – Crime prevention activities include police department tours, 32 32 neighborhood watch, various educational programs, police ride alongs, international walk to school day, and national night out.  Dispatch/Communications – This unit operates 24-hours per day, seven days a week, and handles over 600 calls per day including information requests, calls for police/fire service, and emergency 911 calls.  Evidence and Property Control – The evidence/property control unit is responsible for intake, storage, and disposal of all evidence/property received by the Porterville police department to be held as evidence, found property, or stored for safekeeping.  Special Investigations Unit – This unit handles most narcotic related criminal activity. They also handle vice related crimes such as extortion, prostitution, alcohol and beverage control violations, street gang related crimes along with any and all suspected “terrorism” related incidents.  General Investigations Unit – The general investigations unit detectives handle cases in a wide variety of areas, including but not limited to robbery, crimes against persons, and crimes against property/business.  Patrol Division – The patrol division operates 24-hours per day, seven days a week. The division is commanded by one captain, two lieutenants, and five sergeants. Units assigned to patrol are patrol officers, two community service officers, SWAT, two school resource officers, three traffic officers, and three K-9 officers.  Records Unit – The records unit maintains police reports, traffic collision reports, and vehicle release forms. The unit also issues permits for daily alcohol use, amplifiers, public assemblies and card dealers. Local background checks, registration appointments, vehicle correction citation inspections, and payment of parking tickets are also handled in the records unit. The following excerpts from the City’s 2004-05 adopted budget describe the current state of the City’s police department operations, and constraints related to the City’s general fund allocations. “Police Services: Service levels will remain similar for the Police Department with the following exceptions: By the January 2004 action, participation in the Thunderbolt Program was conceptually eliminated. The Chief has asked for reconsideration of this and would like to substitute an equivalent $30,000 savings in the animal control agreement. The City Manager supports the substitution, provided the savings in animal control are achieved prior to continuing the Thunderbolt Program. Also, during this budget year, no contributions will be made to the Equipment Replacement Fund for fleet replacement. In addition, the following modifications are proposed for implementation during the 2004/05 FY:  Discontinue response and investigation of traffic collisions where there are no injuries to any of the parties. The department would respond if there was a criminal act related to the collision beyond the infraction which caused it.  Discontinue pigeon control within the community. The project now focused in the downtown area.  Limit the fingerprinting of persons from the community for volunteer, government, 33 33 and other sensitive positions that require criminal background checks. Porterville residents will probably be required to travel to Visalia for the service.” In 2005, Porterville voters passed Measure H, a ½ cent sales tax initiative to support increased public safety efforts. The special tax (opposed to a general tax) was passed by a 2/3 voter approval, and is earmarked specifically for increased police and fire services, and library support. The sales tax initiative is estimated to generate an additional $1.8 million annually in general fund revenues. Revenues generated from the sales tax increase is estimated to support seven additional firefighters and seven additional police officers, including all of the related accoutrements. Combined costs of these efforts were estimated at approximately $1.2 million for the first year, and approximately $996,000 annually, thereafter. The addition of seven new sworn officer positions would bring the City’s total sworn officer to population ratio to 1:930. An ideal sworn officer to population ratio is considered to be 1:800. The passage of the ½ cent sales tax increase increases the City’s public safety efforts and its ability to serve future development within the City’s SOI and/or UDB. The passage of the sales tax initiative allowed the City to lift its general fund hiring freeze, which has been in effect for several years. The City is making steps in the right direction to increase its police protection efforts, its ability to provide mutual aid to other agencies, and its ability to provide service within its SOI and/or UDB. It should be noted in 2008 the City of Porterville completed a comprehensive update to their general plan, which will include an update to the public safety element. This will help identify future needs of the police department, including implementation polices. 10 YEAR PART ONE CRIMES 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Average Homicide 6 2 9 7 1 1 4 2 3 8 4.3 Rape 10 18 21 14 7 16 12 6 11 8 12.3 Robbery 72 48 60 72 63 64 60 58 70 44 61.1 Assault 576 556 651 632 552 549 598 534 473 427 554.8 Burglary 549 507 534 540 389 370 450 518 594 469 492 Theft 1206 1352 1481 1491 1165 1051 1154 1221 1012 799 1193.2 Stolen Vehicles 427 442 399 320 325 239 251 194 206 227 303 Porterville Police Department had a busy year in 2013 handling over 66,000 incidents. Due to a proactive approach to law enforcement, more than 35,000 of those responses were 34 34 self-initiated by police personnel. As noted in the chart above, they experienced a spike year in homicides and a small increase in auto theft, all other crime areas were down. According to the Porterville Police Department, a ratio of 1.2 police officers to residents would support adequate law enforcement efforts at General Plan buildout. This would require a total of 129 (82 additional) sworn officers by 2030. Even though the current Police facility is nearing its capacity to support staffing levels, the Police Department will continue to maintain a central station. Due to the resources involved in providing police services to the community, a centralized station is more effective, efficient, and fiscally responsible. As the community grows and levels of service increase, satellite Community-based Policing Offices will be located with other public facilities such as fire stations, in shopping centers, community centers or high-crime areas in order to provide the required services. 35 35 3 FINANCING OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS The purpose of this section is to evaluate a jurisdictions capability to finance needed improvements and services. 3.1 Annual Budget For twenty-three consecutive years the City has received a Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting (CAFR Program) from the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA). The certificate program, established in 1945, is designed to recognize and encourage excellence in financial reporting by state and local governments. Receipt of this award is indicative of the financial responsibility of the City. The City’s budget approach ensures that the City will remain financially stable during this time of fiscal instability at the state level. The City’s approach for its general fund budget involves the following:  A three year strategic budget plan  A one year budget  November, January, and April reviews of budget targets  Revisions to expenditures when necessary to accomplish targets The best indicator of the economic downturn and recent stabilization has been the City's General Fund. With Property, Sales & Use, and Utility Users Taxes historically combining to constitute over sixty-five percent (65%) of General Fund revenues, the City has experienced a $2.4 million decrease since 2008, with General Fund revenues dropping from approximately $24.1 million in the 2007-08 fiscal year to $22.2 million estimated in the current 2013-14 fiscal year. As tax revenues have been moderately improving, staff has conservatively estimated General Fund revenues for the coming fiscal year at approximately $22.5 million. Conversely to General Fund revenues, expenditures have increased almost $1.7 million since 2008, increasing from approximately $19.5 million in the 2007-08 fiscal year to approximately $22.1 million in 2013-14 fiscal year. Expenditures for the coming 2014-15 fiscal year are currently budgeted at $23.6 million, resulting in an estimated $1.1 million budget shortfall. A budget-balancing solution employed for the past couple of difficult years has been to curtail Departmental spending to either 94% or 95% of budgeted expenditures, which this next year would "save" approximately $1.18 million (5%). The following are a list of Capital Projects allocated in the 2014-2015 Budget.  Proposition 84 grant funds in the amount of $2.1 million are being used to construct the new Fallen Heroes Park with construction expected to be completed this summer.  The new Animal Shelter is expected to begin construction and become operational in the coming fiscal year. It is anticipated the shelter will be fully funded using the $1.3 million previously appropriated from the Building Construction Fund and County PTAF Lawsuit Settlement. The project is estimated at $1.2 million.  The construction of the new Public Safety Station is the primary project of emphasis this coming fiscal year, according to the report. The $4.6 million project is being funded by Measure H — the city’s sales tax measure — and was recently awarded 36 36 to local contractor Webb & Son.  The completion of the Plano Street Bridge Widening Project is expected to be completed this fiscal year. The estimated total project cost is approximately $13.3 million. Well #32, a $1.4 million well located southwest of the Airport near the fairgrounds and supplied by Akin Water Company is expected to be completed this fiscal year. Another well, #33, will begin this coming fiscal year with approximately $1.5 million to be provided by the Department of Water Resources.  City staff is recommending the council review the city’s water development, especially the development and replacement funds that are being deferred due to lack of funding. The report warns, although the city’s existing water supply is expected to remain sufficient to meet the needs of its residents, given the current drought conditions, the city council can anticipate that an increasing number of private wells in the community (both inside and outside city limits) will become dry, and parties will be seeking approval to connect to the city’s water system. The Government of Finance Officers Association recommends, at a minimum, that general purpose governments, regardless of size, maintain unreserved fund balance in their general fund of no less than 5-15% of regular general fund operating revenues, or of no less than one to two months of regular general fund operating expenditures. Beyond the modification of property tax, sales tax and vehicle in lieu fee amounts as a result of State action, other general fund revenue sources are estimated to have moderate growth. Property tax is estimated to grow within the 3% range, sales tax about 1.85%, and fines and fees at about prior year levels. These estimated increases in general fund revenues in addition to measure H are important revenue sources that will help the City overturn its general fund deficit spending, and keep the City in a solid financial position. The City’s budgetary process enables the City to address the following objectives.  Establish and maintain full public safety staffing  Maintain a general continuity of City services  For health care, balance costs to budgeted support and employee contributions  Undertake the update of the City’s land use and circulation elements  Complete priority projects scheduled by the City Council  Undertake the update and redevelopment of City service charges  Implement savings consistent with those approved the Council  Modify the City’s budget to a drastically revised array of State revenues property taxes  Within a three year planning period, establish a general fund budget balanced structurally and with cash, based upon a revised allocation of taxes and resources The City’s budgetary process is excellent, and is in line with the service needs of the City, according to adopted plans, City Council goals, and providing services at reasonable costs. 3.2 Utility Users Tax One of the most important general fund revenue sources for a City is the utility user tax (UUT). The UUT is a vital element in the funding of critical City services. On average, the UUT provides 16% of general purpose revenue in cities that levy it. UUT revenues most commonly 37 37 fund police, fire, parks, library, and long-range land use planning services and related support services. Many City UUT levies and increases have resulted from cuts to City revenues by the State. Within a few years of the beginning of the ERAF property tax shifts, more than fifty cities had increased an existing or levied a new UUT. The most common UUT rate is 5%, while the average rate is 6%, applied broadly among many types of utilities. A comparison the UUT rate among the eight Tulare County cities is provided in Table 3-1. TABLE 3-1 COMPARISON OF UTILITY USER TAX RATES CITY UUTRATE UTILITIESAPPLIED TO Dinuba 7% Telephone,Electricity,Gas Exeter 5% Telephone,Electricity,Gas, Cable Farmersville None N/A Lindsay 6% Telephone,Electricity,Gas, Cable, Water, Sewer, Garbage Porterville 6% Telephone,Electricity,Gas, Cable, Water Tulare 7% Telephone,Electricity,Gas, Cable, Water Visalia None N/A Woodlake 6% Telephone,Electricity,Gas, Cable Source: http://www.californiacityfinance.com/UUT03PUB.xls through FY10-11 Table 3-1 was updated with current information from the California Local Government Almanac. As reported in the initial MSR, cities in Tulare County that levy a UUT (Visalia and Farmersville do not currently levy a UUT), Porterville’s UUT is around average at 6%. The City’s UUT could be expanded to include services not covered by the existing UUT, i.e. sewer, and/or garbage. A two thirds voter approval is required for any new or increased special tax. A general tax requires majority voter approval. Currently, all City UUT levies in California are general taxes, and therefore require majority voter approval. 3.3 Written Determinations 1. In 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013 the City received a Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting (CAFR Program) from the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA). The certificate program, established in 1945, is designed to recognize and encourage financial reporting by state and local governments. Receipt of this award is indicative of the financial responsibility of the City. 2. The City’s general fund budgeting approach includes a three year strategic plan, a one year budget, November, January, and April reviews of budget targets, and revisions to expenditures when necessary to accomplish targets. This approach ensures that the City will continue to remain in a solid financial position for current and future years. 3. The Government of Finance Officers Association recommends, at a minimum, that general purpose governments, regardless of size, maintain unreserved fund balance in their general fund of no less than 5-15% of regular general fund operating revenues, or of no less than one to two months of regular general fund operating expenditures. 4. Anticipated increases in general fund revenues, in addition to measure H are 38 38 important revenue sources that will help the City overturn its general fund deficit spending, and keep the City in a solid financial position. 5. The City levies a utility user’s tax (UUT) on various utility services provided within the City Limits, which amounts to approximately 16% of general fund revenues. The City’s UUT could be expanded to include services not covered by the existing UUT, i.e. sewer and/or garbage. Majority voter approval is typically required for increases/expansions of existing UUTs. 39 39 4 COST AVOIDANCE OPPORTUNITIES The purpose of this section is to identify practices or opportunities that may help to eliminate unnecessary costs. 4.1 Cost Avoidance Strategies The City avoids unnecessary costs through the implementation of infrastructure master plans and the General Plan, which assist in eliminating overlapping or duplicative services. Master planning documents also provide sound funding alternatives for their implementation, and plan for growth within and surrounding the City. The City will update the UDB after adoption of the SOI update. Following the UDB update, the City will update its master planning documents. Planning out to ultimate service area boundaries helps identify any impacts that future planned infrastructure may have on current infrastructure in place, and mitigations that would alleviate such impacts. The City avoids unnecessary costs by assessing development impact fees for the purpose of financing public infrastructure, including water, sewer, storm drain, and transportation improvements. The City’s development impact fee program helps offset the financial responsibility of the City to install and maintain the infrastructure necessary to serve new developments. Capital planning is critical to water, sewer, transportation, sanitation, and other essential public services. It is also an important component of a community’s economic development program and strategic plan. It is difficult for governments to address the current and long term needs of their constituents without a sound multi-year capital plan that clearly identifies capital and major equipment needs, maintenance requirements, funding options, and operating budget impacts. A properly prepared capital plan is essential to the future financial health of an organization and continued delivery of services to citizens and businesses. The Government Finance Officers Association recommends that state and local governments prepare and adopt comprehensive multi-year capital plans to ensure effective management of capital assets. A prudent multi-year capital plan identifies and prioritizes expected needs based on a community’s strategic plan, establishes project scope and cost, details estimated amounts of funding from various sources, and projects future operating and maintenance costs. A capital plan should cover a period of at least three years, preferably five or more. Porterville’s CIP, which is updated annually, covers a period of ten years into the future, and is consistent with recommendations contained in infrastructure master plans, and goals of the City Council. The City has opportunities to increase its cost effectiveness and revenue raising efforts by tracking savings and interest on reserves, maintaining a balanced budget including maintaining a general fund budget that grows each year, and emphasizing performance measurement practices. The City can also avoid unnecessary costs associated with payment of high interest rates on debt owed by the City by pursuing general obligation bonds while interest rates are low, and by exploring opportunities to refinance higher interest loans to reduce the existing debt obligations of the City. The City can avoid unnecessary costs by implementing smart growth practices by promoting development in infill areas and areas where infrastructure is already in place (and has excess capacity). Through the preparation, implementation, and updating of infrastructure master plans, the City can avoid unnecessary costs by incrementally expanding its infrastructure to areas zoned for General Plan development. Master planning increases the City’s preparedness 40 40 when SOI areas are proposed for development. It can be expected that the City will avoid unnecessary costs that may be caused by the annexation of proposed SOI areas through comprehensive analysis of the costs and benefits of a proposed development in those areas. The City could also avoid unnecessary costs through the construction of joint use facilities, including but not limited to recreational sports fields, parks, or other facilities that could be used by multiple agencies. Additional strategies which have the potential of eliminating unnecessary costs include the formation of homeowners associations for larger scale residential developments where shared (community) facilities are present. Associations could maintain facilities such as streets, play grounds, swimming pools, parks, and gyms, thereby relieving the financial obligations of the City. 4.2 Written Determinations 1. The City avoids unnecessary costs through the implementation of infrastructure Master Plans and the General Plan, which assist in eliminating overlapping or duplicative services. 2. The City avoids unnecessary costs by assessing development impact fees for the purpose of financing public infrastructure, including water, sewer, storm drain, and transportation improvements. The City’s development impact fee program helps offset the financial responsibility of the City to install and maintain the infrastructure necessary to serve new developments. 3. The City prepares, and updates annually, a comprehensive ten year CIP consistent with recommendations contained in infrastructure master plans, and goals of the City Council. A properly prepared capital plan is essential to the future financial health of an organization and continued delivery of services to citizens and businesses. 4. The City has opportunities to increase its cost effectiveness and revenue raising efforts by tracking savings and interest on reserves, maintaining a balanced budget including maintaining a general fund budget that grows each year, and emphasizing performance measurement practices. 5. City staff actively monitors the long term indebtedness of the City, and takes advantage of refinancing higher interest loans as a way of avoiding unnecessary costs. 6. The City can avoid unnecessary costs by implementing smart growth practices by promoting development in infill areas and areas where infrastructure is already in place (and has excess capacity). It can be expected that the City will avoid unnecessary costs that may be caused by the annexation of proposed SOI areas through comprehensive analysis of the costs and benefits of a proposed development in those areas. By continuing to explore additional investment avenues, the City is able to avoid unnecessary costs associated with shortcomings on its investment practices. 41 41 5 OPPORTUNITIES FOR RATE RESTRUCTURING The purpose of this section is to identify opportunities to positively impact rates without decreasing service levels. This section provides a comparison of various utility rates to surrounding jurisdictions to show that the City can provide effective quality service at rates comparable to surrounding agencies. 5.1 Fee Structure In 2005, the City undertook a City-Wide Overhead Cost Allocation Plan and Fee Study (Maximus, Inc. 2005). The study was designed to identify the cost to the City of various services which the City provides. The primary objectives of the study were to provide a rational basis for setting fees; to update the City’s fee schedule to reflect the current reality rather than the reality of ten years ago; and to ensure compliance with State law. The study indicated that many user fees have not been updated since 1988. The study suggested that the City should consider tying fees to a CPI increase approximately 1 to 2 years, with a review every 3 to 5 years. Utility user fees charged to existing residents are generally allocated to the operation and maintenance of existing facilities, and are not to be used for the construction of new facilities. Development impact fees (also referred to as connection fees), and building permit fees are used to construct the infrastructure for new developments. Having separate funds set up for the construction of new infrastructure, and for the operation and maintenance of existing infrastructure allows the City to continue to provide cost-effective quality services to current residents. Tables 3-3, 3-4, and 3-5 compare the water, sewer, and refuse rates for the eight Tulare County cities (Dinuba, Exeter, Farmersville, Lindsay, Porterville, Tulare, Visalia, and Woodlake), respectively. The rates identified are for single family dwellings metered water service, and flat rate sewer and refuse fees. The sample monthly bill for water service is calculated using 15,000 gallons (2,005 cubic feet) of water as a base. As indicated in the above tables, the City is able to provide quality service at comparable rates to other cities within the County. While the City’s rates for water and sewer are above average compared to other full service City’s within the County, they do not appear to be unreasonable, or significantly above average in comparison. The City’s rate for refuse collection is below average compared to other cities in Tulare County. The City’s sewer connection fee is among the higher fees compared to surrounding cities. Connection fees are generally used to implement capital infrastructure improvements to serve new development. There is no evidence suggesting that the annexation of areas within the SOI would result in unreasonable fees for these services as properties annex and develop within the City. It is anticipated that fees for the SOI areas would be in line with citywide fees for such services. As previously discussed, the City has programs in place (development impact fees, capital improvement program, etc.) for the construction of new infrastructure, thereby, mitigating the need to increase rates for current residents to support new development within the SOI areas. 42 42 Table 5.1 Water, Sewer and Refuse Rates Single Family Water Rates City Monthly Water (per Other Sample Service 100 cubic Charges Monthly Meter feet or 748 Bill Charge gallons) City of 6% of $5.00 $0.72 $10.761 Porterville Total1 City of $10.13 $1.30 $0.00 $11.433 Visalia City of Tulare $15.472 $0.40 7% of Total $15.47 Single Family Sewer Rates City Flat Rate Other Charges City of Porterville $26.87 $0.00 City of Visalia $26.45 $0.00 City of Tulare $42.00 $0.00 Single Family Refuse Rates City Flat Rate Other Charges City of Porterville $17.85 $0.00 City of Visalia $23.85 $4.00/Additional Can City of Tulare $25.30 $8.00/Additional Can Notes: 1) $5.00 minimum, plus 72 cents per unit of water. (1 unit of Water 100 Cubic feet or, approximately 748 gallons.). The City of Porterville assesses a 6% Utility Users Tax within City Limits 2) The City of Tulare’s Base Rate of $10.07 covers water usage to 10,000 gallons. Usage above 10,000 gallons has additional charges in the amount of $0.58 per 1,000 gallons (134 cubic feet). The city of Tulare assesses a 7 % Utility Users Tax within City Limits (cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:22)(cid:12)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:37)(cid:68)(cid:86)(cid:72)(cid:71)(cid:3)(cid:82)(cid:81)(cid:3)(cid:24)(cid:28)(cid:27)(cid:23)(cid:3)(cid:74)(cid:68)(cid:79)(cid:79)(cid:82)(cid:81)(cid:86)(cid:3) 43 43 5.2 Written Determinations 1. In 2005, the City undertook a City-Wide Overhead Cost Allocation Plan and Fee Study (Maximus, Inc. 2005). The study suggested that the City should consider tying fees to a CPI increase approximately 1 to 2 years, with a review every 3 to 5 years. 2. Having separate funds set up for the construction of new infrastructure, and for the operation and maintenance of existing infrastructure allows the City to continue to provide cost-effective quality services to current residents. 3. The City has a sound fee structure in place which allows the City to continue to provide cost-effective services to its residents while continuing to maintain and improve the current infrastructure. 4. While the City’s rates for water and sewer are above average compared to other full service City’s within the County, they do not appear to be unreasonable, or significantly above average in comparison. The City’s rate for refuse collection is below average compared to other cities in Tulare County. 5. There is no evidence suggesting that the City would not be able to provide services to the SOI areas for fees consistent with citywide fees for such services. 44 6 ANY OTHER MATTER RELATED TO EFFECTIVE OR EFFICIENT SERVICE DELIVERY, AS REQUIRED BY COMMISSION POLICY 6.1 Disadvantaged and Other Developed Unincorporated Communities Pursuant to Government Code section 56430, municipal service reviews are required to identify the location and characteristics of any disadvantaged unincorporated communities within or contiguous to the sphere of influence and to also identify needs or deficiencies related to sewers, municipal and industrial water and structural fire protection. Government Code section 56033.5 defines a “disadvantaged unincorporated community” as inhabited territory, as defined by section 56046 (12 or more registered voters), or as determined by commission policy, that constitutes all or a portion of a disadvantaged community as defined by Water Code section 79505.5 (a community with an annual median household income that is less than 80 percent of the statewide annual median household income). Tulare County LAFCO Policy C-5.11(C) defines a disadvantaged community as an area that has a median household income 80% or less of the statewide average pursuant to Public Resources Code section 75005(g) and contains at least 20 dwelling units at a density not less than one unit per acre. (Note: the definition of a disadvantaged community is consistent between PRC §75005(g) and WC §79005.5.) In addition to what is required by GC §56430, Tulare County LAFCO Policy C-5.11(B)(VI)(a) requires that the Written Statement of Determinations for MSRs shall be based on a comprehensive review of area service providers conducted in accordance with GC §56430(b) and shall include, but is not limited to: estimate of existing population, identification of existing service providers, identification of services provided within the community, service costs and identification of surrounding land use designations, both existing and planned, contained in a city’s General Plan or County’s Community Plan for all (not just disadvantaged) unincorporated communities within or adjacent to the agency’s SOI. (Note: A reasonable effort shall be made to conduct a thorough review; however, the level of detail is subject to the extent data is readily available and relevant to the overall MSR analysis.) Fifteen unincorporated communities within or adjacent to the City of Porterville’s SOI have been identified [Figure 6-1 - Unincorporated Communities]. Figures Twelve communities are fully within the existing City SOI, two communities are outside but adjacent to the SOI (Tract 77 and A&A Mobile Home Park) and one community is partially inside the SOI (East Porterville). The population data used in the community descriptions below is based from U.S. Census blocks. Census blocks don’t always align with the communities’ boundaries so the population figures listed may not be exact. U.S. Census median income data does not extend down to the Census block level. Without available definitive median income data, for the purposes of distinguishing between disadvantaged versus non- disadvantaged communities, parcel assessed valuations, owner occupancy, housing characteristics, infrastructure conditions and anecdotal evidence was used. This information was presented to the Commission at the May 5, 2012 where all the disadvantaged unincorporated communities within or adjacent to city SOIs were identified. For Porterville, twelve of the fifteen communities have been determined to be disadvantaged. Unincorporated County Communities: East Porterville This is a very large disadvantaged community, 2.5 square miles in area, that is substantially surrounded by the City to the east of Plano Street and north of State Route 190. East Porterville is made up of several County tracts and large areas of subdivided lots [Figure 6-2 and Table 6-1]. Per the 2010 Census, there are 6,720 people and 1,749 housing units. East Porterville is the third largest unincorporated community (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) 45 Northgrand Henderson Olive SR-190 Scranton Teapot Dome Plano M a in Westwood Newcomb Prospect SR-65 Hillcrest Roby Leggett Figure 6-1 City of Porterville Unincorporated Communities CHELSEA GLEN GRANDVIEW GARDENS BEVERLY GRAND N MAIN MULBERRY ISLAND TRACT 557 NANCE- VILLE ROBY ISLAND EAST PORTERVILLE TRACT SOUTH 24/41 PORTERVILLE A&A TRACT TRACT MHP 288/413 77 Legend Porterville SOI Streets ² Non-Disadvantaged Disadvantaged City 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 Miles 46 Putnam Monache Olive 467 420 Corona Roby 109 Holcomb Isham 42 27 330 Monte Vista Success 25 Doyle Colony Springville 98 175 Rio Vista SR-198 44 Worth onalP tteggeL tserclliH elyoD Figure 6-2 East Porterville County Tracts Legend Porter Vista PUD ² parcels City County Tracts 0 0.25 0.5 Miles 47 in population in the County (behind Cutler-Orosi and Earlimart). The County and City General Plans designate most of the community as residential with also significant areas of commercial and public. Table 6-1 East Porterville Tracts and Subdivided Areas Tract/Subdivision People Housing Units Corona Tract 111 25 Doyle Colony 1,088 280 Holcomb Subdivision 438 110 Isham Tract 404 96 Monache Tract 48 13 Monte Vista Flat 753 187 Rio Vista Price Acres 129 27 Tract 25 245 55 Tract 27 271 69 Tract 42 424 109 Tract 44 90 33 Tract 98 50 13 Tract 109 235 58 Tract 175 66 19 Tract 330 557 128 Tract 420 72 19 Tract 467 36 9 Other Parcels 1,703 499 TOTAL 6,720 1,749 Roby Island This is a disadvantaged community that is a substantially surrounded County island along Roby Avenue, west of State Route 64 and south of Olive Avenue. Per the 2010 Census, there are 839 residents and 248 housing units. The County and City General Plans designate the community as low density residential. Nanceville This is a disadvantaged community that is contiguous to the City along the north side of Olive Avenue and west side of Westwood Road. Per the 2010 Census, there are 575 residents and 168 housing units. The County and City General Plans designate the community as residential with heavy commercial along Olive Avenue. Tract 24/41 Tracts 24 and 41 comprise a disadvantaged community that is located to the southeast of the State Route 65 and 190 interchange. Per the 2010 Census there are 572 residents and 156 housing units. The County and City General Plans designate the community as low density residential. The City General Plan designates the northeast portion of the community (the location of the Family Health Care Network) as professional and office. North Main/Mulberry Island This is a disadvantaged community that is a completely surrounded County island located along Mulberry Street along the west side of North Main Street. Per the 2010 Census, there are 506 residents and 159 housing units. The County and City General Plans designate the community as mostly residential with some public/quasi-public. 48 South Porterville This area includes three identified disadvantaged communities; the Porterville Trailor Park, Shady Grove Mobile Home Park and a subdivided area along Lincoln and Yates Streets located between South Main Street and Plano Street. Per the 2010 Census, there are 411 residents and 122 housing units. The County and City General Plans designate the community as mostly residential with some commercial and industrial in the City and industrial in the County. Grandview Gardens This is a disadvantaged community on the north side of Northgrand Avenue to the west of North Main Street. Per the 2010 Census, there are 316 people and 86 housing units. The County and City General Plans designate the community as low density residential. Beverly Grand This is a disadvantaged community on the north side of Northgrand Avenue to the west of Grandview Gardens. Per the 2010 Census, there are 228 people and 54 housing units. The County and City General Plans designate the community as low density residential. Tract 77 This is a disadvantaged community on the south side of Gibbons Avenue, south of the City. This community is outside but adjacent to the City SOI. Per the 2010 Census, there are 216 people and 42 housing units. The County and City General Plans designate the community as rural residential. Tract 557 This is an unincorporated community on the west side of Westwood Road, north of Nanceville. Per the 2010 Census, there are 127 people and 49 housing units. The County and City General Plans designate the community as low density residential. Chelsea Glen This is an unincorporated community on the east side of Newcomb Street, north of Beverly Grand. Per the 2010 Census, there are 108 people and 36 housing units. This community is still in the process of being built out. There are 90 lots in the subdivision. The County and City General Plans designate the community as low density residential. A&A Mobile Home Park This is a disadvantaged community located at the southwest corner of Plano Street and Gibbons Avenue south of the City. This community is outside but adjacent to the City SOI. Per the 2010 Census, there are 103 people and 58 housing units. The County and City General Plans designate the community as rural residential. Tract 288/413 This is an unincorporated community located south of Worth Avenue, on the east side of Crestview Street south of the City. Per the 2010 Census, there are 99 people and 34 housing units. The County and City General Plans designate the community as low density residential. Demographics and Population Growth Most of the communities are built out and are not likely to be subject to significant population growth. The exceptions include East Porterville which still has considerable land available for subdivision, North Main/Mulberry Island and Chelsea Glen. Population and demographic information is included in Table 6-2. 49 Table 6-2 Demographics – Unincorporated Communities (2010 Census)* Housing People/ Area Community People Hispanic <18 Vacancy DUC Units Unit** (acres) East Porterville 6,720 73.3% 36.6% 1,749 6.4% 4.1 1,578 Y Roby Island 839 62.5% 32.9% 248 5.6% 3.6 91 Y Nanceville 575 61.0% 34.1% 168 8.9% 3.8 59 Y Tract 24/41 572 64.9% 33.2% 156 3.2% 3.8 75 Y N.Main/Mulberry 506 49.8% 25.9% 159 7.5% 3.4 115 Y South Porterville 411 74.9% 36.7% 122 9.0% 3.7 54 Y Grandview Gard. 316 52.2% 33.9% 86 4.7% 3.9 24 Y Beverly Grand 228 58.8% 33.3% 54 3.7% 4.4 22 Y Tract 77 216 85.6% 56.5% 42 14.3% 6.0 20 Y Tract 557 127 16.5% 11.0% 49 0.0% 2.6 19 N Chelsea Glen 108 17.6% 22.2% 36 0.0% 3.0 41 N A&A MHP 103 57.3% 19.4% 58 22.4% 2.3 6 Y Tract 288/413 99 37.4% 25.3% 34 8.8% 3.2 11 N TOTAL 10,820 67.9% 35.1% 2,961 6.7% 3.7 2,116 City of Porterville 54,165 61.9% 33.5% 16,734 6.5% 3.5 11,308 *Based off of corresponding Census blocks. Some communities don’t align conterminously with Census block boundaries so the figures may not be exact. **People per occupied housing unit. Services: Domestic Water Chelsea Glen, North Main/Mulberry Island, Roby Island, Tract 557, Nanceville and Tracts 24/41 are all served by the City of Porterville’s water system. The City’s water system is addressed in Chapter 2 of this MSR. Small portions of East Porterville are connected to the City of Porterville’s water system. Most of East Porterville is served by individual wells. Tulare County Health and Human Services has tested 24 private wells in East Porterville of which 5 were over the minimum for nitrate contamination (45 mg/l). Three of those five wells are located in Tract 42. The other two are on the eastern edge of the community to the east of Tract 98. Future extension of domestic water in East Porterville could be prioritized based on the areas with the worst water contamination. While three wells have tested above minimum levels for nitrates in Tract 42, due to the small sample size, more testing should be done if contamination is given a priority for future extension of City domestic water into East Porterville. Areas of South Porterville are served by the City water system, individual wells and the Akin Water Company. Akin WC serves the Plano Subdivision between Lincoln and Gibbons Ave. The latest test for Akin (12/3/13) showed 38 mg/l for nitrates. While this is below the 45 mg/l minimum, there have been past tests that had results greater than 45 mg/l. Self-Help Enterprises is currently working with Akin WC and the City of Porterville to secure grant funding to extend City water to the subdivision. Listed in Table 6-3 are the remaining unincorporated communities that are served by water companies or use a common well. Nitrate testing results are given a focus here since that is the most common type of contamination problem in the Porterville area. None of these systems have tested above minimum level for other types of contamination such as arsenic, DBCP, lead, etc. 50 Table 6-3 Domestic Water – Nitrates Community Water Provider Nitrate Level Test Date Exceedence (mg/l) Last 5 yrs A&A MHP Common Well 16 2/4/14 N Shady Grove MHP Common Well 5.8 6/17/13 N Porterville TP Common Well 3.3 12/19/13 N Beverly-Grand Mutual 73 7/16/13 Y Tract 77 Mutual 27 12/17/13 N Grandview Gardens Del Oro 46 12/10/12 Y Tract 288/413 Cal Water 16 2012 N With the exception of Beverly-Grand and Grandview Gardens, the other unincorporated communities around Porterville listed above have not had nitrate contamination issues. As with Akin WC, Self-Help Enterprises is working with the Beverly-Grand Mutual Water Company and the City to secure grant funding to connect the community to City water. The 2012 test for Grandview Gardens was the first that exceeded the minimum level for nitrates in the last 5 years. The 2011 test showed 31 mg/l. Sewer All of the communities are served by individual septic systems except East Porterville and Chelsea Glen. East Porterville is served by the Porter Vista Public Utility District (PUD). The sewer system of the Porter Vista PUD feeds into the City’s system and the City’s wastewater treatment facility. A MSR for Porter Vista PUD was included with the “Group 4” district reports and is available on the Tulare County LAFCO website. City sewer service extends to the Chelsea Glen subdivision. City sewer service is discussed in Chapter 2 of this MSR. The remaining communities are served by individual septic systems or group septic systems (for the mobile home parks). Fire Protection [Figure 6-3] While Tulare County is the primary responder for the unincorporated communities, the County and the City have a mutual-aid agreement for fire protection services. The proximity of the nearest City or County fire stations varies significantly between the unincorporated communities. There are two City fire stations and two County fire stations in the Porterville area. County Fire Station #20 (Doyle Colony) is located on Success Dr. in the center of East Porterville. County Fire Station #19 (West Olive) is located within City limits on Olive Ave. (Avenue 152) to the south of Nanceville on the west edge of the City. The two City fire stations are located downtown on Cleveland Ave. (Station 1) and in west Porterville on Newcomb St. near Morton Ave. (Station 2). Table 6-4 Distance to Fire Station (miles to center of community) Community County City Community County City East Porterville 0 2.7 Beverly-Grand 3.7 2.1 Roby Island 1.6 1.1 Tract 77 3.7 2.7 Nanceville 0.2 1.5 Tract 557 0.5 1.3 Tract 24/41 3.3 2.8 Chelsea Glen 3.8 2.1 N.Main/Mulberry 4.0 1.4 A&A MHP 2.8 2.6 South Porterville 2.8 2.1 Tract 288/413 3.3 3.2 Grandview Gardens 4.0 2.3 The Tulare County Fire Department has established a goal to provide fire protection and basic life support emergency medical aid services to all unincorporated areas of the County in the most cost efficient and effective manner available. Table 6-5 lists the fire protection system levels to achieve that goal. The emphasis is placed on rural and remote response models as these are the two largest zone areas within the 51 Northgrand Henderson 2 Olive SR-190 Scranton Teapot Dome Plano M a in Westwood Newcomb Prospect SR-65 Hillcrest Springville Jaye Figure 6-3 City of Porterville Emergency Services Westfield m City Fire #2 City Morton Policem 2 Sheriff Putna+m m City Fire Sierra #1 TC Fire View #19 Hospital mTC Fire #20 Worth Legend ² Major Streets Existing SOI City Uninc. Communities 0 0.250.50.75 1 1.251.5 Miles 52 unincorporated County. For example, it is the County’s goal to have 6 staff arrive within 14 minutes for 80% of the incidents within the Rural demand zone. Table 6-5 Level of Service Goals Demand Zone Demographics Staff – Response Time Percentage Urban >1000 people/sq. mi 15 – 9min 90 Suburban 500-1000 people/sq. mi 10 -10min 90 Rural <500 people/sq. mi. 6 – 14min 80 Remote Travel distance > 8 mi. 4 – per incident 90 Listed in Table 6-6 are the two County fire stations in the Porterville area and their performance in relation to the County Fire Department as a whole with the Rural Zone response time objective. Table 6-6 Fire Station Compliance with Rural Zone Objective # of Responses Fire Station Compliant Not Compliant % Compliant 19 – West Olive 634 154 80.5% 20 – Doyle Colony 657 111 85.5% Tulare County 9,952 1,888 84.1% In addition to the specifically required services (sewer, water and fire protection) in GC §56430(a)(3), other services and infrastructure are also reviewed below: Since East Porterville is primarily served by individual wells, fire suppression is dependent on water brought in with the fire engines and water tenders. An additional benefit of eventual expansion of the City water system into East Porterville will be higher flow rates and much greater supply of water that can be provided through fixed fire hydrants compared to mobile fire apparatus. Solid Waste Solid waste collection is provided by the County through licensed haulers. All of the communities are in Area H which is serviced by USA Waste (a subsidiary of Waste Management). Upon annexation, the existing license would continue for up to 5 years before the City could provide solid waste collection (PRC §49520). Parks There are no park facilities within any of the identified unincorporated communities. All of the communities are in much closer proximity to City park facilities than County park facilities with exception of the eastern portion of East Porterville which is closer to Bartlett Park, located near the base of Success Dam. Street Lighting The County typically provides street lighting at major road intersections in the communities and does not provide mid-block lighting as is typical within cities. There is at least some intersection lighting within most of the unincorporated communities. There is no street lighting in Tract 24/41. There is one street light at one of the road entrances to Beverly-Grand. Streets and Roads The streets in the identified communities are public roads for which the County is responsible for road maintenance with the exception of State Highways for which Caltrans is responsible for road maintenance and streets for which there is an operations and maintenance agreement between a city and the County. 53 SR-190 runs along the south edge of East Porterville and north edge of Tract 24/41. There are a total of 31.8 centerline miles of County roads in the unincorporated communities in and around the City [Table 6- 7]. The condition of the roadways varies significantly (based on physical observation) between and within the communities. Much like the County as a whole, the road conditions range from very poor to very good. There is a general lack of curbs, gutters and sidewalks in most of the communities. The exceptions include Chelsea Glen which has curbs, gutters and sidewalks and Grandview Gardens and Tract 288/413 which has curbs and gutters. Table 6-7 Streets and Improvements* Community Street Curb/ Side Community Street Curb/ Side Miles Gutter walk Miles Gutter walk East Porterville 18.2 S M Beverly-Grand 0.6 M M Roby Island 2.8 S M Tract 77 0.3 M M Nanceville 1.1 M M Tract 557 0.6 Y M Tract 24/41 1.4 S M Chelsea Glen 1.5 Y Y N.Main/Mulberry 2.5 M M A&A MHP 0.2 M M South Porterville 1.5 S M Tract 288/413 0.6 Y M Grandview Gardens 0.7 Y M TOTAL 31.8 *Y = yes, S = some, M = minimal Other Services All of the communities are within the Sierra View Health Care District. Healthcare services are addressed in the MSR for the Sierra View HCD. None of the communities are within a mosquito abatement district. However, mosquito abatement districts may perform vector control outside of district boundaries which has been done by both the Delta Vector Control District and Tulare Mosquito Abatement District. Unincorporated areas are served by the Tulare County Sheriff’s Department which has a substation in downtown Porterville. There is also a mutual-aid agreement between the County and City for police response. Table 6-8 Summary of Services and Disadvantaged Status – Unincorporated Communities Solid Community Water Sewer Fire* Hospital Mosquito DUC Waste** East Porterville Ind. Well PUD/City County USA SV None Yes Roby Island City Septic City USA SV None Yes Nanceville City Septic County USA SV None Yes Tract 24/41 City Septic City USA SV None Yes N.Main/Mulberry City Septic City USA SV None Yes South Porterville Well,MWC Septic City USA SV None Yes Grandview Gard. Del Oro Septic City USA SV None Yes Beverly Grand MWC Septic City USA SV None Yes Tract 77 MWC Septic City USA SV None Yes Tract 557 City Septic County USA SV None No Chelsea Glen City City City USA SV None No A&A MHP Group Well Septic City USA SV None Yes Tract 288/413 CalWater Septic City USA SV None No MWC=Mutual Water Company, SV=Sierra View *Nearest Station, **By license with the County Figures 6-4 through 6-11 show the location of various infrastructure that is present in the unincorporated communities. 54 Isham k k Isham a &- &- a ak &- Isham &- k k &- Orange &- a Corona &- nm &- John J. k Doyle &- Elem. k Success &- &- a k k a ka ak &- a a &- !> k k &-  Date k &-  k k Monte Vista Flat Doyle Colony &- a k River k k k &- River &- k k Cleo k Plano Larson Park Sierra Vista Maurer Corona Leggett Figure 6-4 East Porterville Legend Parcels City DUC k a Street Light &- Stop Sign !> Signal a Fire Hydrant Curb/Gutter C/G/Sidewalk  Transit Stop a a b a n d o n e d ra ilro a d ² 0 200 400 800 Feet 55 &- Roby &- &- &- Tract Holcomb 27 k &- k&- &- Tyler &-  Tract 109 Crabtree k &- &- &- Success &-k &- k Doyle Colony k &- &- k k Springville   &- &- Rio Vista Ruth W W Conner Walnut Sunset Holcomb Figure 6-5 East Porterville Legend Parcels City DUC k Street Light &- Stop Sign !> Signal a Fire Hydrant Curb/Gutter C/G/Sidewalk  Transit Stop PUD Office m Tulare County Fire Station #20 Doyle Colony ² 0 200 400 800 Feet 56 Olive a a Slaughter Slaughter a Tract 157 &- a a a &- &- Forest SR-65 Town and Country Shopping Center a k k   !> k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k ka &- a Olive a a &- a &- a a &- a &- a a &- a Clare &- k Roby k Roby Orange Newcomb Lotus Lotus Beverly Atkins Lucy Waukesha Damron Prospect Prospect Maston Cobb Figure 6-6 Legend nm Parcels Roby Island City West Putnam DUC Elementary k Street Light &- Stop Sign !> Signal a Fire Hydrant Curb/Gutter C/G/Sidewalk  Transit Stop a a a Tract 319 Tract 68 a Tract 199 Tract 45 Tract 201 &- a k &- ² Forest 0 200 400 800 Feet 57 k k!> a Morton k k k a Harrisona a nm a Burton Tract 557 Elementary a a k a k Thurman k &- k a k nm Jim Maples Academy k a &-k Ave 154 &- k &- k Putnam Nanceville k Tomah k k Garden a &-k &-k k ka !> Ave 152 Olive k k Road 222 Birch Road 223 Sycamore Westwood Figure 6-7 Nanceville & Tract 557 Legend Parcels City DUC k Street Light &- Stop Sign !> Signal a Fire Hydrant Curb/Gutter C/G/Sidewalk a  Transit Stop  a  a a m Tulare County Fire Station #19 West Olive ² Vine 0 200 400 800 Feet 58 SR-190 k &- Poplar&- a a a Family Health Care Network a a Tract 41 a a &- El Rancho a Tract 24 a a a Brown a Crystal Prospect Halsey Victory SR-65  Cyrstal Court MHP  Wisconsin Figure 6-8 Tracts 24 & 41 Legend Parcels City DUC k Street Light Poplar Ditch &- Stop Sign a !> Signal a Fire Hydrant Curb/Gutter C/G/Sidewalk  Transit Stop ² 0 200 400 800 Feet 59 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X &-  atsiV etnoM yratnemelE &- k a Westfield Howland k k  &-  &- North Main Mulberry Island &-a &- &- Mulberry k a &- ka k k a &- &- k k ka k k  Henderson k Villa Woods Jaye G Figure 6-9 Pioneer North Main- Mulberry Island La Vida Legend Parcels City DUC k Street Light &- Stop Sign !> Signal a Fire Hydrant Curb/Gutter C/G/Sidewalk M a  Transit Stop S in J V R (fo rm e r) Bel Aire Theta a Sequoia ² 0 200 400 800 Feet 60 k a k k k a Porterville Trailor Park k &- &- k k a k k &- k Yates ka a k k a a k &- &- &- &- k xxxxxxxxxx Shady Grove MHP Lincoln Plano Subdivision Gibbons A&A MHP Main 2nd 3rd 4th Roche Plano Caltrans Maint. Short Figure 6-10 South Porterville Legend Parcels City DUC k Street Light &- Stop Sign !> Worth a Signal a Fire Hydrant Curb/Gutter C/G/Sidewalk  Transit Stop ² Campbell-Moreland Ditch 0 200 400 800 Feet 61 &- &- a k Linda Vista k k k a k kShellya a k a k k a k Chelsea a Merrill a Agnes k k a aBaker Beverly Grand &- &-k k k &- &-k  Northgrand k a k k a a Tulare County Road Yard Newcomb Dillon Boyles Beverly Prospect Maston Douglas Ben S R - 6 5 Becky Figure 6-11 North Porterville Legend Parcels Chelsea Glen City DUC k Street Light &- Stop Sign !> y Signal rl e a m b Fire Hydrant Ki Curb/Gutter u sti n C h ris C/G/Sidewalk J  Transit Stop Grandview Gardens ² 0 200 400 800 Feet 62 Annexation Some of the communities are county islands that qualify under the stream-lined county island annexation procedures (GC §56375.3). These procedures allow for the annexation of these islands without protest or election. The communities of Roby Island, N. Main/Mulberry Island and most of Grandview Gardens qualify for the stream-lined island annexation procedures. In addition, several areas within East Porterville also qualify. This includes Tract 44, Corona Tract, Monte Vista Flat and Monache Tract. For the rest of East Porterville and the other communities, the regular annexation process would apply. This process requires the support of land owners and registered voters within the annexation area to be successful. East Porterville and potential merger of the Porter Vista PUD into the City is discussed further in the following “Conflicting Growth Boundaries” section. 63 6.2 Conflicting Growth Boundaries Figure 6-12 shows the City’s incorporated area, the City’s 20-year UDB, the County’s 20-year UDB, the SOI and the proposed UDB/SOI. The existing County and City UDBs and existing SOI are all substantially similar. The primary differences between the three lines occur in the airport and industrial area to the southwest of the City and in the foothill area northwest of the City. Table 6-3 lists the sizes of the various current planning boundaries and the percentage size differential between each planning boundary and the existing City Limits. Table 6-9 City of Porterville Boundary Comparison Size Size Difference vs. Boundary (acres) (sq. mi.) City Limits Incorporated City 10,811 16.9 n/a Sphere of Influence 14,869 23.2 37.5% County 20-year UDB 14,221 22.2 31.5% City 20-year UDB 15,160 23.7 40.2% Proposed SOI/UDB 17,186 26.9 59.0% Note: The estimated population % growth between 2010 and 2030 is 57% based on an average annual growth rate of 2.45% Tulare County LAFCo Policy C-5.2 states the following: Where differences exist between County and City adopted twenty-year boundaries, for the same community, the Commission shall determine which boundary most closely reflects the statutory requirements or intent of the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Act for the setting of Spheres of Influence. Among other considerations, the Commission may determine which boundary is supported by the most recent or most complete analysis, including such documentation as may be required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Should LAFCO determine that no existing Planning Boundary complies with the statutory requirements or intent of the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Act, the Commission shall determine the twenty-year growth boundary independently of other agencies. In all cases of conflicting boundaries, the commission shall attempt to reconcile the various boundaries and the Sphere of Influence before adoption. The City and County entered into a Settlement Agreement (Tulare County Agreement No. 26543) on April 30th, 2014 in regards to lawsuits involving the Tulare County General Plan (Case No. 249043) and the Porterville Redevelopment Project No. 1 (Case No. VCU249877). Included in the Settlement Agreement, the City and County agreed on the intent to align the City Urban Development Boundary (UDB) and the County Adopted City Urban Development Boundary (CACUDB) with the LAFCO SOI. Below is an excerpt from section IV of the Agreement: i. Amendment of the CACUDB for Porterville to be coterminous with the City UDB. The parties intend that this line be coterminous with the City’s SOI adopted by Tulare County Local Agency formation Commission (“LAFCO”) and meet LAFCO’s criteria and policies applicable to SOIs, as set out in Section IX. 1. LAFCO action on the City’s SOI Amendment Application, as specified in Section IX, is a condition precedent to the County’s obligation to amend the CACUDB for Porterville. 64 Figure 6-12 City of Porterville Development Boundaries 7 6 9 8 10 5 4 11 12 14 3 13 ² 1 Legend Porterville SOI 2 County UDB City UDB City Proposed UDB/SOI Porter Vista PUD 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 Miles 65 Northgrand Henderson Olive SR-190 Scranton Teapot Dome Plano M a in Westwood Newcomb Prospect SR-65 Hillcrest Springville Jaye Westfield Morton Worth Doyle Figure 6-13 City of Porterville Proposed Sphere of Influence Legend ² Proposed SOI Streets Ave 120 City Community of Interest 0 0.250.50.75 1 1.251.5 Miles 66 The City, in consultation with the County, submitted a proposed SOI as shown in Figure 6-13. The Settlement Agreement constitutes a “mutually adopted agreement between County and Porterville regarding the collection of public facilities impact fees” as provided in Goal PF-4 of the County General Plan. The agreement also details development standards and planning within the UDB. This essentially fulfills the City-County agreement as outlined in GC section 56425(b): Prior to a city submitting an application to the commission to update its sphere of influence, representatives from the city and representatives from the county shall meet to discuss the proposed new boundaries of the sphere and explore methods to reach agreement on development standards and planning and zoning requirements within the sphere to ensure that development within the sphere occurs in a manner that reflects the concerns of the affected city and is accomplished in a manner that promotes the logical and orderly development of areas within the sphere. If an agreement is reached between the city and county, the city shall forward the agreement in writing to the commission, along with the application to update the sphere of influence. The commission shall consider and adopt a sphere of influence for the city consistent with the policies adopted by the commission pursuant to this section, and the commission shall give great weight to the agreement to the extent that it is consistent with commission policies in its final determination of the city sphere. Table 6-11 reviews the areas of difference, as shown in Figure 6-12, between the existing SOI and the proposed SOI. The proposed SOI would add a net of 2,317 acres of land. Most of the added acreage is due to the inclusion of mostly developed land in East Porterville and mostly undeveloped planned industrial land by the Porterville Airport. Table 6-11 Areas of Difference Between Current and Proposed SOI (acres) Area [Fig. 6- 12] laitnediseR laicremmoC lairtsudnI cilbuP ceR/kraP noitavresnoC tsaE ellivretroP TOTAL 1 0 68 0 0 0 0 0 68 2 0 0 0 139 0 0 0 139 3 164 0 764 0 0 0 0 928 4 54 16 0 24 22 0 0 116 5 -100 0 0 0 -10 0 0 -110 6 205 4 0 14 12 0 0 235 7 0 31 0 0 0 0 0 31 8 -89 0 0 0 -10 0 0 -99 9 -155 0 0 -10 -12 0 0 -177 10 59 0 0 0 0 0 0 59 11 35 0 0 0 0 65 0 100 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 1015 1015 13 10 0 0 0 2 0 0 12 TOTAL 183 119 764 167 4 65 1015 2317 Note: Area 14 is a Community of Interest recommended to be added to City/County proposal 67 Area 1 – This area is located on the north side of Teapot Dome Ave. between Route 65 and Indiana St. It is 68 acres in size and is designated as Retail Center in the City General Plan. The area is currently in agricultural use. Area 2 – This area is located between Teapot Dome Ave and Avenue 124 to the west of Route 65. It is 139 acres in size and is designated as Public/Institutional for the future expansion of the Porterville Airport. The area is currently in agricultural use and has one residence. Area 3 – This area is located between the Porterville Airport and Route 190. It is 928 acres in size and includes 764 acres designated for Industrial and 164 acres for Rural Residential. About 100 acres in this area are currently occupied with rural residential uses (31 residences) with the rest of the area being in agricultural use. Area 4 – This area is bounded by the Tule River to the south and extends north of Olive Ave. It is 116 acres in size and includes several land use designations, Parks and Recreation, Education (Public), Retail Center, Low Density and Medium Density Residential. Current uses include a school, commercial uses along Olive Ave, # residences and agriculture. Area 5 – This area is proposed to be removed from the existing SOI. It is bounded by Henderson Ave. on the north and the Friant-Kern Canal on the west. It is 110 acres in size with 100 acres designated for Low Density Residential and the remainder for Parks and Recreation. The current use is agriculture. Area 6 – This area is along North Grand Ave. and the Friant-Kern Canal. It is 235 acres in size and includes several land use designations: Neighborhood Commercial, Parks and Recreation, Education, Rural, Low and Medium Density Residential. The area is currently occupied with residential (57 residences) and agricultural uses. Area 7 – This area is located at the north end of the City between Route 65 and Main St. It is 31 acres in size and is designated for Commercial Mixed Use. The area currently contains three residences and agricultural land. Area 8 – This area is proposed to be removed from the existing SOI. It is bounded by Westfield Ave. on the south and Plano St. on the west. It is 99 acres in size and it is currently in agricultural use and has one residence. Area 9 – This area is proposed to be removed from the existing SOI. The area is accessed by Lisa Ln (Hillcrest St) from the south. It is 177 acres in size and is currently in agricultural use. Area 10 – This area is adjacent to Lisa Ln (Hillcrest St) to the west. It is 59 acres in size and is designated for Rural and Low Density Residential. It is currently in agricultural use. Area 11 – This area is located along the north side of Olive Ave along the foothills at the eastern end of the City. It is 100 acres in size and contains four residences, fallow and undeveloped land extending into the foothills. Area 12 – This area is substantially the community of East Porterville which is located between the Tule River and Route 190 to the south and Olive Ave to the north. This portion of the community that is proposed to be included in the SOI is 1,022 acres in size. The primary designated land uses include Rural, Low and Medium Density Residential, Retail Center, Education and Public/Institutional. This area is substantially developed with uses consistent with the land use designations. 68 Area 13 – This area is located on the west side of Hillcrest Ave. across the road from the State Hospital. It is 12 acres in size and is designated for Low Density Residential and Parks and Recreation. It currently is a fallow field. Area 14 – This area is the remainder of the Porter Vista PUD that is not within the City/County proposed UDB/SOI to the east of Doyle St. It may be identified as a community of interest that may be added to the SOI. The area is 286 acres in size and is designated for Low and Rural Density Residential and Recreation/Open Space. It currently contains mostly large lot rural residential development. The City of Porterville’s SOI currently includes twelve identified unincorporated communities (10 DUCs) and a small portion of a thirteenth, East Porterville. The City/County proposed UDB/SOI would retain all of the twelve existing communities in the current SOI and would add most of East Porterville. It is recommended that the remainder of East Porterville (Area 14) be included in the SOI as a community of interest. Government Code section 56425(e)(4) allows for the inclusion of “Communities of Interest” in an agency’s SOI. Tulare LAFCO Policy 5.1 defines a Community of Interest as follows: ...communities of interest may include agricultural buffer areas, publicly-owned facilities, noncontiguous subdivisions and development areas, key intersections, highway corridors, and parcels of land associated with the affected community, and other similar areas as may be determined by the Commission. Table 6-11 Unincorporated Communities vs. Growth Boundaries Community Existing SOI County UDB Proposed East Porterville No* No* Yes Roby Island Yes Yes Yes Nanceville Yes Yes Yes Tract 24/41 Yes Yes Yes N.Main/Mulberry Yes Yes Yes South Porterville Yes Yes Yes Grandview Gard. Yes Yes Yes Beverly Grand Yes Yes Yes Tract 77 No No No Tract 557 Yes Yes Yes Chelsea Glen Yes Yes Yes A&A MHP No No No Tract 288/413 Yes Yes Yes Shady Grove MHP Yes Yes Yes Porterville TP Yes Yes Yes *most of East Porterville is outside the existing SOI and UDB Porter Vista PUD In 1972, the annexation of a large portion of East Porterville (878 acres north of Success Dr.) was proposed by the City and approved by LAFCO (Case 431-P-65, City Annexation #168). The annexation was in response to a severe three year drought that led to many domestic well failures. However, the annexation was defeated at election. 69 In 1974, a study conducted by the Tulare County Health Department highlighted the need for sewer service due to contamination of domestic wells by the numerous septic systems in the community. In addition, the State Water Quality Control Board placed a ban on any further septic tanks in the community. Due to the past election defeat and continued opposition from residents, rather than attempt another annexation to the City, the Porter Vista PUD was formed in 1977 to provide sewer collection service for the community of East Porterville (Case 535). The PUD’s sewer lines feed into the City of Porterville’s system and wastewater treatment facility. In 1995, the PUD and the City entered into an agreement for the joint use of the treatment facility and various responsibilities for the PUD system to be consistent with the City system. There is currently some overlap of boundaries between the City and the PUD [Fig. 6-2]. The PUD is 1,734 acres in size. Of that, about 142 acres are within the City. In addition, a total of about 172 acres of the PUD qualify for the streamlined county island annexation process. These areas include Monte Vista Flat, Corona Tract, Tract 44 and Monache Tract. While the entire PUD is substantially surrounded by the City, it greatly exceeds the maximum acreage requirement (150 ac) for the streamlined county island annexation process. The placement of East Porterville/Porter Vista PUD in the City’s SOI is recognition that the community would be best served if it were annexed or merged into the City. The annexation of the area would mean that the PUD would be maintained as a subsidiary district to the City while a merger of the PUD into the City would result in the PUD being dissolved. However, a future annexation or merger is dependent on registered voter and landowner support. 6.3 Written Determinations Disadvantaged and Other Developed Unincorporated Communities 1. There are twelve unincorporated communities within the existing City SOI (Roby Island, Nanceville, Tract 24/41, N. Main/Mulberry Island, South Porterville, Grandview Gardens, Beverly Grand, Tract 557, Chelsea Glen, Tract 288/413, Shady Grove Mobile Home Park and Porterville Trailer Park), one community that is mostly outside the SOI (East Porterville and two unincorporated communities that are outside and adjacent to the SOI (Tract 77 and A&A Mobile Home Park). 2. There are twelve identified disadvantaged unincorporated communities; East Porterville, Roby Island, Nanceville, Tract 24/41, N. Main/Mulberry Island, South Porterville, Grandview Gardens, Beverly Grand, Shady Grove Mobile Home Park and Porterville Trailor Park, Tract 77 and A&A Mobile Home Park. 3. For domestic water service, six communities are connected to the City water system; Roby Island, Nanceville, Tract 24/41, N. Main/Mulberry Island, Tract 557 and Chelsea Glen. East Porterville is mostly served by individual wells while a small portion is connected to the City system. Grandview Gardens is served by the Del Oro Water Company. Beverly Grand is served by the Beverly Grand Mutual Water Company. Tract 77 is served by the Central Mutual Water Company. Tract 288/413 is served by the California Water Company. South Porterville is served by the City, individual wells and the Akin Mutual Water Company. Shady Grove MHP, A&A MHP and Porterville Trailer Park are served by their own wells. 4. For domestic water quality, Beverly Grand, Grandview Gardens, and the portion of South Porterville served by Akin MWC have reported exceedences of the minimum nitrate level. Self-Help Enterprises is currently working with the City and mutual water companies to 70 secure grand funding to link Beverly Grand and Akin MWC into the City system. Five of 24 individually tested wells in East Porterville exceeded minimum nitrate levels. 5. For sewer service, East Porterville is served by the Porter Vista PUD. The PUD sewer lines connect into the Porterville system and treatment facility. Chelsea Glen is connected directly into the City sewer system. The other 13 unincorporated communities are on individual or group septic systems. 6. The unincorporated communities are served primarily by the County fire department with City service in support. The City and the County have a mutual-aid agreement for fire protection services with 2 City fire stations and 2 County fire stations in the Porterville area. Conflicting Growth Boundaries 1. LAFCO shall determine the SOI for the City of Porterville pursuant to State law and Tulare County LAFCO Policy C-5. 2. The City of Porterville and County of Tulare have signed a Settlement Agreement with the intent to place the City and County UDBs coterminous with the updated LAFCO SOI. 3. The City of Porterville and County of Tulare have submitted a joint proposal for the placement of the SOI. 4. A portion of East Porterville, served by the Porter Vista PUD, is determined to be a community of interest that is recommended to be added to the proposed SOI. 5. The placement of the Porter Vista PUD within the City SOI is recognition that this area would be best served by the City which would necessitate a future annexation or merger if support can be garnered from the registered voters and property owners within the PUD. 71 45 72 7 GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE OPTIONS The purpose of this section is to consider the advantages and disadvantages of various government structures to provide public services. This section describes the potential fiscal impacts of development within SOI areas, and the annexation of land. 7.1 Development within SOI Areas One of the most critical elements of LAFCO’s responsibilities is in setting logical service boundaries for communities based on their capability to provide services to affected lands. Similar levels of public participation can be expected for either City or County development projects in the planning and development process for the SOI territories. It is possible that development in the SOI areas that occurs under County control may not fully resolve impacts to the City, such as increased traffic on City streets, and new groundwater wells to support County development impacting Porterville groundwater aquifers and other analogous assumptions. It can also be assumed that the reverse is true; that development controlled only by the City may leave impacts in the County unresolved in whole or in part. The challenge of this planning effort is to coordinate shared infrastructure and improvements so as to mitigate impacts on either side of the City/County limit boundary. Since the development of the SOI territories generally relies on master planned infrastructure available from the City, it is logical that the City assume the lead in planning for SOI properties, consistent with the City of Porterville General Plan and master plans. If the City were to be the lead planning agency for properties within the SOI, LAFCO could require the City to bring coordinated plans for infrastructure forward to LAFCO at the time specific annexation requests are submitted. This would provide a checks and balance system for incorporating new lands within the City, and would render the remaining County lands a part of an integrated whole. There are some remaining “County islands” located within the interior of the Porterville City Limits. There are also a few minor inconsistencies between the City’s UDB and SOI. The City has been actively annexing “County islands” into the City; however, there is still some remaining. It is anticipated that “County islands” that have been annexed into the City will ultimately be connected to City utilities (i.e. water and sewer). In general, all unincorporated “County islands” within the interior of the Porterville City Limits are not connected to City utilities (i.e. water and sewer). To create a better defined City Limit boundary, it is recommended that the City continue to annex “County islands” as appropriate, and administratively feasible. In addition, the City should work with the Tulare County Local Agency Formation Commission, and the Tulare County Resource Management Agency to rectify differences between the City’s UDB and SOI. Tulare County LAFCO has adopted specific policies for reviewing proposals for a change in organization, reorganization, incorporations, dissolution and other proposals processed by Tulare County LAFCO. Tulare County LAFCO policy C-1 identifies factors and standards to be considered in review proposals including additional requirements for City annexations, standards for annexation to special districts, standards for the formation of special districts, and standards for City incorporation. Tulare County LAFCO policy C-2 outlines general procedures for changes in boundaries or organization to be processed by LAFCO. Generally, proposals for changes in boundaries, formations, or changes of organization can be submitted for the consideration of LAFCO by petition of the registered voters or affected landowners; however, prior to the circulation of any petition, a “Notice of Intent to Circulate” must be presented to the 73 LAFCO Executive Officer. A proposal may also be initiated by a resolution adopted by the governing body of any related public body (County, City or Special District). The proposal must be submitted on forms available from the LAFCO staff office, or on the LAFCO website, along with the applicable number of maps, legal descriptions, and filing fees to cover the proposal submitted. Tulare County LAFCO policies C-3 and C-4 outline specific criteria for petitions for change in organization, and protest hearings, respectively. Tulare County LAFCO policy C-5 sets forth specific criteria for establishing, and reviewing amendment proposals to, Spheres of Influence. Policy C-5 contains criteria regarding the following items: Existing boundaries, conflicting boundaries, initial implementation, scheduled updates – Cities, scheduled updates – Special Districts, exceptions, separation of communities, municipal service reviews, and also contains an MSR exemption policy. SOI amendments shall be processed in accordance with the policies and procedures set forth by Tulare County LAFCO. 7.2 Written Determinations 1. Since development of properties within the SOI generally relies on master planned infrastructure available from the City, it is logical for the City to assume the lead in planning for these sites. 2. The City has a sound governmental structure that provides necessary resources to provide public services and infrastructure improvements within the SOI area. 3. Coordinated infrastructure plans for development within the SOI area that are submitted with specific annexation requests would create a checks and balance system for incorporating lands into the City while promoting improvements to impacted adjacent County land. 4. It is anticipated that “County islands” that have been annexed into the City will ultimately be connected to City utilities (i.e. water and sewer). In general, all unincorporated “County islands” within the interior of the Porterville City Limits are not connected to City utilities (i.e. water and sewer). To create a better defined City Limit boundary, it is recommended that the City continue to annex “County islands” as appropriate, and administratively feasible. 5. Tulare County LAFCO has adopted specific policies for reviewing proposals for a change in organization, reorganization, incorporations, dissolution and other proposals processed by Tulare County LAFCO, including annexations, and SOI amendment proposals. SOI amendments and other changes in organization shall be processed in accordance with the policies and procedures set forth by Tulare County LAFCO. 47 74 8 EVALUATION OF MANAGEMENT EFFICIENCIES The purpose of this section is to consider the management structure of the jurisdiction. 8.1 Organizational Structure The following section discusses various operational and service aspects of the City of Porterville. Much of the information was obtained from the City’s website at www.ci.porterville.ca.us. The website provides descriptions and contact information for each of the departments serving the residents of the City. Overall, a review of the documentation reveals that the City is well run and organized in an efficient manner. The City of Porterville, which operates under the council-manager form of government, became a “Charter City” in 1926. Since then, the City Charter has been changed by the voters. The Chief Executive Officer is the City Manager who serves at the pleasure of the City Council and carries out City policies. All other department heads in the City serve under contract and at the pleasure of the City Manager. Elected at large by the citizens as the legislative policy making branch of City government are five members of the City Council. Through its power to pass ordinances, levy taxes, award contracts and appoint the City Manager and City Attorney, committees and commissions, the Council directs the course of City government. The City Council also acts as the Porterville Redevelopment Agency, the Porterville Public Improvement Corporation, the Porterville Public Financing Authority, and the Porterville Planning Commission. The City Council is assisted by four citizen committees and two permanent commissions: Parks and Leisure Service Commission, Library Board of Trustees, Redevelopment Advisory Committee, Community Development Block Grant Advisory Committee, Affirmative Action Advisory Committee and the Building Code Review Board. The City Council appoints the members to each of these bodies. Each commission and committee is made up of citizens who work to provide services to the community while assisting the Council in achieving goals established by the citizens and elected officials. City Council members also represent the City of Porterville on various County, regional and State commissions and committees. Institutes, conferences, and seminars are held throughout the year to provide training and information that assist members of the Council in performance of their duties. 75 The City consists of eight departments which include the City Manager’s Office, Finance Department, Fire Department, Police Department, Human Resources Department, Parks and Leisure Services, Community Development Department, and Public Works Department. The City Manager’s Office has the responsibility to ensure the needs and concerns of the community and the City organization are properly addressed to assure Porterville is a good place to live and conduct business. The organizational chart for the City is illustrated on Figure X-XX Source: City of Porterville Website: www.ci.porterville.ca.us A summary of the City’s departments and the various services they provide to residents is provided below. City Manager’s Office – The City Manager’s Office has the responsibility to ensure the needs and concerns of the community and the City organization are properly addressed to assure Porterville is a good place to live and conduct business. The City Manager’s Office provides leadership for the overall management of the operations of City government, supports and advises the City Council as to the implementation of its policies, programs and targets, and ensures that the services provided to the citizens of Porterville are consistent with the Council’s goals and the organization’s philosophy. Finance Department – The City’s Finance Department directs and monitors the financial operations of the City. The Finance Department is responsible for the preparation of quarterly interim financial reports (including interim summaries of revenues and expenditures for all City funds), accounts payable, accounts receivable, issuance of business licenses, management information systems development and training, payroll, purchasing activities, and utility billing. Fire Department – The City’s Fire Department is responsible for implementing fire 76 suppression and prevention programs, and promoting the safety and security of the community through fire suppression, emergency medical services, and fire safety programs such as commercial inspections, senior citizens programs, ongoing fire training, pre-fire planning and public awareness programs. The fire department is also involved in the U.S. Fire Administration (USFA) for kids which provides educational tools and programs to promote fire safety and awareness. Police Department – The City’s Police Department provides the following services to ensure the safety and protection of the community: animal control, crime prevention efforts, dispatch/communications, evidence and property control, fingerprint/drug/ gang/290 registration, graffiti/crime/drug hotline, investigations, police patrol, records management and operation of a volunteers unit. Animal control services include removal of dead animals, pick up of stray animals, barking dog complaints, and animal bite problems. The City of Porterville contracts with the City of Lindsay for animal control services. Crime prevention activities include police department tours, neighborhood watch, McGruff children’s programs, bicycle safety programs, women’s safety programs, senior safety programs, workplace violence prevention programs, domestic violence prevention, and police ride alongs. The dispatch/communications unit serves the community 24 hours per day, seven days per week, and handles approximately 600 calls per day including information requests, calls for police/fire service, and emergency 911 calls. The evidence/property control unit is responsible for intake, storage, and disposal of all evidence/property received by the Porterville police department to be held as evidence, found property, or stored for safekeeping. The City’s anonymous graffiti/crime/drug hotline gives the citizens of Porterville the ability to relay crime or drug information without the fear of retaliation. The investigations unit handles most narcotic related criminal activity. They also handle vice related crimes such as extortion, prostitution, alcohol and beverage control violations, and street gang related crimes. The patrol division is responsible for providing visible patrol in the community year round, 24-hours per day. The records unit conducts local background checks, registration appointments, vehicle correction citation inspections, and handles payment of parking tickets. The volunteers unit consists of reserve community services officers, senior volunteers, police chaplains, and police explorers. Human Resources Department – The City’s Human Resources Department is responsible for City personnel related issues including employment applications, employee screening, and affirmative action policies. The municipal code of the City of Porterville establishes a comprehensive personnel system, and the Human Resources Department ensures that the system is carried out in a professional manner. Parks and Leisure Services Department– The City’s Parks and Leisure Services Department is responsible for the implementation of several activities and programs sponsored by the City of Porterville. Some of these activities/programs include arena soccer, operation and maintenance of City parks, operation of the Heritage Center Library, operation of landscaping/maintenance districts, operation and maintenance of the Municipal Golf Course, and recreational after school programs. The mission of the Parks and Leisure Services Department is to provide excellent customer services to the citizens of the community, to enhance their quality of life by providing opportunities for the public’s enjoyment, inspiration, education, personal development and cultural enrichment, and to provide clean, safe, well designed parks and facilities. Community Development Department– The mission of Porterville’s Community Development Department is to serve and respond to the needs of the community for a better 77 quality of life through visionary planning, design, and development now and into the future. The City’s Community Development Department promotes the economic development of the community administers housing assistance programs, rehabilitation and block grants, and provides business incentives for businesses interested in locating in Porterville. The Community Development Department is also responsible for the preparation and implementation of the City’s General Plan, redevelopment activities in the City’s designated redevelopment area, implementing zoning compliance in the City. Public Works Services Department – The mission of the City’s Public Works Department is to serve and respond to the needs of the citizens of the Porterville community by providing opportunities for development and essential services for a better quality of life through visionary planning and design, quality construction and dedicated maintenance of City facilities and infrastructure. The City’s Public Works Departments includes the City’s building division, which is responsible for building inspections, and compliance, and establishes requirements for obtaining building permits within the City. The Public Works Department reviews all plans for development within the City to ensure compliance with City standards, ordinances, resolutions, and other regulations. The Public Works Department operates and maintains City infrastructure, including but not limited to, the City’s water, sewer and storm drain systems, wastewater treatment facility, refuse recycling collection and streets and traffic signals. 8.2 Written Determinations 1. There is no evidence indicating that the City’s current management structure would not be able to assume services within the SOI area, and/or continue to assist other agencies through mutual aid agreements. 2. The City ensures that services can be efficiently provided in the SOI areas through the preparation of master service plans to provide infrastructure that will ultimately serve the SOI/UDB areas. 3. The City has a sound organizational structure that should be able to continue to provide quality service to current residents, and accommodate future growth within the City and surrounding urban development areas. 51 78 9 LOCAL ACCOUNTABILITY AND GOVERNANCE The purpose of this section is to evaluate the accessibility and levels of public participation associated with the agency’s decision-making processes. 9.1 Public Access and Information Methods The governing body of Porterville is the City Council, which is elected in compliance with California Election Laws. The City complies with the Brown Act Open-Meeting Law and provides the public with opportunities to get information about City issues, including website and phone access, newsletters, and bill inserts. The City publishes a quarterly newsletter, “City of Porterville Newsletter” which is posted on their website. The City has a comprehensive website which informs the community on various activities of the City including development activities, parks and leisure services activities, developer information, and public safety information. The City’s website also contains an online crime report. The City’s website is an excellent informational tool, and provides remote access to the current events of the City, contact information for all City departments, emergency contacts, utility information (rates, street sweeping schedule, etc.), crime statistics, a complete City profile, current projects, and much more. The City’s website can be accessed at www.ci.porterville.ca.us. Regular City Council meetings are held on the first and third Tuesday of each month at 5:30 p.m. in City Hall Council Chambers located at 291 N. Main Street, Porterville. The City posts meeting minutes and agendas on their website as a courtesy. The City’s budget preparation process gives residents the opportunity to review the services the City is providing, and the cost of those services. This type of accountability helps the City to identify services that are operating efficiently and areas where improvement may be needed within the organization. The City could gain a better understanding of the public’s satisfaction with City services by conducting a public opinion survey on an annual basis, or other established time period, as appropriate. This would help the City determine which services the public is satisfied with, and those which are need of improvement. Although public opinion surveys are not regularly conducted by the City, citizens do have opportunities to express their concerns during regular updates to the City’s general plan, which is currently taking place. Public opinion surveys should be conducted more often to identify and address the concerns of people living and working in the community in a timelier manner. 9.2 Written Determinations 1. The governing body of Porterville is the City Council, which is elected in compliance with California Election Laws. The City complies with the Brown Act Open-Meeting Law and provides the public with opportunities to get information about City issues, including website and phone access, newsletters, and bill inserts. Regular City Council meetings are held on the first and third Tuesday of each month at 5:30 p.m. in City Hall Council Chambers located at 291 N. Main Street, Porterville. 2. The City continues to make reasonable efforts to maintain public involvement regarding land use and development projects in the community. The City accomplishes this through regular City Council meetings, website postings, and encouraging the public to participate in the General Plan Update process, which is currently taking place. 79 3. The City maintains a comprehensive website, which provides a means to keep the public informed on local events, current City projects, recreational activities, and other activities occurring in the City. 4. The City’s budget preparation process gives residents the opportunity to review the services the City is providing, and the cost of those services. This type of accountability helps the City to identify services that operating efficiently and areas where improvement may be needed within the organization. 80 10 OPPORTUNITIES FOR SHARED FACILITIES The purpose of this section is to evaluate opportunities for a jurisdiction to share facilities and resources, thereby increasing efficiency. This section provides a description of the City’s current facilities sharing activities, and identifies future opportunities to collaborate with other agencies on joint use projects and/or practices. 10.1 Current Shared Facilities/Resources The City has demonstrated its desire to work with surrounding agencies in providing quality service to residents in a cost effective manner. Some examples of the City’s interagency cooperation efforts include the establishment of automatic mutual aid agreements with the Tulare County Sheriff’s Department, and the Tulare County Fire Department to collaborate public safety efforts. The City has worked with Tulare County Association of Governments and Tulare County Resource Management Agency on regional planning issues including transportation, solid waste, and coordinating applications to request State and/or Federal funding for joint projects. Other examples of the City’s efforts to share facilities and/or resources are identified below.  Contracting with the City of Lindsay for animal control services  The City’s participation in the Consolidated Waste Management Authority (CWMA)  The City’s participation in the Success Dam Seismic Remediation Project  Working with the Kern Community College District for the joint use of recreational facilities  Working with the Porter Vista PUD to coordinate wastewater treatment efforts The City is exposed to various risks and losses related to torts; theft of, damage to, and destruction of assets; errors and omissions; injuries to employees; and natural disasters. Risk of loss is primarily handled through the Central San Joaquin Valley Risk Management Authority (CSJVRMA). CSJVRMA is a consortium of fifty-five cities in the San Joaquin Valley. The CSJVRMA is governed by a Board of Directors, which meets 3 to 4 times per year, consisting of one member appointed by each member city. The day to day business is handled by a management group employed by CSJVRMA. The CSJVRMA participates in an excess pool which provides general liability coverage from $1,000,000 to $15,000,000. The CSJVRMA participates in an excess pool which provides workers’ compensation coverage from $250,000 to $500,000 and purchases excess insurance above the $500,000 to the statutory limit. Based upon the City’s participation in the CSJVRMA, the City takes advantage of sharing insurance coverage premiums as a way of avoiding unnecessary costs. 10.2 Future Opportunities With the State budget crisis impacting both Counties and Cities, the need for intergovernmental cooperation is becoming apparent, as every agency is facing an unprecedented assault on local resources. For this reason, it is important for City’(s) and the County to meet this challenge on common ground. The City has opportunities to work with local irrigation districts and water conservation districts on groundwater recharge efforts. Continued reliance on groundwater could cause water table levels to decrease, thus it is important that the City work with other local agencies to maintain its groundwater supply through recharge efforts. Groundwater recharge would benefit both the County as a whole and the City in terms of planning for future growth 5 81 within the SOI boundary. The City should continue to work with the County on efforts to preserve prime agricultural land, and discourage development that would result in the loss of such lands. The City can accomplish this through smart growth planning, and promoting higher density developments and infill development. In the previous MSR the City was planning a Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) fueling facility to be constructed at the City’s corporation yard. Since then City has constructed the facility. The City of Porterville's fast fill CNG fueling facility is located within the existing recycle drop off center on Prospect Street at the City Corporation Yard. The CNG fueling pump has two nozzles that can be utilized simultaneously. The facility accepts Visa and MasterCard only. CNG is a cleaner burning and more economical alternative than fossil fuels. This facility will provide the alternative fuel infrastructure to serve the general public as well as numerous agencies including local school districts and the County of Tulare. The City should continue to look for opportunities to work with other local jurisdictions to complete joint use projects for the benefit of the community and taxpayers. The City should forge partnerships with local school districts to complete joint use projects that may include recreational facilities, shared corporation yard, joint use buildings, a multi-purpose room, gymnasium, or theater. 10.3 Written Determinations Current Shared Facilities/Resources 1. Some examples of the City’s interagency cooperation efforts include the establishment of automatic mutual aid agreements with the Tulare County Sheriff’s Department, the Tulare County Fire Department, and the City of Visalia Hazardous Response Team, to collaborate public safety efforts. 2. The City has worked with Tulare County Association of Governments and Tulare County Resource Management Agency on regional planning issues including transportation, solid waste, and coordinating applications to request State and/or Federal funding for joint projects. 3. Other examples of the City’s efforts share facilities and/or resources include contracting with the City of Lindsay for animal control services, participation in the Consolidated Waste Management Authority (CWMA), participation in the Success Dam Seismic Remediation Project, joint use recreational facilities with the Kern Community College District. 4. Based upon the City’s participation in the Central San Joaquin Valley Risk Management Authority (CSJVRMA), the City takes advantage of sharing insurance coverage premiums as a way of avoiding unnecessary costs. 5. The Porter Vista PUD provides only sanitary sewer collection service within their district boundary, and treatment is provided at the City’s WWTF through an agreement between the City and the Porter Vista PUD Future Opportunities 1. The City has opportunities to work with local irrigation districts and water 82 conservation districts on groundwater recharge efforts. Continued reliance on groundwater could cause water table levels to decrease, thus it is important that the City work with other local agencies to maintain its groundwater supply through recharge efforts. Groundwater recharge would benefit both the County as a whole and the City in terms planning for future growth within the SOI boundary. 2. The City should continue to work with the County on efforts to preserve prime agricultural land, and discourage development that would result in the loss of such lands. The City can accomplish this through smart growth planning, and promoting higher density developments and infill development. 3. The City should continue to look for opportunities to work with other local jurisdictions to complete joint use projects for the benefit of the community and taxpayers. 83 City of Porterville MSR 1. California Department of Finance, Demographic Unit : Released May 1, 2014 2. Porterville General Plan, 2008. (http://www.ci.porterville.ca.us/depts/CommunityDevelopment/generalplan.cfm) 3. http://opr.ca.gov/docs/2011bol.pdf 4. www.ci.porterville.ca.us/depts/Finance/ : Annual budget Reports 2013‐2014 res. 39‐2013 5. City of Porterville Water System Master Plan 2001 6. California’s Groundwater Bulletin 118, 1/20/06 7. Public Update for Drought Response Groundwater Basins with Potential Water Shortages and Gaps in Groundwater Monitoring 8. California’s Groundwater Bulletin 118, 1/20/06 9. Hilton and others 1963; DWR 1995 10. California’s Groundwater San Joaquin Valley Groundwater Basin Bulletin 118 11. http://www.ci.porterville.ca.us/documents/WaterConservationPlanv3.0FINAL.pdf 12. Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin 13. City of Porterville Water Conservation Plan , version 3.0 August 19, 2014 http://www.ci.porterville.ca.us/documents/WaterConservationPlanv3.0FINAL.pdf 14. www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/board_decisions/tentative_orders/0803/cityofporte rville/porterville_info.pdf 15. Riverwalk Marketplace II Revised Draft EIR February 2011 16. City of Porterville Preliminary Annual Budget 2014‐2015 17. Riverwalk Marketplace II Revised Draft EIR 2011 18. California Integrated Waste Management Board.